bram wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Robert Hettinga wrote:
>
> > "Lie in X.509, Go to Jail", pt. 2
> >
> > [snip]
>
> I don't don't understand what the big deal is - fraud is fraud, even if
> it's in plaintext email. Making digital signatures have the same legal
> staatus as physical signatures doesn't change that at all.
Some people believe that simply passing a law that makes digital
signature legally binding will also make them bind to the market ;-) the Utah
legislation, though useful as an early discussion, left its proponents actually
mired in the muck when they saw that it would apply also to them ;-)
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
