In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "
P.J. Ponder" writes:
>
>I think Perry is right, generally speaking. An argument could certainly
>be made - with or without this federal act, or without any of the various
>state laws on the books - that a _real_ digital signature (like an RSA
>digital signature) is legally binding for any purpose and in the same
>context that a holographic or handwritten signature would be binding. I
>assume that when Perry says 'digital signature' he means digital
>signature, and not 'electronic signature' as defined above. The Statute
>of Frauds doesn't really present that big of a legal obstacle, since the
>modern interpretations of 'writing' are broad enough to include electronic
>writings.
Absolutely. There was an opinion by some piece of the U.S. government
a fair number of years ago which cited lots of case law on this
subject. The bill I mentioned covers many other things, including, for
example, use of email instead of paper mail to notify consumers of
certain things.
--Steve Bellovin
