Eddy Nigg wrote:
On 11/10/2008 02:11 AM, Kyle Hamilton:
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Eddy Nigg<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since there's a fairly argumentative tone going on, I think I should
explain what my viewpoint is:
Kyle, your reply was highly interesting! Nevertheless I'll cut down my
response to a few highlights only... (after writing my reply I realized
that's more than expected).
I also find myself unaccustomed to dealing with other people's long
replies ;) But this point struck me:
10) However, the dominant
paradigm of cryptographically binding an identity to a key (but only
as long as the identity that's bound is the legal identity) makes it
difficult for advocates of cryptography to gain any traction in those
environments.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is hardly a legal identity...
That's because there is no such thing as a "legal identity."
(If you think this is "wrong" then please provide a definition on same,
preferably one that is useful for us.)
By trying to appear 'legitimate' the authority which you created falls
into the same problems which plague every other authority.
I don't sense the problem really.
Legitimacy is 99% marketing. If the 99% believe you are legit, then you
are. If not, then not.
(If you need to ask what the other 1% is, you're in trouble.)
iang
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-crypto mailing list
dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
