User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Only practical for temporary subterfuges

Only practical for temporary subterfuges

Posted Jun 17, 2005 11:38 UTC (Fri) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
In reply to: Only practical for temporary subterfuges by skybrian
Parent article: MD5 collisions

Another thing to remember is that a digital signiture has only the same force as a normal signiture, ie not terribly much legally.

If you can demonstrate that your were under duress or that you wern't signing what you thought you were signing then your signiture is invalid. Just because your signiture appears on something doesn't prove anything, if you say you didn't willingly and knowingly sign it, they have to provide reasonable evidence that you did.

Ofcourse, with digital signitures the problems are larger because you can grant access to many things automatically without some person checking if it makes sense.


(Log in to post comments)

Only practical for temporary subterfuges

Posted Jun 19, 2005 0:45 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

The overwhelming presumption when your signature appears on something is that you meant to agree to whatever the document says. Even where we don't think it's true, we presume it in order to be fair to the other parties. Except in specific areas where signers are presumed to be idiots, you would have a heavy burden of proof to show that you didn't mean to agree.

But note that this issue of repudiation doesn't even apply to the example given -- someone releases confidential information based on seeing the boss' signature. It doesn't matter if the boss later proves he didn't sign it.


Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds