amidgley at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 12:28:01 GMT 2016
No. Some of the things they do do seem less useful and more expensive.
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 18:50 Nicholas Bohm <nbohm at ernest.net> wrote:
> On 27/01/2016 11:55, Graham Cobb wrote:
> > On 26/01/16 18:01, Nicholas Bohm wrote:
> >> What these bodies can certainly do is assert "There is a solicitor
> >> [doctor/surgeon/etc] on our register with address [etc]." What they
> >> find much harder is to assert "The person you are dealing with is the
> >> same person as the one to whom the foregoing assertion applies."
> >> They are naturally concerned about the risks of making the first
> >> assertion and being understood to have made the second,
> > Well, I hope they are all prioritising solving that problem!! As they
> > have a (legally and socially recognised) function to register their
> > practitioners they need to do it in a way that conveys useful
> > information to the consumers of those services.
> > As their practitioners move online, and join social networks, the first
> > assertion becomes irrelevant and only the second is useful. If the
> > existing professional bodies can't solve it, someone else will have to
> > and will assume their powers.
> > A professional "register" in this day and age does not list names and
> > addresses, it lists public signing keys.
> I suspect we may have some way to go before this becomes the norm.
> Do you know of any that do this?
> Contact and PGP key here <http://www.ernest.net/contact/index.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ukcrypto