Ian G wrote:
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian G writes:
| In the end, the digital signature was just crypto
| candy...
On the one hand a digital signature should matter more
the bigger the transaction that it protects. On the
other hand, the bigger the transaction the lower the
probability that it is between strangers who have no
other leverage for recourse.
Yes, indeed! The thing about a signature is that
*it* itself - the mark on paper or the digital result
of some formula - isn't the essence of signing.
The essence of the process is something that
lawyers call "intent" (I'm definately not clear on
these words so if there are any real lawyers in
the house...). And, when the dispute comes to
court, the process is not one of "proving the
signature" but of showing intent.
Perhaps this is a good moment to remind people of my paper "Signatures:
an Interface between Law and Technology" (written with Nicholas Bohm, a
lawyer) which discusses this and other issues.
http://www.apache-ssl.org/tech-legal.pdf
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
