At 08:53 AM 12/14/2002, you wrote:
Those signing devices you refer to should not be limited to ecom.
I completely agree, indeed the notion of limiting them to commerce is inconsistent with the idea of a signing device controlled by its sovereign owner. So, I'm not sure you have fully hoisted in this concept. A signing device creates and maintains its own key pairs and never relinquishes those. How do you imagine that the usage of such a device could be compromised, that any element of control could ever be delegated to any other device (other than by different design, such as the palladium notion)
Face to face transaction need something similar. "Who is this person checking my signature and what qualification do they have?"
The idea of a signing device is one and the same with strong identity. The device itself, will have identity and the owner becomes a custodian of the device. The empirical evidence of past behaviors good and bad, will be available to search. Google, by itself, ensures no bad Identity could be easily concealed. Good identity can be proven by signed repository maintained by the owner himself, requiring no re-confirmation by all those 000s of trading partners. Please read this http://www.gldialtone.com/reputation.htm and tell me if it is wrong. I will appreciate that very much. Todd
