4 ms·
My previous comment was flagged, but I'm happy to restate. The author doesn't understand what repudiate means, and therefore all the arguments are nonsensical.
by time4tea 3y ago
My previous comment was flagged, but I'm happy to restate.
The author doesn't understand what repudiate means, and therefore all the arguments are nonsensical.
To repudiate means, according to Cambridge dictionary "to refuse to accept something or someone as true, good, or reasonable"
So, when a transaction or email is repudiated, it means that someone is claiming that they didn't do it, despite the fact that it was done.
Non-repudiation is a characteristic of a system whereby a user of the system will find it difficult or "impossible" to repudiate that they did an action in that system.
So when the author claims in a title that "Non-repudiation of emails is undesirable" they are getting the words and meaning mixed up.
It is repudiation that is undesirable, and that's why non-repudiation is such an important characteristic of some types of system.
- phyzome 3y agoSorry, this is incorrect. Non-repudiation is undesirable for email senders. It is desirable in some other systems, such as notarization and the signing of contracts.
- tbrownaw 3y agoNo, it's undesirable for people who intend to lie about what they said. This group is not congruent with the "email senders" group.
- phyzome 3y agoWould you be comfortable about having everyone you interact with secretly videotaping and recording you, and possibly publishing embarrassing clips 5 years later? Deniability allows you to have low-stakes, casual interactions rather than having every stupid utterance timestamped and notarized for possible public viewing later.