Subject: RE: SEIS: RE: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat &Q C-heavy-bio

From: Simon Corell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:05:00 +0200

Thank you Stefan for this straight forward remark - you are quite right but
there are nevertheless exemptions and in some jurisdictions digital
signatures is not even acknowledged unless defined in the law. That's why we
had such problems with the EU Directive on this subject. Most of us don't
want any specifications at all others want every bit specified, certified,
sealed and signed and .....
The difference between legal and natural persons is a fact. Legal bodies
cannot write and just because we are using the same technology doesn't
change this fact. The old handwriting means so much more from a social and
legal point of view and that's why it cannot be exchanged (without previous
agreements) by automatically processes. The most important function of a
document paper or electronic is the word "acknowledgement". If you don't
know what your are doing an ever so good technical solution is worthless -
also in the Nordic countries - as a proof. 
It is a pity that the definitions used was based on the technology.  I tried
hard to introduce the "digital stamp" as a termus tecnicus to digital
signatures produced by legal bodies. Now you are going the other way and
introduce Qualified certificates produced by natural persons. After ten
years with this type of discussion I don't mind really
but the big issue is still to implement TRUST and I have noticed since long
that words and the meaning of words is essential and from an educational
point of view we had won a lot by separating the definitions of the two
types of usage already by the word. /Simon

Simon Corell, Product Manager LL.B.
iD2 Technologies, Liljeholmsvägen 14, P.O.Box 44055, 100 73 Sweden
Phone: +46 8 7755219, Mobile: +46 706541470, Fax: +46 8 7267912
mail to: [email-masked], http://www.iD2tech.com
IT Prize grand winner '98
 
iD2's forthcoming event
 - Netec '99, Stand E139A - 21-22 April Helsinki

-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: den 8 april 1999 17:19
To: Stephen Kent; 'Stefan Santesson'
Cc: [email-masked]; 'SEIS-List'
Subject: SEIS: RE: A $25,000,000,000 PKI Was:Spec. on QC-low-fat
&QC-heavy-bio

--- Message on the SEIS mailing list ([email-masked])

Stefan,
>First of all - I'm not a lawyer. All I'm saying is just my opinion.

>Second. The person responsible for a signature, regardless of type, is the
>person who created it and whose intent it expresses.

>I.e. You are ALWAYS responsible for signatures created by YOU and you are
>NEVER responsible for signatures created by someone else.

Now you hit a VERY interesting point that I would like to concentrate on as
it seems to be the "stumbling block" for DS as required by CyberPhone:

You talk about "you" and the "person" etc. signing things.

How about let's say, automatically produced invoices like telephone bills
wrt
signing?

<snip>

Regards
Anders
http://www.mobilephones-tng.com

----------------- SEIS mailing list ([email-masked])
Info about this list: http://www.nc-forum.com/seis
SEIS Contact: [email-masked]