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

[Mark Dixon]

Perhaps I should have worded the following a little differently:

> ...  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.

The Commonwealth Act is law but requires uniform legislation in the states.  As a "Bill" I think the
W.A. state legislation may still be awaiting "ascent".  A quick scan reveals that Section 9 of
Western Australia's Electronic Transactions Bill (2000) specifically acknowledges signatures when it
says:

9. Signatures
(1) If, under a law of this jurisdiction, the signature of a person is required, that requirement is
taken to have been met in relation
to an electronic communication if -
(a) a method is used to identify the person and to indicate 5 the person's approval of the
information communicated;
(b) having regard to all the relevant circumstances at the time the method was used, the method was
as reliable as was appropriate for the purposes for which the information was communicated; and 10
(c) the person to whom the signature is required to be given consents to that requirement being met
by the use of the method mentioned in paragraph (a).

I expect we will see some cases arguing over sect. 9.1(b) in particular the words "the method was as
reliable as was appropriate for the purpoes".  Anyone care to become an "expert witness"?

Cheers, Mark Dixon.