legally enforceable electronic signatures: old myths and new realities &/or new myths and old...

LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE ELECTRONIC ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES:SIGNATURES:

Old Myths and New Realities&/OR

New Myths and Old Realities

ENABLED BY LAWENABLED BY LAW

•EULA (clickwrap)•Federal EFILINGS (password)

•Patent and trademark office (s-sigs)•GROCER CHECK OUT (graphic)

•Public Key infrastructure•Atomic signatures

CHOSEN CHOSEN EXTRINSICALLYEXTRINSICALLY

•Ueta & E-Sign•“Agreement of parties”

BASIS OF ALL ESIGS:BASIS OF ALL ESIGS:

“logical association” between identity

and Undertaking (content)

LOCI OF ASSOCIATIONS:LOCI OF ASSOCIATIONS:

1. repository2. Crypto Combos

THE PURPOSETHE PURPOSE

pointer to MORAL RESPONSIBILITY (intent):

• AUTHORSHIP• REPRESENTATION

• PROMISE

““NON-REPUDIATION” --NON-REPUDIATION” --

• TECHNOLOGIST: ANTI-LIES

• LAWYER: NON-WHAT?

TRIAL BY FURYTRIAL BY FURY

CREDIBILE WITNESSESNOT

COOL TECHNOLOGIES

DIGITAL EVIDENCEDIGITAL EVIDENCE

Absent specific laws or agency regulations, no particular technology, including Data integrity,

need apply (YET)

UNITED STATES V. SAFAVIAN UNITED STATES V. SAFAVIAN (2006)(2006)

260 unsigned emails admissible as evidence against a criminal

defendant

AUTHENTICATIONAUTHENTICATION

“The threshold for the Court’s determination of  authenticity is not high.” …

“Court need not find that the evidence is necessarily what the proponent claims, but only that there is sufficient evidence that the jury ultimately might do so.”

UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES V. SIDDIQUI (2000)SIDDIQUI (2000)

• Defendant’S emails• msiddiquo@jajuar1.usouthal.edu

• Reliable “Logical association”• Felony CONVICTION AFFIRMED

INTENT OF THE PARTIESINTENT OF THE PARTIES

• EXPRESS AGREEMENTS• IMPLICIT UNDERTAKINGS

IDENTIFY RELYING IDENTIFY RELYING PARTIESPARTIES

• BEARERS of transaction Risks

• with List of DOS & DONTS

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONSCONSIDERATIONS

• EASE OF USE • RISK elimination

• COST• SAVINGS

• Scalability• COMPLEXITY OF PROOF

• Obsolescence risks

INTEROPERABILITY, NOT INTEROPERABILITY, NOT HEGEMONYHEGEMONY

• ONE SIZE NEED NOT FIT ALL• WORKFLOW CONSIDERATIONS

– MULTIPLE SIGNERS– SEVERAL STAGES

– INTERNET TRANSMISSIONS– Core Application support

SIGNATURE PROFILESSIGNATURE PROFILES

• ORIGINS– ABA eTrust subcommittee

– Oasis legalxml

• CONCEPTS• SELECTIONS

5 SIGNATURE PROFILES5 SIGNATURE PROFILES

• Null• PKI

• Entity seal• Application specific

• symmetric

RELYING PARTY

3.

2.APPRAISAL

1. DATA SOURCES

RELYING PARTY

3.

2.APPRAISAL

1. DATA SOURCES

CORE APPLICATION: CORE APPLICATION: APPRAISING VALUEAPPRAISING VALUE

HUMAN APPRAISERDATA SOURCES

AUTOMATED MEANSLOAN COLLATERAL

RELYING PARTY

3.

2.APPRAISAL

1. DATA SOURCES

RISK ANALYSISRISK ANALYSIS

APPRAISER COLLUSIONIDENTITY THEFT

CORRECT DATA USEDFALSIFIED REPORT

RELYING PARTY

3.

2.APPRAISAL

1. DATA SOURCES

TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY CHOICESCHOICES

SOUND LOGICAL ASSOCIATIONS

FACTORED AUTHENTICATIONSECURE AUDIT TRAIL

ROBUST CRYPTO

RELYING PARTY

3.

2.APPRAISAL

1. DATA SOURCES

SIGNATURESSIGNATURES

ZILLOW.COM

/S JOHN DOE /

Form co.

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

• LAW DOES NOT limit esign METHODs• Selection left TO THE PARTIES

• RELYING PARTY HAS GREATEST STAKE• A TRANSACTION may need SEVERAL esigs

• Signature Profiles provide choices• Signature Support for core applications

FINFIN

• JOHN H. MESSING, ESQ.• LAW-ON-LINE, INC.

• 5151 E. BROADWAY BLVD., SUITE 1600• TUCSON, AZ 85711• TEL. (520) 512-5432

• LOGICAL ASSOCIATION: JOHNMESSING@LAWONLINE.BIZ

This presentation is informational only and not intended as a contribution to a MISMO standard or as legal

advice© JHM 2007