From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:45:46 +0800
To: ravage@ssz.com
Subject: Re: non-transferable signatures (Re: Crypto Kong penetration.) (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199801162319.RAA12288@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <199801170202.CAA00371@server.eternity.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
> Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes:
> > when for example the USG adds cypherpunks to it's growing list of
> > terrorist organisations.
> 
> We're an 'organization'? Where is my monthly newsletter?....;)

There are a bunch of people subscribed to a mailing list called
cypherpunks.  There is no organisation, this is an anarchy, as can be
readily observed :-) I only used `list of terrorist organisations'
because I think that is the US government term for their little black
list.

> In general I have to agree with Adam though, in the real world with
> ubiquitous and surreptitious monitoring signing documents is actualy a
> liability in many if not most cases. About the only exception is dealing
> with a contractual relationship.

Even for contracts I think you would be better off not connecting to
your meat space persona if you could help it.  eg. Use a nym, post a
bond with a high reputation cyberspacial arbitration service, use
designated verifier non transferable signatures to allow the
arbitration service and other party to the transaction to verify your
signature, but to make the signature non-transferable to other
parties.

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`