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

[Greg Broiles]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:45:38AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> 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.

Do you have a cite for that? Peter Wayner's summary is a lot closer
to the case law I've seen. 

--
Greg Broiles gbroiles at netbox.com
PO Box 897
Oakland CA 94604