"Lyal Collins" <lyalcat_private> wrote: To: "David Howe" <DaveHoweat_private>; <bugtraqat_private> > One significant issue is that an expert witness can cast doubt, not > only on the digital signature in question, but upon _every_ digitally > signed document each party received. Yes - An expert witness should (and presumably would) reduce the document to just its signed portion and say "this, and only this, is what Alice signed; there is no evidence who sent this where, as that was done after the document was signed" Provided the *signed* (and timestamped) portion of the message/document supports the case, there is no doubt cast - A document that clearly states exactly what Alice wanted to say, including the recipient, would only be a few characters more (not even the ID of the recipient is needed, just his name or email address) Users find technology far too convenient; few if any of them would place a legally binding signature on a paper document containing a simple statement (such as "I agree to the terms of our contract") but many seem to believe it is ok to make digital signatures saying the same things... What is needed is increased User awareness "you are signing this document and it will be legally binding - are you sure it says what you want it to unambiguously?" not technological fixes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 24 2001 - 09:03:52 PDT