[plug] Was bun fight about "bad" words.

[Mark Dixon]

> I understand that, and agree. With one caveat however. The digital signature
> demonstrates that it was *your computer* which originated the message, not
> you. In most cases there's not much difference (maybe none at all), but it
> *is* important. If I went to a party at your place, I could concievably send
> emails from your machine which would be digitally signed in the same way
> that those written by you would be. It's the weakness not so much of digital
> signatures, but of the assumption that the signature proves your presence.
> It doesn't.  Of course, your comment about convincing evidence is still
> completely true.

Agreed.

And further - you(? someone?) raised a point about users not using (knowing about) encryption and
S/MIME.  The Commonwealth and the States have recently enacted legislation that ratifies the United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law's (UNCITRAL) model law on electronic commerce.  [See:
Electronic Transactions Act (Cth) 1999, and Electronic Transactions Bill 2000]   These put
electronic transactions on an equal footing to paper transactions at law (ie. in court).
Necessarily, the digital signature will become an issue, as will things like clicking the "I Agree"
button when presented with one by a bank or other vendor of services.  You may find that by having
certain buttons clicked on your computer you are entering into a contract that is enforcable in a
court.

We may all want to consider the security of our computers, operating systems, and digital
certificates.

Cheers, Mark Dixon