-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 at 11:28:11 PM, in <mid:7eea2c792297b31b4e6448b8b88a9eb3@localhost>, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:19:24 +0200, Jerome Baum > <jer...@jeromebaum.com> wrote: >> Not really, without any context. Nobody has to prove anything without >> that context. > This is also handwaving the bit about how we have > extremely effective social tools for determining how to > handle contested signatures: namely, court proceedings. > This isn't a technological problem so much as a social > one, and modern democracies have developed robust > social tools to address it. Court proceedings tend to require evidence. The use of a timestamping service could provide this. > A good rule of thumb is to let technology do what it's > good at, and society do what it's good at, and not > expect either to do the other one's work. :) Given that technology is required to produce an OpenPGP signature, it seems reasonable (to me) to suggest using technology to provide a verifiable time period for when that signature was made. Technology can be a tool to assist society in its work. - -- Best regards MFPA mailto:expires2...@ymail.com Is it possible to be a closet claustrophobic? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQE7BAEBCgClBQJN+RIYnhSAAAAAAEAAVXNpZ25pbmdfa2V5X0lEIHNpZ25pbmdf a2V5X0ZpbmdlcnByaW50IEAgIE1hc3Rlcl9rZXlfRmluZ2VycHJpbnQgQThBOTBC OEVBRDBDNkU2OSBCQTIzOUI0NjgxRjFFRjk1MThFNkJENDY0NDdFQ0EwMyBAIEJB MjM5QjQ2ODFGMUVGOTUxOEU2QkQ0NjQ0N0VDQTAzAAoJEKipC46tDG5p80cEAMUj u0/Upk+2W1f7qlMHTdh7w1vZh64HBrX42WFlqu1pWHn7deDRRimsK6c4cj42drMU TmnUKXCymeoKP4nnee2OFDgF0ECTfxIcznlGTd6Ridrq11mDbPdfdHwyp0wh2ZXI LqCHb8jMfYIVM4MstzTe2oQ4o22jb5DNcBMepryg =Jyrk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
