A reminder of the "myth" of electronic security.  All methods have a
failure rate and an acceptability within a business process. Every
method needs to be assessed against a required standard of
confidentiallity, authentication, integrity and nonrepudiation.
My guess is that the stamp had no greater a risk of abuse than a western
signature.

Michael Tooth
GP Hobart


Dr Hugh Nelson wrote:
> Reminds me of my employer in Hong Kong, when the weeks cheques were
> stamped with the office stamp, but not signed by him, the bank was still
> quite happy to process them.
> Chinese tradition of the "chop" or stamp being equivalent to a signature.
> 
> Oliver wrote:
> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>>  
>> Here is something that may support my practice and that of many other
>> doctors of sending referrals without digital signatures.
>>  
>>
>>
>>   E-signing catches on
>>
>> Simon Hayes australianIT.com.au. AUGUST 15, 2006  
>>
>>   
>>
>> COURTS are increasingly accepting typed names, and even email
>> addresses, as electronic signatures despite digital signatures failing
>> to take off for most commercial transactions.  
>>
>>   
>>
>> British barrister Stephen Mason, director of digital evidence research
>> at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, told
>> lawyers at a Sydney seminar last week the digitisation of signatures
>> was just another step in the evolution of evidence.
>>
>>  
>>
>> "In the 19th century, English judges had to cope with changes such as
>> rubber stamps, seals and printing," he said.
>>
>>  
>>
>> "The form of a signature is irrelevant, it's the function it performs
>> that's critical."
>>
>>  
>>
>> In one British case a contract was amended by email despite neither
>> party signing the document in the traditional way.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Other judges have found that an email address alone can constitute a
>> signature.
>>
>>  
>>
>> "When I draft a contract now, I require a manuscript signature," Mr
>> Mason said. "Digital signatures are complex and not well understood."
>>
>>  
>>
>> Oliver Frank, general practitioner
>> 255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens
>> South Australia 5086
>> Ph. 08 8261 1355  Fax 08 8266 5149
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gpcg_talk mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk

Reply via email to