[Cryptography] EFF amicus brief in support of Apple

[Tom Mitchell]

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Allen <allenpmd at gmail.com> wrote:

> > forcing Apple to sign code it does not want to sign is clearly expressive
>
> Again, I think you're clearly wrong.  I've already commented here about
> the speech aspects of the code itself (I think that needs to be determined
> on a case-by-case basis based on the specific content, form and intent of
> the code), so I won't repeat that here in detail.  With regard to the
> "signature":
>
> First, the “signature” at issue in this case is simply a numeric value
> that computer scientists have decided to call a “digital signature”.
> Despite the same name, it might not be a legal signature at all in the way
> it is used here.
>

Electronic and digital signatures have the force of law.  It may be unclear
to some that
this set of bits is a signature and which laws apply.   Still,  it is
necessary to look deeply
because these bits are used in international commerce to address  identity
and product
identification.

This opens international treaties and trade agreements entered into by the
US (congress)
for relevancy in the legal push and shove. Domestic and international
contract law apply.
Consider domestic and international law to protect companies from
counterfeit knockoffs.
Much has been invested in the digital signatures for sports ticketing and
fraud detection.
Some details are trade secrets.  Digital signatures encoded on lottery
tickets secure astounding
sums with the force of law.   Receipts for tax returns signed and filed
digitally...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_in_Global_and_National_Commerce_Act

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7001

-- 
  T o m    M i t c h e l l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20160308/6a647f86/attachment.html>