From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 09:26:32 +0800
To: Jon Lasser <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>
Subject: Re: The future will be easy to use
Message-ID: <199511300704.XAA01742@blob.best.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, James A. Donald wrote:
>> You are making the same erroneous assumption that Phil made when he
>> designed the Web of trust:  You assume that it is important and 
>> interesting to link key ID's to physical bodies.  This is usually
>> not the case:  Linking key ID's to home web pages etc is not only 
>> easier -- it is also usually more interesting and important.

At 02:46 PM 11/29/95 -0500, Jon Lasser wrote:
>Not if you're encrypting a Credit Card transaction to ship physical 
>goods.  In that case, I'm going to certainly want to link a key ID to a 
>physical body (or at least address) if I'm the seller, so as to limit 
>liability as best I can.

Not at all:  All you need to do is be able to prove you shipped 
to the address requested:  You do not have to know what the 
relationship is between the address requested and identity 
paying you to ship.

> However, if you have optional linking of ID and name, shippers will only 
> ship to keys with such attributes. Because just ID and address, it could 
> be a "hit and run" type attack shipped to a safe maildrop.

This argument makes no sense at all:  I am going to attack my
enemies by paying people to send books, computers, and stuff
to them?

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com