From: monty.harder@famend.com (MONTY HARDER)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 95 21:53:55 PDT
To: CYPHERPUNKS@toad.com
Subject: Re: Certificates/Anonymity/Policy/True Names
Message-ID: <8AF7577.0003000342.uuout@famend.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


TC> This happens all the time, though "I am not a lawyer," in disputes about
TC> whether a contract was signed properly, about whether the signer had the
TC> right authority, etc. And it is apparently not necessary to have the
TC> "state" establish itself, for example, as the keeper of signatures.

  But the state does establish Notaries Public, and courts put special
credence in the validity of signatures witnessed by them. Which is to be
expected, of course, having the King's X being good in the King's
courts.

  I don't see this as an either/or binary at all. To me, the natural
thing to do is for a person who is already a Notary under the laws of a
state to offer digital notary services. I would expect the State of
California or Commonwealth of Massachussets to have the Secretary of
State's office (or whoever is in charge of Notary Credentials there) to
digitally sign the public keys of any Notaries commissioned thereby.

  In fact, I would like to see provision made for a digital signature to
have an expiration date included, so that the SoS office could have its
signature on a key set to expire along with the Notary's commission.

  Thus the existing state framework for verification of identity and
consent on contracts is extended into the electronic sphere seamlessly.
None of which prevents you or I from doing business without the services
of the Royal Notary.


 * ZenCrafters - Total Enlightenment in about an hour
---
 * Monster@FAmend.Com *