CDR: RE: Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment (was Re: First Mo nday August 2000)

[Mike Just]

I'll add two words to the list: "support" (as opposed to "provide"), and
"accountability." I prefer to say that a digital signature is a tool that
"supports accountability."  I suppose that "supports non-repudiation" would
be fine as well.  My concern is when the phrase "provides non-repudiation"
is used it implies that complete non-repudiation can be provided technically
(which I don't believe is the case).  

Mike J.  

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Jablon [mailto:dpj at world.std.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:29 AM
> To: Arnold G. Reinhold
> Cc: dcsb at ai.mit.edu; cryptography at c2.net; cypherpunks at cyberpass.net
> Subject: Re: Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment (was Re: First
> Monday August 2000)
> 
> 
> "Anti-repudiation" sounds good to me.
> 
> ... even if does remind me of "antidisestablishmentarianism".
> Come to think of it, now even that term sounds appropriate here -- as
> our belief in the value of methods that deter key "dis-establishment".
> Pretty scary.
> 
> -- dpj
> 
> At 09:08 AM 10/11/00 -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
> >My concern is that the vast majority of informed lay people, 
> lawyers, 
> >judges, legislators, etc. will hear "non-repudiation" and hear 
> >"absolute proof."  If you doubt this, read the breathless articles 
> >written recently about the new U.S. Electronic Signatures Act.
> >
> >I don't think technologists should be free to use evocative 
> terms and 
> >then define away their common sense meaning in the fine print. 
> >Certainly a valid public key signature is strong evidence and 
> >services like that described in the draft can be useful. I simply 
> >object to calling them "non-repudiation services." I would 
> not object 
> >to "anti-repudiation services,"  "counter-repudiation services"  or 
> >"repudiation-resistant technology." Would the banking 
> industry employ 
> >terms like "forgery-proof checks," "impregnable vaults" or 
> >"pick-proof locks" to describe conventional security measures that 
> >were known to be fallible?
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3869 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20001011/af60c3de/attachment.txt>