Re: Time Stamping Again.

[Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>]

On Friday, September 14, 2012 10:10:17 PM UTC+1, björn lundin wrote:
> Den fredagen den 14:e september 2012 kl. 22:11:22 UTC+2 skrev Austin Obyrne: > On Friday, September 14, 2012 7:58:04 PM UTC+1, Simon Wright wrote: > > > Many thanks - to me that's pretty conclusive. > Being accurate to one second this is a usefull time stamp. Yes, hm, how about setting the computer clock to 1995-04-1 and change that source file. Then compile it again. Very useful time stamp ? Evidence of when it was changed? No, perhaps an indicator on what that particular computer's clock was set to at the time of editing - nothing more ... /Björn

I guess there's nothing that can't be perverted in some way.

This time stamp to my mind is a mutual datum that has potential use in E_commerce (perhaps) as a tool in cases of non-repudiation of contracts made by e_mail.


I don't want to open another can of worms here but anything that lends itself to non-repudiation of e-commerece can only be good.  This requires a whole "scheme" of methods that can quickly collate hard evidence for use in a prosecution in law in the event of subsequent attempts at fraud.  It requires more than just one stumbling block to fraud obviously, an entire arsenal of traps against such fraud is needed. 

Using numbered compilers (copies to trusted third parties like say conventional solicitors) that are predated in a synchronised way is a starting point at least.  The entities would have to explain how the time stamp doesn't coincide if they later try to change the numbered and timed agreement and purport it to be the original one.

There's much more to this but time stamping of compilers to my mind is a useful start as a basic tool at least.

Cheers - adacrypt