> In business, when repudiation of an act is anticipated we're reminded by Nicholas Bohm (whose clear thinking I know and appreciate for 6 years) that some lawyers find it useful to define "irrebuttable presumptions" -- a technique known to the law and capable of being instantiated in statute or contract.
For example, a legal "irrebuttable presumption" can take the form of a bank check contract stating that a check (even though it can be *proven* a posteriori to be a forgery) is payable by the bank if the account holder did not notify the bank to repudiate the check *before* the check was presented to the bank for payment. The requirement can be seen an "out-of-band" signal from the account holder to the bank, which absence makes the check's payability an irrebuttable presumption by the bank. In this case, as long as the check's signature does not look like a (obvious) forgery and there is enough balance in the account, the bank has no liability to that customer in paying the check. Note also that the effectiveness of this method relies on an "indirect proof" -- the absence of a previous communication makes the check payable. Likewise, in a communication process, when repudiation of an act by a party is anticipated, some system security designers find it useful to define "non-repudiation" as a service that prevents the effective denial of an act. Thus, lawyers should not squirm when we feel the same need they feel -- to provide for processes that *can be* conclusive. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
