At 4:43 PM 1/17/95, Paul J. Ste. Marie wrote:

At 03:29 AM 1/17/95 EST, bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204 wrote:

...

... That way, Dave's system really only has knowledge of the headers, plus one line at a time of incriminating data on the fly. ...

I don't see exactly what that is buying Dave. The entire contents were still transmitted to him, so the ability to see the entire file was still present, which means he could have, had he chosen to do so, prevented the file from residing on his system, and could have screened it. It's essentially only the word of the haven op that shows he didn't examine the entire file.

That's the main reason why I like my idea of having a trusted encryptor. Nobody's suggested that the current timestamp operators would be in Deep Doo-Doo if they timestampped some piece of thoughtcrime; why should somebody who encrypts be any different? The service could even be advertised as a different form of timestamping (or notarizing). Not only do you get the file back signed, but you get it back encrypted and signed.

--Paul J. Ste. Marie pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com

b& -- Ben.Goren@asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music Finger ben@tux.music.asu.edu for PGP public key ID 0x875B059.