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

[Paul Wilson]

Mark Dixon wrote :
> 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"?

You know, I think that quite a few experienced programmers could equal
lawyers for sheer nit-picking pedantry :-)

The Hooker