Policy-Discussion

[Sven Anderson <sven AT anderson.de>]

Hi Duane,

Duane, 11.07.2006 16:54:
>> It is not for penalty, it just to limit the risk for the assurer. Else I
>> would agree. But how someone can rely on certificates, were you first
>> have
>> to find out, how much the involved assurers earn?
> 
> I thought the discussion was on gross negligence, in which case
> penalising someone for misconduct is appropriate. In the case of good
> fake documents I doubt it's suitable to have the person liable at all.

If you are liable or not a court will have to decide. As I understand Ian,
we have to TRY to limit the liabilities in some statement. In Germany at
least, I _believe_ you cannot limit liability in case of gross negligence.
But in every country it will be different. We will have to write that
stuff in a general way, or adapted to Australian law.

Obviously this whole subject asks too much of all of us, as writing such
documents is a job for lawyers. We all float in the sea of smattering. ;-)


Regards,

Sven

-- 
sven anderson             "If you think technology can solve your security
http://sven.anderson.de   problems, then you don't understand the problems
tel:    +49-551-9969285   and you don't understand the technology."
mobile: +49-179-4939223                                   (Bruce Schneier)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature