From: Michael Froomkin <mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 18:26:38 PDT
To: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Certificates/Anonymity/Policy/True Names
In-Reply-To: <199508182342.QAA20924@ix7.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9508182137.A620886391-0100000@umiami.ir.miami.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bill Stewart asks what follows from "prohibit".  In the model I am, um, 
hypothesizing, CAs that play by the rules are entitled to certain safe 
harbors shielding them from potential liability (e.g. can't be sued if 
their certificate was used in a transaction that went bad through no 
fault of theirs).   No other behaviour or act is banned, but other, 
private, alternatives may suffer a coompetitive disadvantage since they 
would lack the certainty that they could not be sued.

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu
U. Miami School of Law     | 
P.O. Box 248087            | It's hot here.  And humid.
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA |
See http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/articles/froomkin-metaphor/text.html
and http://www.law.cornell.edu/jol/froomkin.htm