[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Subject signing redux (was: Re: Mary is Mary)
At 1:51 AM -0700 6/24/97, E. Gerck wrote:
>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.
This is the same mistake the US Senate made with regard to signatures on
Senator Leahy's key. (They decided they acted as endorsements and were
unethical.)
The technology is that unless you sign the cert yourself, there is no
evidence that you had anything to do with the authorization. I think a bit
of education is the answer here. It is very much like trying to say you
agreed to a contract because there is a blank for your signature and I have
signed in the blank for mine. In the contract case, the answer is clear.
The same should apply to the cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
References: