EU Draft Digital Signature Directive

[George Foot]

On Thu 27 Aug, Jon Plews wrote:

> 
> The fact is there is *no* equivalent of a digital signature in use
> in the real world[1].  Juggling existing paradigms simply doesn't
> work because a digital signature implies guarantees that cannot be
> met by any process in use at the present time.
> 
> Couching new arguments in familiar term is undoubtedly useful,
> but there has to come a point where you have to break away so as
> to explain the true nature of digital signatures (and encryption).

-----------------------------------

All the situations which the young and technically minded debate as 
if they themselves had invented them have in reality existed 
from time immemorial in other guises.

In a more leisurely age:  "A gentleman does'my pay his tailor's bill" 
meant that he extracted as much credit as he could but the tailor knew 
the identity of the man and his social standing and had no doubt that 
the bill would be paid eventually.

Example in our time: A man whose identity is well known does not pay 
his bills until the last possible moment -- he is a nuisance to the 
merchant but if a good customer he is classed as an eccentric.

But if he gives a false identity he is a rogue and and will be 
prosecuted.

In future: We are trying to use a digital signature as a substitute 
for personal knowledge of the person seeking to get short-term credit 
as an ordinary business convenience when placing an order.

This concept will appear to work because the great majority of 
commercial transactions are conducted by people who have no 
intention of defrauding anyone. It will imbue a false confidence.

But it is in fact a glorious opportunity for specular fraud
by ingenious crooks of which there is a ample supply in the 
real world.  

Trust is a lengthy process of getting to know the character 
and reliability of a business associate and for this there is 
no substitute.

George


-- 
George Foot
georgefoot@oxted.demon.co.uk
Web Page.  http://www.oxted.demon.co.uk