From: Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:44:58 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <b05fb56f192e6ba0f7bd244ee561bbaa@anon.efga.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Anonymous wrote:
>> (untransferable signatures)
>
>This is also a good idea, but it needs more work, too.  There is a
>big education problem here.  People barely understand the
>implications of regular digital signatures.  Now you are throwing
>this new kind in, which guarantee the message came from another
>person, but aren't binding.  What happens when an employee receives a
>message from a supplier signed with that kind of signature?  Can he
>make a decision on that basis, or not?
>
>In paper business correspondence, there is no such distinction.  A
>signed letter is transferable.  Go beyond this and business will be
>scratching its heads.  It's a solution looking for a problem.

How about arbitration?  Two parties may wish to make an agreement to
be judged by an arbitrator of their choosing.  In certain cases, the
State can be expected to intervene.  If only the arbitrator knows the
signatures to be valid, the State has no fair basis on which to make
an intervention.

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBND5vYpaWtjSmRH/5AQGzygf/TdMgevKLw87e6ZtJ6++pyrOKliu/OunT
Z4uxcWzDGPEcyNchhOsb6B+NSOehcgvqIhxs4NNTJqMVICiJCBhBTZlsQt7bW6kq
Ayz62YWFZZeMcYbsP87FmuGLxsyh/wW2Nh/s80J9obS6vn7HQJBUp/Ox7Ho9RPIp
bdijOAw6nxtPt0SWcr38F8XVj/XpqA768nn5uWwdtd2aCAIQf7uLE7poZLVL7+UQ
VMiHlgsRIlcHEakNbCExrBTuyCzyoKo5LY+PPzlLCTC93rzXyPIdO8Ain6p49qa5
i/7z+WbT8powUsmwj5BEfPSKOo1CcuHfdAUgeSI4JawfhqYJAnzpRg==
=m09K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----