True, Back in 1998-1999 timeline, there was an ongoing project to have the US Postal service issue X.509 certificates at a nominal fee. The fact that even the most rural areas have access to a post office made a lot of sense. After the 2000 election, the project was cancelled because "private business" can handle it better.
---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 > -----Original Message----- > From: jeff murphy [mailto:jcmur...@jeffmurphy.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:06 AM > To: Nanog > Subject: Re: LinkedIn password database compromised > > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > > In a message written on Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:14:58PM -0700, Aaron > C. de Bruyn wrote: > >> Heck no to X.509. We'd run into the same issue we have right now--a > >> select group of companies charging users to prove their identity. > > > ... > > For instance, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of the government > > having a way to issue me a signed certificate that I then use to > > access government services, like submitting my tax return online, > > renewing my drivers license, or maybe even e-voting. > > > > All in favor of paying $119/year to vote, please raise your hands. > > http://www.verisign.com/dod-interoperability/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
