Problem with faked-system-time option
jerome at jeromebaum.com
Thu Jun 16 03:34:23 CEST 2011
>> What jury?
> Submitted before the tribunal, then -- the upshot of it is that *you
> don't get to decide what the court does*.
Do you assume that, say, the judges at the federal constitutional
court are too dumb to get a specialist and inquire as to the status of
cryptographic hash functions etc.?
I could deliver a mathematically valid proof to anyone and they could
ignore it. That is freedom of thought. I can also assume that people
with at least a basic understanding of formal logic, and the ability
to call on any subject field expert as deemed necessary to uncover the
truth, would be able to follow my train of thought. If that train of
thought proves without (significant) doubt that a timestamp must be
valid, and assuming they are impartial, they should consider the
timestamp to be valid.
Juries and judges are not the same, so you can't just apply one to the
other. A jury might not understand, a judge at the BVerfG probably
email jerome at jeromebaum.com
PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
More information about the Gnupg-users