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

[Ed Gerck]

Mac Norton wrote:

> Oh and as to non-repudiation and lawyers throwing that term
> around loosely:  Most lawyers would probably tell you that,
> for their purposes, whatever the parties *agree* to be
> non-repudiation *is* non-repudiation as between *them*.

Yes.

> The hard cases are the ones where there's no agreement and
> the law must supply a default rule, or derive a rule from
> the conduct of the parties.  Those are the instances you
> have in mind, I take it. In such cases, where "course of
> dealing" and "course of performance" between the parties
> sheds little or no light, the law often looks to "trade
> usage."  To which the work of punks, among others, may
> be relevant.

Yes. That is why it needs to be defined in technical terms, in order to
avoid (but not forestall) overloading. From the previous discussion
and hair-splitting on "prevent" I am inclined to use the definition
of non-repudiation as "non-repudiation is a service that takes
advance measures against a probable or possible denial of
an act" if I want to be sloppy. If I want to be technically precise (but
perhaps unavoidably obscure), I would continue to use "non-repudiation
is the denial of a falsity."

I am forwarding to you a comment by Tony Bartoletti, with the following
ending:

 I don't think that it is worth debating whether toothpaste prevents, helps to
 prevent, serves to prevent, hampers, hinders, impedes or forestalls tooth
 decay. When theory meets the real world, some slippage will occur.

and that is why I think such debates are interesting.  We need to see the
different sides of truth rather than believing that there is just one truth
-- which is, of course, the one we have (invariably so, it seems) ;-)

Cheers,

Ed Gerck