From: Ben.Goren@asu.edu
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 18:21:28 PST
To: Robert Rothenberg <rrothenb@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Another problem w/Data Havens...
Message-ID: <v0211010bab42294fde97@[129.219.97.131]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 6:03 PM 1/17/95, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
>> Doo-Doo if they timestampped some piece of thoughtcrime; why should
>> somebody who encrypts be any different?
>>
>> The service could even be advertised as a different form of timestamping
>> (or notarizing). Not only do you get the file back signed, but you get it
>> back encrypted and signed.
>
>Hmmm.... Of course in some cases one may not want the file to be returned
>with a signature and timestamp (might be incriminating evidence, depending
>on what one wants stored and the overall political situation where one is,
>etc....).  Of course that does sound useful.

Just as a notary public does not certify that a given document is truth,
but rather that it is what it is and the signature belongs to the person
who it appears to belong to, a public timestamp/notary/encryption service
on the 'net would certify the existence of that document in that form at
that time. No more, no less.

If I recall correctly, a notary can certify a sealed envelope without
knowing its contents, by putting a tamper-proof seal on it. Sound familiar?
I'll try to find a notary to see if that's the case. If so, we're got as
good a precedent as we'll ever find for just about anything.

>Rob <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu> Finger for public key

b&

--
Ben.Goren@asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music
 Finger ben@tux.music.asu.edu for PGP public key ID 0x875B059.