cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-11-29 - Re: popularising digsigs

Header Data

From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
To: Ed Wilkinson <emw@ima.com>
Message Hash: 27142f086366031518efbbc27623bcf05d16602a677431142a8512a9e3af9a38
Message ID: <9411291817.AA02631@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
Reply To: <9411301332.AA02657@ima.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-11-29 18:21:21 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 10:21:21 PST

Raw message

From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 10:21:21 PST
To: Ed Wilkinson <emw@ima.com>
Subject: Re: popularising digsigs
In-Reply-To: <9411301332.AA02657@ima.com>
Message-ID: <9411291817.AA02631@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


    From: Ed Wilkinson <emw@ima.com>
    Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 21:32:16 HKT

    Well, knowing the US, things will probably hobble along much the same,
    until there's a lawsuit. e.g. X sues Y because a post on the net
    'apparently' from Y libelled X. Now *that* would get people to start using
    digsigs!

Hmmm.  So, lets see.  Since I'm someone who (almost) always signs my
outgoing mail/posts, if I make a libelous statement to a newsgroup and
`forget' to sign it, then I'm safer from litigation than people who
never sign?

Personally, I hope that when the first libel suit of this form
actually makes it to trial, the defense makes a point of showing just
how easy it is to spoof mail and postings, i. e. just how difficult
the burden of proof is.

On the other hand, I'm scared by the prospect that the first trial
where it's an issue is a tax or drug forfeiture case where the burden
of proof is on the defendent.

			Rick

Thread