>> What jury? > > Submitted before the tribunal, then -- the upshot of it is that *you > don't get to decide what the court does*.
Do you assume that, say, the judges at the federal constitutional court are too dumb to get a specialist and inquire as to the status of cryptographic hash functions etc.? I could deliver a mathematically valid proof to anyone and they could ignore it. That is freedom of thought. I can also assume that people with at least a basic understanding of formal logic, and the ability to call on any subject field expert as deemed necessary to uncover the truth, would be able to follow my train of thought. If that train of thought proves without (significant) doubt that a timestamp must be valid, and assuming they are impartial, they should consider the timestamp to be valid. Juries and judges are not the same, so you can't just apply one to the other. A jury might not understand, a judge at the BVerfG probably would. -- Jerome Baum tel +49-1578-8434336 email jer...@jeromebaum.com web www.jeromebaum.com -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
