CDR: Re: Schneier: Why Digital Signatures are not Signatures (was Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, November 15, 2000)
Greg Broiles
gbroiles at netbox.com
Mon Nov 20 11:52:57 PST 2000
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
More information about the Testlist
mailing list