1996-05-18 - Re: Senator, your public key please?

Header Data

From: hieronym@desk.nl (t byfield)
To: Black Unicorn <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 5687e5099624c121a770a8ada20b2fd7b21090c4e25f12e038344a4c07035913
Message ID: <v03006600adc32fbc08ec@[193.0.0.2]>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960516113814.751D-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-18 12:25:38 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 20:25:38 +0800

Raw message

From: hieronym@desk.nl (t byfield)
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 20:25:38 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Senator, your public key please?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960516113814.751D-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
Message-ID: <v03006600adc32fbc08ec@[193.0.0.2]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


6:01 PM  +0200 5/16/96, Black Unicorn:

> Secondly, the Ethics Committee was very interested in the issue.  As of
> now they have ruled that "exchanging" PGP signatures is an "exchange in
> kind" and an ethics violation.  Ms. Howell expressed exasperation over
> this lunacy, but put it much this way:  "No, you guys don't understand
> what the issues are here, but I don't have 3 hours to explain it all to
> you either."  Apparently the ethics committee is concerned that a
> signature from Leahy's key will constitute some sort of endorsement and the
> "you sign mine and I'll sign yours" looks like influence peddling.

	And, in fact, according the general outlines of the "reputation"
schemes advanced hereabouts, they're right: that's why they call it
"reputation _capital_," mais oui?
	There's no reason that webs of trust of well-signed keys couldn't be
very fluidly incorporated into patronage networks, for example, or that
their incorporation would affect network dynamics in any notable way. One
doesn't need to understand political theory or economy in any analytical
sense to become part of a patronage network, and one doesn't need to
understand cryptography to know  what a key is vaguely enough to be swayed
by someone waving a "well-signed" key around--in fact, _not_ understanding
cryptography will lead people to be wowed by such keys. Most people don't
understand cryptography, and most will continue not to understand it. So in
the pristine realm of mathematics, the Ethics Committee may be wrong, but
in the real world of sloppy thinking they're basically right. Basically.
	If my key was signed _only_ by the CEOs of the top 10 Fortune 500
companies, a few dozen heads of state,  bigwig spooks from around the
world, the pope and a dozen cardinals, it's not too hard to imagine how I
could open a few doors with that key--and make a buck or two in the process.
	After all, Uni, what _does_ a signature signify? You were asking some
very pointed questions about that quite recently.


Ted







Thread