Call me crazy, but ...

[Brandon Anderson]

> Andrew Gallagher wrote:
>>> On 14 Jul 2021, at 18:34, Стефан Васильев via Gnupg-users 
>>> <gnupg-users at gnupg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Viktor wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's the same as putting any other public information in public key
>>>> certificate. You can put first and last name, email address and even
>>>> photo of another person.
>>>
>>> But this information can be digitally verified and is issued EU wide by
>>> Governemnt trusted sources in this field.
>>
>> But this puts logical causality the wrong way around. Just because the
>> thing *being signed* is genuine, does not prove that the thing *doing
>> the signing* is genuine.
>>
>> IMO this proposal is abuse of the public key infrastructure. If you
>> want to sign an ID document, just sign an ID document and distribute
>> it through other channels. Attaching it as a signed packet to a key
>> adds zero value, at nonzero cost.
>
> What abuse do you see here, if I may ask? I see it as an non-public 
> option
> among virtual GnuPG friends to include in a duplicate certified data, 
> which
> is not meant to been distributed on keyservers etc. or made public to
> the world and acts for two pub keys comparison.
>
>

Again, this does not sound very secure or make much sense to me. It also 
seems to make several assumptions that I do not think are proper in any 
security situation that would call for GPG to begin with. You want to 
share a secret credential that you have with someone not in person to 
prove identity, something which can be copied and shared with others no 
differently than when you shared it with them. It is like using a 
government-backed CA but worse because you give everyone you communicate 
with access to the secret. You are assuming the person you are sharing 
this picture with won't use it themselves to impersonate you. You are 
assuming the communication channel you are using to share this picture 
with is secure and not being intercepted or spied upon, which could 
result in someone stealing and using this credential themselves. This 
then begs the question, if you have a channel that securely communicates 
between the two parties (the other party you trust enough to share this 
secret credential with) anyways, what the need for the QR code to begin 
with is? Just share your public key and be done with it.