CDR: Re: Schneier: Why Digital Signatures are not Signatures (was Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, November 15, 2000)
Jim Choate
ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com
Mon Nov 20 08:45:38 PST 2000
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Peter Wayner wrote:
> The law is very vague about the definition of signatures. It's simply
> a mark that is made with the intent of binding yourself to a
> contract. That means the old 'X' scratched on a piece of paper can
> still bind the illiterate. Mathematicians and computer security folks
> will probably recoil in horror about the circularity of the whole
> scheme, but that's the best the law could develop during the
> pen-and-ink years.
This is the reason for witnesses and notaries.
One person can easily lie about a signature. It's harder to arrange
several (independent) agents to lie about it.
The 'x' mark usualy has to be witnessed to be legitimate.
____________________________________________________________________
He is able who thinks he is able.
Buddha
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list