[7291] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: legal status of digital signatures
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Fri Jun 9 20:32:51 2000
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: "P.J. Ponder" <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 18:23:33 -0400
Message-Id: <20000609222334.E1FD335DC2@smb.research.att.com>
In message <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000609172934.30240A-100000@fn3.freenet.tlh.fl.=
us>, "
P.J. Ponder" writes:
>
>I think Perry is right, generally speaking. An argument could certainly=
>be made - with or without this federal act, or without any of the variou=
s
>state laws on the books - that a _real_ digital signature (like an RSA
>digital signature) is legally binding for any purpose and in the same
>context that a holographic or handwritten signature would be binding. I=
>assume that when Perry says 'digital signature' he means digital
>signature, and not 'electronic signature' as defined above. The Statute=
>of Frauds doesn't really present that big of a legal obstacle, since the=
>modern interpretations of 'writing' are broad enough to include electron=
ic
>writings. =
Absolutely. There was an opinion by some piece of the U.S. government =
a fair number of years ago which cited lots of case law on this =
subject. The bill I mentioned covers many other things, including, for =
example, use of email instead of paper mail to notify consumers of =
certain things.
--Steve Bellovin
