From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 03:33:03 PDT
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Subject: Re: cryptography eliminates lawyers?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950914054153.8806C-100000@panix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950914062316.16104B-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > But won't clients insist on proper credentials in one form or another?  
> > Doesn't the practicality and accountability of a centralized authority 
> > (or several authorities) provide the best answer to this?  Who is going 
> > to accept my signature promising that I did indeed get a law degree and 
> > pass the bar?
> 
> An educational institution can certify its own graduates --- it does 
> now.  Competing credentialing institutions is exactly what I would be 
> looking for as opposed to today's coercive monoply.  

Yes, in the context of competing credentialing institutions I agree, but 
even now there is a base certification for such institutions 
(accreditation) which is delved out by a central authority, or common 
standards.  What the other writer's approach missed was that one could 
not, in the end, do away with the basic requirement for some kind of 
standardization, even if it was market driven.

While I too prefer the market approach, I still contend that a floor of 
credentials will exist, and indeed, should exist.

> 
> No matter how skilled, it is illegal for an unlicensed person to practice 
> law, medicine, or many other professions in any state.  The nets weaken 
> these restrictions because they allow action at a distance.

But I believe there will still be a demand for an objective, or trusted 
authority in the market.  This was my point when I asserted that 
certificated from Bob and Alice that I was a decent attorney would not be 
sufficent for most unless Bob and Alice were trusted in the "attorney 
credential" area.  So in the end, isn't a trusted authority required to 
some degree?

I think the difference here, as opposed to the Web of Trust in e.g., PGP, 
is that you are talking about legal talent, or any professional talent, 
for which payment is being made.  It's easy to accept a signature from 
Mr. Mar indicating that Bob has (in Mr. Mar's opinion) decent key 
management habits, but it's asking a great deal to extend that trust in 
Mr. Mar to his opinion of Bob's legal skills.  For that there will be a 
demand of more detailed and certain expertise in Mr. Mar, and also a 
trust that Mr. Mar is not just helping an upstart friend of his make some 
money in consulting for nuclear physics projects.

i.e. it is very difficult to estlablish the objectivity of a certifier 
without some kind of public and significant risk on the part of the 
certifier coupled with some verifiable skill in appraising nuclear 
physics skill- a situation I would argue is almost impossible without a 
certificate from an institution which meets some base credentials, which 
are set up publically by a objective process, or nearly so.

> Note the other effects of the nets.  They make it hard to tell that you 
> *are* working which reduces the impact of regulations of work by 
> "illegal aliens."  Thus if I am wandering through the South of France 
> while writing the 'Great American Novel' I am unlikely to get busted for 
> violation of work restrictions.  The nets expand the number of jobs I 
> can do while innocently wandering the South of France.  I can or will 
> soon be able, for example, to manage a large international corporation 
> from anywhere.

This I understand and applaud.

> DCF
> 
> "Who actually prefers Le Massif Central to those hot and crowded southern 
> climes." 
>