CDR: Re: Schneier: Why Digital Signatures are not Signatures (was Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, November 15, 2000)

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Peter Wayner wrote:

> The law is very vague about the definition of signatures. It's simply 
> a mark that is made with the intent of binding yourself to a 
> contract. That means the old 'X' scratched on a piece of paper can 
> still bind the illiterate. Mathematicians and computer security folks 
> will probably recoil in horror about the circularity of the whole 
> scheme, but that's the best the law could develop during the 
> pen-and-ink years.

This is the reason for witnesses and notaries.

One person can easily lie about a signature. It's harder to arrange
several (independent) agents to lie about it.

The 'x' mark usualy has to be witnessed to be legitimate.

    ____________________________________________________________________

                     He is able who thinks he is able.

                                           Buddha

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------