Ian Grigg wrote:
Carl and Ben have rubbished "non-repudiation"
without defining what they mean, making it
rather difficult to respond.

I define it quite carefully in my paper, which I pointed to.

Now, presumably, they mean the first, in
that it is a rather hard problem to take the
cryptographic property of public keys and
then bootstrap that into some form of property
that reliably stands in court.

But, whilst challenging, it is possible to
achieve legal non-repudiability, depending
on your careful use of assumptions.  Whether
that is a sensible thing or a nice depends
on the circumstances ... (e.g., the game that
banks play with pin codes).

Actually, its very easy to achieve legal non-repudiability. You pass a law saying that whatever-it-is is non-repudiable. I also cite an example of this in my paper (electronic VAT returns are non-repudiable, IIRC).

So, as a point of clarification, are we saying
that "non-repudiability" is ONLY the first of
the above meanings?  And if so, what do we call
the second?  Or, what is the definition here?

From where I sit, it is better to term these
as "legal non-repudiability" or "cryptographic
non-repudiability" so as to reduce confusion.

Read my paper (it was co-authored with a lawyer, so I believe we've got both the crypto and legal versions covered).



http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to