Decryption Transform

While this transformation is probably a practical necessity,
I wish to express my concern about the use case given in
section 1.1.  No one should be in the position of being asked
to sign a document of which parts are unreadable to him.

In particular, Alice may have specified not her own encrypted
account number, but that of a public servant of some sort,
which could expose Bob to charges of bribery.  Alternatively,
the payee might turn out to be a prostitute, exposing Bob to
possible criminal charges and/or public or private criticism.
If the payee were a criminal, Bob might be charged with
conspiracy.

In collusion with the bank, Bob might even be in the position
of signing a document including secret terms such as
"Bob will pay the bank $1,000,000."  This is very dangerous
in an environment where anyone with access to Bob's hardware
can forge Bob's digital signature.

Prudent Bobs, therefore, will refuse to sign documents that are
not transparent throughout.

In any event, how can Alice's account number be reckoned a secret?
Every time Alice writes a conventional cheque, she discloses her
account number to the payee.

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein

Received on Friday, 29 June 2001 13:08:29 UTC