Proof for a creation date

[Stephan Beck]

MFPA:
> 
> 
> On Friday 2 December 2016 at 1:46:00 PM, in
> <mid:96a4d163-02fb-096e-a75e-980f0ee61da3 at mailbox.org>, Stephan Beck
> wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
>> gpg's signature timestamp (on a given file) would NOT
>> be a real proof of
>> a document being allegedly signed at that specific
>> date or (prior to a
>> determined date).
> 
> 
> Maybe use a digital timestamping service, such as
> <http://www.itconsult.co.uk/stamper/stampinf.htm>?
> 
> Or publish an encrypted (or not) copy in the small ads of a newspaper.
> 
> 
> 
Yes, that's it, publish it in the papers. Everyone would agree on that
this would be a "real" proof, i.e. one that would be accepted in the
courtroom.
Luckily, communicating (as via email, as among humans) you do not always
need to have that degree of certainty. :-)

Cheers

Stephan



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x4218732B.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 4089 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20161204/6e595fbb/attachment-0001.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20161204/6e595fbb/attachment-0001.sig>