[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Subject signing redux (was: Re: Mary is Mary)
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Marc Branchaud wrote:
-> On Sat, 21 Jun 1997, Carl Ellison wrote:
-> > At 05:27 PM 6/20/97 -0300, E. Gerck wrote:
-> > >
-> > >So, to sum up:
-> > >
-> > >1. Pls include a MUST co-sign clause.
-> > I would like to hear list discussion on this one point.
-> For another, it bugs me from a freedom-of-speech point of view. Libel
-> laws aside, if I want to label someone (or their key) as a purple people
-> eater I shouldn't need their permission. Whether other people believe my
-> assertion is another story, and they should also be free to make that
-> decision without the subject's expressed consent.
The argument can equally be reversed to the other side. Further, if Jon
says that Mary has auth X and auth X is to be the company's lawyer -- but
Mary is not a lawyer -- she may never be able to prove she did not agree
with auth X.
-> Perhaps that's what it comes down to. If the subject is presenting the
-> cert anyway, isn't that an implied acceptance of its tag?
Sure, such as by Jon saying that Mary has auth X. It does not good
to Mary that Jon implied acceptance of his own signature.
Also, who else besides Jon can present Jon's cert that says Mary is a
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck firstname.lastname@example.org
P.O.Box 1201, CEP13001-970, Campinas-SP, Brazil - Fax: +55-19-2429533