[8904] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: crypto flaw in secure mail standards
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Enzo Michelangeli)
Sun Jun 24 23:38:30 2001
Message-ID: <044401c0fd21$4018f760$0200000a@fechk.local>
Reply-To: "Enzo Michelangeli" <em@em.no-ip.com>
From: "Enzo Michelangeli" <em@who.net>
To: <cryptography@wasabisystems.com>,
"Greg Broiles" <gbroiles@well.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:47:40 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Broiles" <gbroiles@well.com>
To: "Enzo Michelangeli" <em@em.no-ip.com>; <cryptography@wasabisystems.com>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: crypto flaw in secure mail standards
[...]
> The digital signature laws I've seen don't mention and don't support the
> notion of "non-repudiation", which seems to be an obsession among computer
> security people and a non-issue among legal people. The idea that
something
> is "non-repudiable" or unarguable or unavoidable is nonsense. I use it as
a
> clue detector - if someone talks about non-repudiation, they don't know
> much about US contract law.
I don't know about US contract law, but under Common Law repudiation _is_ an
issue, and that's why witnessing is required. Moreover, there are attempts
to change the legal implications of signing a document if this is done in an
electronic environment, shifting the onus of proof of the claim of forgery
to the (alleged) signatory. See e.g.
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_8/mccullagh/#m4 about the
controversial Article 13 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Enzo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
