|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
To: cryptography@c2.net From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> Date: 09 Jun 2000 16:50:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: Steve Bellovin's message of "Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:51:14 -0400" Message-ID: <871z261sul.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com> writes: > According to the AP, U.S. House and Senate negotiators have reached a > compromise on legislation that will set national standards for digital > signatures and the like. Details are in > http://www.nandotimes.com/no_frames/technology/story/0,4500,500213819-500301920-501670828-0,00.html By the way, I Am Not A Lawyer, but digital signatures are certainly legally binding already under the common law for anything that isn't covered by the Statute of Frauds, and it isn't even clear that anything but the simplest legislation would be needed to deal with eliminating the ambiguity in situations that are covered by the Statute of Frauds. It would be interesting if one of our lawyers who subscribe to the list could comment on this. Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |