Problem with faked-system-time option

[MFPA]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Wednesday 15 June 2011 at 10:58:27 PM, in
<mid:BANLkTimA0ZQdqK0Oz_BR2gD9MJTpPfk5rQ at mail.gmail.com>, Jerome Baum
wrote:



MFPA wrote:
>> You asserted that the signer's own signature timestamp
>> was sufficient when a third party needs to prove when
>> the document was signed.

> When?

Sorry, that was Hauke.

MFPA wrote:
>> The "who has an interest" matters only if it affects
>> the proposed solution. As an example, if an
>> independent timestamping service can be shown to be
>> sufficiently reliable, it could provide the proof
>> regardless of which party has an interest in using
>> that proof.

> "sufficiently"? For whom? Who has this interest and who
> decides what is sufficient?

All good questions. Each individual case would have its own set of
circumstances and therefore its own set of answers. Whatever the
sufficiency condition and whoever gets to decide what's sufficient, if
the condition is met the use of the timestamping service is capable of
providing the proof.

- --
Best regards

MFPA                    mailto:expires2011 at ymail.com

Is it bad luck to be superstitious?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQE7BAEBCgClBQJN+VJ7nhSAAAAAAEAAVXNpZ25pbmdfa2V5X0lEIHNpZ25pbmdf
a2V5X0ZpbmdlcnByaW50IEAgIE1hc3Rlcl9rZXlfRmluZ2VycHJpbnQgQThBOTBC
OEVBRDBDNkU2OSBCQTIzOUI0NjgxRjFFRjk1MThFNkJENDY0NDdFQ0EwMyBAIEJB
MjM5QjQ2ODFGMUVGOTUxOEU2QkQ0NjQ0N0VDQTAzAAoJEKipC46tDG5pfzID/3DW
5JzXWdrCcmRN52PcV4z4mxbLT4wURgeB2vGW384SvqQMTviPjX7GEq/rHHAKPH9Y
sBK8GkNbmmxhtLQQae0pGv2JJ5nzmJutIQwbKfR6a7c9h67h5sUq5u3biSBth4RI
iXgf9YAXy/Kr6TtNQ8HIDeCuCL5GyLaguFzMDuyE
=INj1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----