Joe, I think you may be making an assumption I’m not. I’m not assuming the sites are relying on the legal assurances, but rather on the technical assurances as a means of fingerprinting the user. Explaining the impact of this in a consent screen to the user in the wallet or browser isn’t easy either because it’s a technical side effect, not intended for the original purpose of the metadata claim. -Kyle On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 9:21 AM, Joe Andrieu <[joe@legreq.com](mailto:On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 9:21 AM, Joe Andrieu <<a href=)> wrote: > Hardware is incapable of fulfilling the role of issuer. > > This remains an area where the VC spec incorrectly states that any "entity" can fulfill a role. > > The role fundamentally gives in the legal culpability for the issuance. A device cannot have legal culpability. A legal person (human or incorporated) can. > > Joe Andrieu > President > joe@legreq.com > +1(805)705-8651 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Legendary Requirements > https://legreq.com > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, 1:06 PM David Chadwick < d.w.chadwick@truetrust.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 11/08/2025 20:32, Daniel Hardman wrote: >> >>> I think the issuer of this verifiable data must be one or more individual human beings. >> >> I think the issuer could be a tamperproof piece of hardware with its own private key that could read a biometric of a human, along with liveness testing, and assert that the entity that just provided the biometric to it, is a live human being. >> >> Kind regards >> >> David
Received on Monday, 11 August 2025 22:16:30 UTC