View Issue Details
|Main CAcert Website
|0000650: Misleading information in website content
You must sight at least one form of government issued photo identification. It's preferable if 2 forms of Government issued photo ID are presented, as less points may be issued if there is any doubt on the person by the person issuing points;
|Please use an easier sentence which is not misleading and explaining the current requirements correctly:
* one govermental photo id must be presented
* a second one should be show if present.
* other documents can also be presented as additional proof
* imho giving less points is not a good practice
* if there is any doubt on the identity no assurance should be done at all.
|No tags attached.
=> * if there is any doubt on the identity no assurance should be done at all.
wrong assumption as general rule:
assurer should continue assurance for evidence gathering reasons.
document, document, document ... and probably file a dispute later
If you suspect there is a problem, there are several schools of thought as to how to continue.
The old teaching was to stop the Assurance, and hand back the forms. As an Assurer, this is your option, and it may be better to do that; you will have to rely on your judgement on the spot.
* However, it has one big drawback: if there really is a problem, then you've just destroyed the evidence!
* It might cause heightened tensions, such as alerting the perpetrator that he's been spotted.
* It doesn't necessarily increase your safety to declare the other person UnAssurable to their face!
The new teaching is to Continue the Assurance.
The f2f meeting should be completed. But if there are doubts the assurance should not be completed by entering the assurance in the CAcert systems and alotting any points.
A dispute should only be filed if there is negative confidence. Meaning the assurer is sure that assurree is trying to get assured under a different identity. Not if there are minor mismatches that prevent the assurer from completing the assurance, but don't affect the WoT (e.g. abbreviated names). Arbitration has no resources to handle these cases.
one assuree who wants to trick CAcert, has a weak document to show ... requesting for assurances on a big event, receives assurances by 3 assurers ...
all 3 assurers have doubts about this case and stops the assurance while not entering the assurance into the online form.
one, two years later, the assuree tries it again, and an assurer following the new philosophy bringing this case to arbitration leaves the case in a bad shape
caused by 3 missing evidences ... 'cause the assurers didn't transfer anything ...
How the Arbitrator reviewing this case can contact the 3 assurers from the issue 1 or 2 years ago ? if the lesser confidence in the 3 old assurances had not been transfered ?
With the 0 AP transfered into the online system, an arbitrator is able to link the old 3 assurers with this case and can start an interview to the assurers, can request the infos from the old assurances, and now is able to bring the evidence from 4 assurances together into a final ruling that makes this case a bogus one
Any lesser confidence should result in less Assurance Points for a Name.
>> If the Assurer has no confidence in the information presented,
>> then zero Assurance Points may be allocated by the Assurer.
For example, this may happen if the identity documents are totally unfamiliar to the Assurer. The number of Assurance Points from zero to maximum is guided by the Assurance Handbook and the judgement of the Assurer.
>> If there is negative confidence the Assurer should consider
>> filing a dispute.
|child of 0000671
|related to 0000740
|Note Added: 0002458
|Note Added: 0002459
|Note Edited: 0002458
|Note Edited: 0002458
|new => needs work
|related to 0001113
|Note Added: 0005325