Stephan Neuhaus <neuh...@st.cs.uni-sb.de> writes: >> I think you've abstracted away too much information to provide a >> definite answer, but if all you want is a proof of something being >> done at time X that'll stand up in court then what's wrong with going >> to a notary? This has worked just fine for... centuries? without >> requiring the pile of Rube-Goldberg cryptoplumbing that people seem >> to want to attach to it. > > In this case, it's because Alice and Bob are not people, but services > in an SOA, dynamically negotiating a variation of an SLA. If that SLA > specifies, for example, that "patient records must be deleted within > three days of checking the patient out of the hospital", then it will > be somewhat impractical to go to a notary public every time they > delete a patient's record.
It is also completely impossible to prove you've deleted a record. Someone who can read the record can always make a copy of it. Cryptography can't fix the DRM problem. Perry --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majord...@metzdowd.com