Digital signatures have a big problem with meaning

[Ben Laurie]

Ian G wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 15:07, dan at geer.org wrote:
> 
>>Ian G writes:
>> | In the end, the digital signature was just crypto
>> | candy...
>>
>>On the one hand a digital signature should matter more
>>the bigger the transaction that it protects.  On the
>>other hand, the bigger the transaction the lower the
>>probability that it is between strangers who have no
>>other leverage for recourse.
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed!  The thing about a signature is that
> *it* itself - the mark on paper or the digital result
> of some formula - isn't the essence of signing.
> 
> The essence of the process is something that
> lawyers call "intent" (I'm definately not clear on
> these words so if there are any real lawyers in
> the house...).  And, when the dispute comes to
> court, the process is not one of "proving the
> signature" but of showing intent.

Perhaps this is a good moment to remind people of my paper "Signatures: 
an Interface between Law and Technology" (written with Nicholas Bohm, a 
lawyer) which discusses this and other issues.

http://www.apache-ssl.org/tech-legal.pdf

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com