From: hieronym@desk.nl (t byfield)
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 11:35:24 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Senator, your public key please?
In-Reply-To: <v03006600adc32fbc08ec@[193.0.0.2]>
Message-ID: <v03006601adc338d62c5d@[193.0.0.2]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


10:16 AM  +0200 5/18/96, Black Unicorn:

 <...>
> Well, this depends on what we assume a signature does.
 <...>
> This depends on the intrepretation of the meaning of signature.
>
> > 	After all, Uni, what _does_ a signature signify? You were asking some
> > very pointed questions about that quite recently.
>
> Precisely, and in the absence of an answer to this question which is more
> substantial I think assuming that Senators and CEO's intended to vouch for
> your financial or character reputation is stretching it a bit.  But hey,
> I'm not on the Ethics Committee.

	Surely you don't conclude from the fact that _you_ think I'm
stretching it that most others would think so as well... My point wasn't
that the committee was "right" in any elegant sense but, rather, that their
misperceptions are almost certainly indicative of the kinds of
misperceptions that will propagate far and wide--and be effective--as
public-key encryption becomes more common. Humanity managed to get by for
centuries laboring under the delusion that cheese produces worms: the fact
that they were wrong doesn't make those centuries of fact go away.

Ted