On 26 June 2014 21:53, Guy K. Kloss <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/06/14 12:28, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> But as for courts, I think many transcripts from unencrypted, >> non-cryptographically-bound communications that are presented to judges >> and juries are in the form of word documents -- pretty much the >> layperson's classic example of an editable document. And people still >> get convicted with those documents, even if there was no attempt to >> claim cryptographic proof-of-origin. > > Yes, that's very sad, indeed. Especially when viewing the fact that > there are web sites that can help you "digitally sign" documents by > pasting either a scanned signature or "Your Name" in a chosen font under > the document. And these are deemed to be legally valid ...
Signatures, at least in UK law, are about intent. See http://www.apache-ssl.org/tech-legal.pdf ("Signatures: an Interface between Law and Technology"). _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
