NO. You didn't get it. So I try again. I'm making the subtle difference between information in a database and information presented on a screen. And signing what is in a database and signing what is on the screen.
By the way. Signing means: "I, the signer, take full responsibility for what was signed" Making a hash and signing the hash indicates that a system retrieved information made a hash out of it and signed it. There is no human involvement. The human triggered the process, but was no part of it. He doesn't know what information went into the hash before he signed it. He was unable to inspect what went into the hash. The signature of the hash means: this is my hash. It doesn't mean: This is the information I've seen and take responsibility for by signing. Making a hash of a screen dump indicates: This is the information as I saw it on a screen and take responsibility for it by signing. Information in a database is one thing. Information on a screen is almost the same but isn't all the times. Writing black letters on a black background. The information is there but the healthcare provider can't see it. Information written in a window that is overlapped constantly by an other window. Etc. Signing a hash directly from a database is (to me) signing a clean sheet of paper. And hoping that the system performs well. It won't hold in court or creates serious problems, al least. The legal basis for our position is the European Directive (1999/93/EC,OJL013, 19/01/2000 p.0012-0020) This directives indicates under which conditions electronic signatures are equal to paper documents and signatures in ink. "Advanced electronic signatures which are based on qualified e-certificates and which are created by a secure-signature-creation device shall: 1 Satisfy the legal requirements of a signature in relation to data in electronic form in the same manner as hand-written signature satisfies those requirements in relation to paper-based data; and 2 Be admissible as evidence in legal proceedings" The above we translate to: a person signs (takes responsibility for) what he sees on paper (on a screen) and not what is deep down in a complex system else where outside of his control and not visible. We are aware that our position will cause serious problems for all present day systems. They produce signed information perhaps not admissable in court. Therefore we are of the opinion that these legacy systems will have to change in order to get approval (TNO QM-ICT?) of TNO-TRUST? that they comply with Dutch and European laws and Directives. With regards Gerard On 14-09-2002 23:24, "David Guest" <dguest at zeeclor.mine.nu> wrote: > On Sat, 2002-09-14 at 23:29, Gerard Freriks wrote: >> Text as pointers or URL's it is all fine with me. >> But he signes what he sees. > > I think I've got it, Gerard. What are you signing is that a certain > dataset was available to you on a particular day for a particular > patient. You are not signing that you have understood or even looked at > it but that it was available. > > Wouldn't a hash of the data be both smaller and a more reliable > attestation of the data available? > > David > -- <work> -- Gerard Freriks TNO-PG Zernikedreef 9 2333CK Leiden The Netherlands +31 71 5181388 +31 654 792800 - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
