[516] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
RE: Analysis of proposed UK ban on use of non-escrowed crypto.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brown, R Ken)
Tue Apr 8 17:39:21 1997
From: "Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1@texaco.com>
To: "'cryptography@c2.net'" <cryptography@c2.net>,
"'A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security'" <PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 05:44:18 -0500
A. Padgett Peterson wrote (amongst other interesting things)
> The CA is actually "notarizing" the key. This activity is usually licensed
> by the state so that the seal will be recognized in a court of law. It
> *validates* that the person and the signature are linked but says nothing
> about the use to which it is put.
Maybe the best words to are "notary" and sealed"? You sign the document
in clear, what we have been calling a digital signature might be better
called a digital seal, "CA/NGTTP" notarises the signing and sealing &
then some other service provider delivers it. People are used to the
phrase "signed, sealed and delivered". It sounds quite non-threatening.
To English ears the word "notary" sounds very Continental and decidly
bearuaucratic. One imagines someone in long black robes. But it is the
correct, traditional word for the function we are talking about.
"Escrow" is very much a lawyer's word, hardly in public use at all. I
suspect many people first heard heard it in this context.
>
