[messaging] [FORGED] Re: On Signed-Only Mails
phill at hallambaker.com
Wed Dec 7 18:55:04 PST 2016
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Peter Gutmann <pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz>
> Moritz Bartl <moritz at headstrong.de> writes:
> >This is a dangerous and wrong statement. For one, you are making a case
> >based purely on previous cases in US courts, which is a very US-centric
> >view, and dangerous for a discussion that potentially affects all
> Uhh... have you even looked at the reference in question? Stephen Mason
> is a UK barrister, and he cites digital signature legislation and case law
> in the UK, Europe, Asia/Pacific, Africa, and others. Some of the chapters
> 2 International initiatives
> 3 European Union Directive on electronic signatures
> 4 England & Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland
> 5 International comparison of electronic signature laws
> >US law... US courts... US jurisdictions
> Tell you what, I'll give you a week or two to go away and read the book,
> then you can post an updated version of your message that actually
> the point.
How about you give him the $250 to buy the book as well?
I suggest Ford and Baum on Electronic Commerce, much cheaper if you can
find a copy.
The book is about electronic signatures, not digital signatures. And I
really don't think that work remotely supports the argument you are making,
rather the opposite.
Use of a digital signature in place of a mail is really not going to make
things worse than they already are. Either you are in a jurisdiction where
the only contract terms that are binding in the courts are ones made
through processes specified by the govt (and frequently taxed) or you are
in a common law jurisdiction where this is an electronic signature:
There are things that can be done to make the situation more clear and they
can be enforced legally with a high degree of probability.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Messaging