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 [[1]mailto:dpj@world.std.com]
   > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:29 AM
   > To: Arnold G. Reinhold
   > Cc: dcsb@ai.mit.edu; cryptography@c2.net; cypherpunks@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?
   >
   >

References

   1. mailto:dpj@world.std.com