[119189] in Cypherpunks
RE: Digital Contracts: "Lie in X.509, Go to Jail"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (andreas@globalsign.net)
Tue Oct 19 12:13:55 1999
From: andreas@globalsign.net
To: "'Robert Hettinga'" <rah@shipwright.com>, <dcsb@ai.mit.edu>,
<DIGSIG@LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU>, <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Cc: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>, <cryptography@c2.net>,
"'Digital Bearer Settlement List'" <dbs@philodox.com>,
<micropay@ai.mit.edu>, <spki@c2.net>, <micropayments@elab.co.uk>,
<mac-crypto@vmeng.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:50:53 +0200
Message-ID: <9F5E0336FC0CD31185010050042562601CD846@MILLENNIUM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <9F5E0336FC0CD31185010050042562601FEB40@MILLENNIUM>
Reply-To: andreas@globalsign.net
Is anybody getting the feeling that we are actually getting spammed with an
increasing number of book advertisment in this list?
In e-commerce almost anyone is an author but not everybody breaks the news
of her publication on this list.
andreas mitrakas
------------------------------------------------
**NOTE CHANGE IN OUR ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS**
------------------------------------------------
--
Dr Andreas Mitrakas,
GlobalSign NV/SA,
Haachtsesteenweg 1426,
1130 Brussels,
Belgium.
----------------------------------------------------------------
voice : ++32 2 7243621
fax : ++32 2 7243637
e-mail: andreas@globalsign.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
http:/www.globalsign.net
http://abduction.euridis.fbk.eur.nl/~andreas/
http://www.wkap.nl/book.htm/90-411-0489-5
http://www.jus.uio.no/iri/rettsinfo/complex/6_96.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic commerce is not punishment for crimes in a prior life
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-e-commerc@www.ispo.cec.be
> [mailto:owner-e-commerc@www.ispo.cec.be]On Behalf Of Robert Hettinga
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 4:43 PM
> To: dcsb@ai.mit.edu; DIGSIG@LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU;
> CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
> Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; cryptography@c2.net; Digital Bearer
> Settlement List; micropay@ai.mit.edu; spki@c2.net;
> micropayments@elab.co.uk; mac-crypto@vmeng.com
> Subject: Digital Contracts: "Lie in X.509, Go to Jail"
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Aside from noting the vicious hypocrisy of the Clinton administration
> saying they support the 11th Ammendment, I've also decided
> that the bill
> mentioned in the New York Times Story excerpted below, like
> most current
> state digital signature legislation, could more properly be called the
> "Lie on an X.509 'Certificate' and Go to Jail Act of 1999".
>
> "Crypto in a crime", indeed.
>
>
> The solution to this madness, is, of course, bearer credentials, as
> Stephan Brands points out in his recently published doctoral
> dissertation
> "Rethinking Public Key Infrastructures and Digital Certificates --
> Building in Privacy", now published by Ponsen and Looijen in the
> Netherlands, ISBN 90-901-3059-4.
>
> The resulting book is in very well-written English, it's
> about 300 pages,
> and, in it, Brands, the best of his generation of financial
> cryptographers, completely demolishes, all the way down to
> the level of
> cryptographic protocol, most of the received wisdom about
> "certification"
> - -- and the current cult-like mystification of identity
> which underlies
> it.
>
> Even better, Stefan unveils a whole class of bearer-credential
> cryptographic protocols which get the job done with infinitely more
> privacy. More important, I'm personally convinced that Brands' bearer
> credentials are significantly lower in cost than current book-entry
> methods of "certification", especially after the costs of
> repudiation and
> enforcement are taken into account.
>
> However, given my current business, my biases on this subject
> are rather
> plain here, so don't take my word for it: get the book and see for
> yourself.
>
> Stefan's thesis committee was Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir (yes,
> the R and S in
> RSA), and Claus Schnorr (yes, *that* Claus Schnorr). Three
> men who could
> be easily said to be the fathers of digital "certification", if its
> patrimony was ever in dispute.
>
>
> I would highly recommend that *everyone* who's serious in the study of
> digital commerce -- and I mean legal professionals in
> particular -- order
> this book immediately and go read it.
>
> It goes without saying that anyone who calls himself a financial
> cryptographer, much less a cryptographic or digital commerce software
> engineer, should have this book in his library as well.
>
>
> Cheers,
> RAH
>
>
> - --- begin forwarded text
>
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 08:20:23 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
> Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender
> address above.
> It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
> Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
> remailer administrator at <abuse@replay.com>.
> Old-Subject: NYT Story: Digital Contracts
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: NYT Story: Digital Contracts
> Sender: owner-cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
> Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
>
> Fight Over Electronic Contracts Heads to House
>
> Also: U.S. Shut Out in First Round of Internet Board Elections
>
> ASHINGTON -- With the clock ticking toward adjournment for the year,
> Congressional leaders and the Clinton Administration are working to
> eliminate political infighting and pass legislation that would give
> electronic contracts the same legal weight as their traditional paper
> counterparts.
>
>
> The legislation is considered crucial for the future of electronic
> commerce, and it is part of an effort by the Commerce Department both
> domestically and internationally to make the standards for such
> contracts, with their "digital signatures," as simple as possible.
>
>
> But Republicans and Democrats in the House are still battling over how
> far the legislation should go, a fight that could play out on
> the House
> floor this week.
>
>
> The House is scheduled to take up digital signature
> legislation as early
> as Tuesday, but first leaders must decide how to proceed. At issue are
> states rights, and whether individual states should have the power to
> make their own rules for recognizing digital signatures.
>
>
> The White House and most Democrats are pushing for a bill
> that would make
> digital signatures legal only in those states that don't already have
> laws recognizing the validity of electronic contracts.
>
>
> But Republican leaders in the House have been pushing for
> more sweeping
> legislation that would not only pre-empt state digital
> signature laws but
> would also eliminate some of the paper-record keeping and notification
> requirements that some states impose on financial institutions and
> insurance companies.
>
>
> The House Judiciary Committee last week narrowly approved a version of
> the bill backed by Democrats that would recognize current
> state laws on
> both electronic signatures and record-keeping. The bill is
> similar to a
> White House-endorsed Senate proposal by Senator Spencer Abraham, a
> Michigan Republican, that is awaiting passage in that chamber.
>
>
>
>
> The House Commerce Committee, meanwhile, in August approved a bill by
> Chairman Thomas J. Bliley Jr., a Virginia Republican, that would
> establish a uniform national standard for authenticating electronic
> signatures, and require that states pass laws based on the national
> model.
>
>
> The Clinton Administration strongly opposes what it calls unnecessary
> preemption of state laws.
>
>
> <remainder snipped while laughing bitterly at that last sentence>
>
> - --- end forwarded text
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQEVAwUBOAyBIcUCGwxmWcHhAQHIhAf/aU8MQcgDqLkaBc5EZkcl1UpBs1JNxCLt
> NFcBXaFeyQxYP7874sMbOr/Ec5jmvMdr2CnZFNd24FwQsx+Cs04D/BLezbXoIDsS
> n1Ue7TXFOxqh0Jx+ED4gLQcXcK9Tc+J463vt9sK7ur9GQbHR4e+QylsbbjzZe8MA
> lCFRgJjY0B2AvcI2bpHWG8ZdJ6oK3ZdLJp1cSv9yAcIKOTV2mEtyeRk75NdWqPAb
> K241ex4f4iDtUpbZ35lCMOQx4KwnwaMmlQUHCSr3M3f1n+ohA2Cukr/mt3cIfymM
> i/YVVDFGll80HNx8GdVPBMIVLmglr13ciBpkYDryrxQ+/HauspmYQg==
> =7yeU
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> -----------------
> Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com>
> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> -- US Constitution, 11th Ammendment
> # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
> # # # #
> To leave the list, send email to Majordomo@www.ispo.cec.be saying
> unsubscribe E-commerc your@email.address
> as the first line of your message (*not* as the subject)
> # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
> # # # #
>
