From: "Robert A. Costner" <pooh@efga.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:11:17 +0800
To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Subject: Re: Digital Signatures & THE LAW???
In-Reply-To: <199706291535.KAA05045@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970630105405.033c23cc@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:35 AM 6/29/97 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>Has there been any concideration for the difference between a digital
>signature that is used only for authentication and one that is legally
>binding??
>
>I would hate for these Digital Signature Laws make every e-mail message I
>sent a legally binding document. :(

Examples of signatures that have previously been tested as legal binding 
signatures include not only actual signatures, but an 'X' and 'Mickey Mouse'. 
 The intention of "legally binding" is merely the proof of authentication.  
So yes, I would say that all digitally signed email in now legally binding, 
with one exception.

There has been a move to make a digital writing a writing only when both 
parties agree to it's usage.  There is a belief that some documents should 
not be digital.  An example is an eviction notice.  Stapling a diskette to 
the doorframe may not be acceptable notice for eviction, as compared with a 
paper notice.  Since most internet users are ineffective at managing their 
email, a legal notice deposited in an inbox may not be a desirable way to 
serve notice.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQBVAwUBM7fIiUGpGhRXg5NZAQF59wIAvsnM/U9cs69KedfZzi7XuiF+U9KICWpz
vbZkDVKSwJAFvVRcKT0HDqDUlKgIa8UFo/eGfQ2oiAx+Z0lqFOYFHQ==
=ylgI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  -- Robert Costner                  Phone: (770) 512-8746
     Electronic Frontiers Georgia    mailto:pooh@efga.org  
     http://www.efga.org/            run PGP 5.0 for my public key