[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Certificates/Anonymity/Policy/True Names

At 1:26 AM 8/19/95, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>Bill Stewart asks what follows from "prohibit".  In the model I am, um,
>hypothesizing, CAs that play by the rules are entitled to certain safe
>harbors shielding them from potential liability (e.g. can't be sued if
>their certificate was used in a transaction that went bad through no
>fault of theirs).   No other behaviour or act is banned, but other,
>private, alternatives may suffer a coompetitive disadvantage since they
>would lack the certainty that they could not be sued.

Then I suggest you use a different word than "prohibit." To many of us,
this implies illegality, men with guns, early morning raids, and Janet

You don't seem to mean this.

By the way, is this really just an excercise, or are you perchance involved
in the goings-on with policy on crypto? (Not making any accusations, just
noting that various crypto policy groups are reported to be meeting...the
National Research Council thing, the key escrow initiatives, etc.)

Encrypting minds want to know.

--Tim May

Timothy C. May            | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[email protected] (Got net?)  | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-728-0152              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Corralitos, CA            | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839    | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."