[480] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Analysis of proposed UK ban on use of non-escrowed crypto.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Stewart)
Thu Apr 3 13:17:42 1997
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 22:31:38 -0800
To: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann)
From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
In-Reply-To: <86003031610047@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
[I've removed ttp.comments@ciid.dti.gov.uk from the Cc: list....]
At 01:18 PM 4/3/97, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> I've been waging a (successful, I hope) battle
>here to get people to use the term CA instead TTP, which is a pity because
TTP
>is more understandable to the masses. Terms like CA, however, are well-
>established enough to make it difficult to turn them into just another
name for
>GAK.
"Notary" is a reasonably useful public term in the US (though I gather that
the
equivalent "notaire" in French-law countries does a bit more.)
Notaries sign and stamp documents saying that they watched you sign them,
and maybe they want to see some identification from you,
or compare them with documents you've signed for them before,
but they don't sign documents on your behalf (unlike your attorney)
or keep your secrets (unlike your banker or attorney)
or hang on to your money (unlike escrow agents.)
The one negative about the term is that (at least in most of the US)
notaries all are certified by local government, whereas we'd rather
have non-hierarchical signature structures, and don't need government
as the root. But at least notarizing is viewed as a signature-only activity,
done by some average clerical person who works at the mailbox-store,
rather than some high-level "special" person.
# Thanks; Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
# (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)
