[1757] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Signatures and Proof Issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Hettinga)
Tue Oct 21 14:30:08 1997
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:28:38 -0400
To: cryptography@c2.net
From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
--- begin forwarded text
X-Sender: aboss@vm.temple.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:07:29 -0400
Reply-To: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Sender: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
From: Amelia Boss <ABOSS@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: Signatures and Proof Issues
To: DIGSIG@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
At the meeting of the Article 1 Drafting Committee this weekend (that is
Article 1 of the Uniform Commerical Code, for those of you who are
uninitiated), there was a discussion of current section 1-202, and whether
(i) it should be eliminated as unnecessary or (ii) whether the word
"document" should be changed to "record" to reflect corresponding changes
elsewhere recognizing electronic communications as opposed to paper
communications.
I realized, however, looking at the section that an unintended result of
the second approach would be it effect on digital signatures.
I am reproducing below the text of current 1-202 below:
"1-202. Prima Facie Evidence by Third Party Documents.
A document in due form purporting to be a bill of lading, policy or
certificate of insurance, official weigher's or inspector's certificate,
consular invoice, or any other document [record] authorized or required by
the contract to be issued by a third party shall be prima facie evidence of
its own authenticity and genuineness and of the facts stated in the
document by the third party."
Here is the scenario: company doing business on the internet requires any
potential customer to provide (with its order) a certificate (of whatever
level) covering its digital signature, and that condition is made part of
the contract between the parties. X provides such a certificate. The
certificate, under this section, would be prima facie evidence of its own
authenticity, and if the certificate said "Charlie Merrill is the holder of
the private key association with this public key", the certificate would be
taken as prima facie evidence of that fact.
Reactions?
--- end forwarded text
-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/
Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>
