From: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 5b3b5146db335731a39bbc1a736e08d295f42e6316508db0aaf740440887bf5d
Message ID: <01I1IR12398SAKTL4K@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-22 23:42:27 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 07:42:27 +0800
From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 07:42:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Digital Signature Legislation
Message-ID: <01I1IR12398SAKTL4K@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I find it interesting to note that Dr. Biddle's concerns on the
economic aspects of the legislation are almost the reverse of those on the
cypherpunks list. For instance, he is concerned about too much liability by
the consumer (and I would agree that the "strict liability" rather than
"negligence" model is a problem). The concern on the list has been that there
is too much liability for the CA, given the potential of unlimited liability
for all transactions such as Dr. Biddle appears to be favoring.
-Allen
Return to February 1996
Return to ““E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>”
1996-02-22 (Fri, 23 Feb 1996 07:42:27 +0800) - Re: Digital Signature Legislation - “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>