From: "some days weren't there at all" <pandemic@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:36:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Digital Signatures and the Law...
Message-ID: <33B6DD1F.378F@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> Has there been any concideration for the difference between a digital
> signature that is used only for authentication and one that is legally
> binding??
	What's the difference? When I sign a contract, I'm simply giving notice
that I accept its terms and conditions.
 
What I write in snail mail, however, may also be used in a court of law
to show that I actually thought or wrote whatever it was I wrote. Why
would e-mail be any different? 

> I would hate for these Digital Signature Laws make every e-mail message I
> sent a legally binding document. :(

That's the rub about nailing down identity...there's no such thing as
plausible deniability anymore.

In a court of law, assuming you could prove to a judge and jury that
digi sigs establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt, I'd imagine
that  anything signed, law or no law, would be legally binding insofar
as you actually wrote it.

I think I'm missing something...?
---------------------
"Deities do not fall ten floors to the basement" - Willis
pandemic@hotmail.com   please contact for PGP public key.
http://www.skylink.net/~bigdaddy