On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 01:00:48PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
>
> And we can expect a spectrum of signing technologies and strengths.
> For example, the mundane auto-signing which someone may use for their
> e-mail is substantially less persuasive ("probative," I think the
> lawyers would say) than an ultra-high-security, backed-with-a-bond
> key which Boeing's Legal Department uses to digitally sign sensitive
> papers.
>
> I believe Greg Broiles is still working for Signet Assurance,
> www.sac.net, which is one company tackling parts of this problem.
> Whether they will be a dominant player is of course unknown to me.
Actually, yesterday was my last day on Signet's payroll; there has been
some writing (both English and Java) regarding risk transfer, signatures,
evidence, etc., at Signet, but the legal and technical people who were
gathered at Signet have pretty much dispersed to other, more fruitful
projects. I don't know what direction(s) the company will move in the
future.
I seem to be eternally a few hours away from finishing a paper on
the legal aspects of digital signatures - but the really short version
is that context and intent are crucial. Software applications and
business applications which don't take those aspects of a signature
into account are likely to be useless at best and dangerous at worst.
--
Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PO Box 897
Oakland CA 94604
