On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Peter Gutmann <pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> Moritz Bartl <mor...@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 > >jurisdictions. > > 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 > are: > > 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, > and > then you can post an updated version of your message that actually > addresses > 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: Peter. 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.
_______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list Messaging@moderncrypto.org https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
