[2053] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Legality of faxed signatures.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James A. Donald)
Fri Jan 16 17:42:11 1998
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:56:35 -0800 (PST)
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
--
At 02:51 PM 1/16/98 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School
of Law wrote:
> For example, a scanned sig appended routinely to a fax
> potentially raises the "rubber stamp" problem -- did
> someone other than the signatory gain access to signature
> and use it fraudulently.
A lawyer, whose name I have forgotten, arguing in favor of
the legality of faxed signatures, asserted that if a
signature was absolutely identical to another signature, this
was grounds to believe that one signature had been imaged
directly from the other. He asserted this as evidence that
people could not get away with forging signatures, but it is
of course equally grounds to make most faxed signatures
deniable, which is actually a considerably more serious
problem than fake signatures.
Since these days, faxed signatures frequently *are* bit for
bit identical, this would seem to render most faxed contracts
invalid.
You also assert that faxed signatures are binding, *and* that
one should follow up with actual physical documents.
1. These assertions seem contradictory.
2. Most of the time, people do not follow up with physical
documents, indeed the physical documents often do not exist.
If bit for bit identical signatures are binding, or are
considered reasonable evidence of intention, then fraud is
trivial.
If bit for bit identical signatures are not considered
evidence of intent, if they are deniable, because of the ease
with which anyone can copy them, then faxed signatures are
mostly deniable.
Presumably case law or legislation exists that leans to one
threat or the other, ease of deniability, or ease of fraud.
Must be one or the other. You cannot avoid both problems,
You can only avoid one problem.
Which problem is it?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BV7m+viPi/N3E0ua5yjORnWiKTao8Wp2UnpqKzcH
4upbEQ3fphPBRrCx/7Kvwrsvb5d4FI2ifYx1h4BUV
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of
the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right,
not from the arbitrary power of the state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
