 |
 |
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