I didn't say PKI was required, only that it was an accepted method (in
some jurisdictions), and that I didn't know enough more to say more.
Thanks for the additions and clarifications.
Joe Hourcle wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Jeffrey Barnett wrote:
>
>> I wasn't even at the conference (sigh), but I'm surprised that no-one
>> has mentioned that *electronically* signed (encrypted) forms have been
>> formally recognized and legalized for some time (and typed text email
>> has not). Surely one of the wizards in the group knows the mechanics of
>> the process (PKI). I've used it too rarely to be an instructor myself.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, neither the Uniform Electronic Transactions
> Act, nor the E-SIGN act require PKI. (After all, the credit card
> companies don't make you use PKI when you by something on the internet)
>
> UETA: (note, I don't think all states have this one, and some made
> modifications to it)
> http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/ueta99.pdf
>
> Section 2(8) :
> "Electronic signature" means an electronic sound, symbol, or
> process attached to or logically associated with a record and
> executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the
> record.
>
> Section 2 Comment 7, last paragraph :
> A digital signature using public key encryption technology would
> qualify as an electronic signature, as would the mere inclusion of
> one's name as a part of an e-mail message -- so long as in each
> case the signer executed or adopted the symbol with the intent to
> sign.
>
>
> And for the few states that haven't passed UETA, E-SIGN:
> http://www.cio.noaa.gov/itmanagement/pl106229.pdf
>
> (however, E-SIGN is more for electronic commerce, I'm not a
> lawyer, so I don't know if there's anything in it that says it's
> not for contracts. (UETA specifically includes contracts, E-SIGN
> specically excludes wills and a few other legal documents)
>
>
>
> -----
> Joe Hourcle
|
