From: Rich Graves <rcgraves@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:02:16 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Members of Parliament Problem
In-Reply-To: <v02140b05aeb518d83c92@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <328FA7FD.6B69@ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Peter Hendrickson wrote:
> 
> At 1:39 PM 11/17/1996, Simon Spero wrote:
> >
> > Why not use  blinding for obtaining the certificate?
> 
> > Create a number up public/private key pairs, blind them, then do the
> > cut-and-choose thing with the security officer. He signs the blinded 
> > key, then returns it. Unblind the remaining pubic key, and you've 
> > got a public key with the appropriate signature on it.
> 
> Okay, this would work.  But, it requires that all (or at least many) 
> of the Members of Parliament cooperate.  If not, then the security 
> officer will be able to make very good guesses about who is speaking.
> 
> Parliamentarians may not cooperate for a variety of reasons.  They may
> not wish to be attacked by terrorists for the words of others.  They
> may believe that cowardice is not to be encouraged.  They may not x
> officer will in anonymity.  It might be too hard for them.

Moreover, parliamentarians from different sides of the aisle usually
have different points of view, and an interest in "outing" each other.
A parliament where everyone had the same point of view would be
uninteresting for this problem -- your friendly local terrorist would
just blow up the whole building.

A practical example of this kind of thing is the situation of judges
in Colombia.

-rich