[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio

To: "Stephen Kent" <kent@xxxxxxx>, "Stefan Santesson" <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
From: "Anders Rundgren" <anders.rundgren@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 07:14:45 +0100
Cc: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>, "'SEIS-List'" <list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx

Hi Stefan + Steve,

May I ask a question regarding signature laws which I am pretty ignorant of?

If a company runs a SET Wallet Server for their employees to use, is not the company
responsible for signatures produced by the certificate and keys stored on that server?

Legally as well as technically. 

Now to the users (with their CyberPhones) that initiates transactions: They are responsible to
their company that as a minimum records all transations with user identity.  Or
it could require a sign op as well.

Looks OK to me.

So what is so fundamentally flawed in the CyberPhone concept with respect to digital
signature laws?

Regards
Anders
http://www.mobilephones-tng.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
  - From: Stephen Kent

Prev by Date: Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
Next by Date: RE: CA vs. EE cert processing
Previous by thread: Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
Next by thread: Re: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat & QC-heavy-bio
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread