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

Re: WHAT THE.. (was: Manditory key sig..

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: WHAT THE.. (was: Manditory key sig..
From: [email protected] (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 13:07:02 -0800
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> (message from Syed Yusuf on Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:32:20 -0700 (PDT))
Sender: [email protected]

   From: Syed Yusuf <[email protected]>

   in all this discussion about how well it would work and ways around it,
   I think I've missed the problem that people are trying to solve.

I want more people to actually use cryptography.  I don't phrase it as
a problem, with it's implicit value judgement, but rather as what I want.

   isn't it ironic that privacy advocates are suggesting manditory
   loss of anonimity (which is what forced signing is).

The first appearance of a key is anonymous.  The second and later are
pseudonymous.  Even mandatory signing (which is not what is being
proposed) does not eliminate anonymity.

Eric

References:
- WHAT THE.. (was: Manditory key sig..
  - From: Syed Yusuf <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: We are ALL guests (except Eric)
Next by Date: Re: Warm, fuzzy, misleading feelings
Prev by thread: WHAT THE.. (was: Manditory key sig..
Next by thread: WHAT THE.. (was: Manditory key sig..
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread