e-conveyancing

[David Swarbrick]

--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor
david.swarbrick@wrigleyclaydon.com www.swarb.co.uk Tel 0161 785 3527 Mob
0779 681 0373


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Pete Chown
> Sent: 29 March 2001 11:32
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: e-conveyancing
>
>
> David Swarbrick wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that the consultation and ECA2000 seem to see
> the move from
> > paper docs to electronic docs and signatures as a mere
> alteration of the way
> > the document is held, plus some nuisance making complications
> with regard to
> > signatures.
>
> The existence of a document is important for audit.

Substitute 'evidence' for 'document'. You need evidence, if what you have is
such evidence, it matters not what you have.
 For example I
> look after several domain names.  Some are .uk names with the SKYGATE
> tag.  If I want to reconfigure these I have to generate a PGP-signed
> message.  Others are held through an ICANN registrar.  Changes to
> these are authenticated using a password sent over an SSL connection.
>
> Both of these are "secure" in a naïve sense, assuming I picked a good
> password.  But the difference is that Nominet can keep the PGP message
> on file, so I cannot subsequently claim not to have authorised the
> change (unless I claim that my key was stolen, but that is another
> matter).

Yes, they create and keep evidence, but whatever they have, there is in no
real sense any one 'original' It doesn't even make sense to talk of such.
Trivially it is copied to and fro between disk and memory easily and
frequently. They do not keep 'the' PGP message on file, they keep a copy.
>
> The same is true for transfers of land.  It is essential that there be
> a document which can be kept around authorising the change.

There needs to be kept evidence. Just what form that takes is particular to
th esituation which arises.


My real poiint is that the paper (ahem) tries to recreate electronic copies
of paper related transaction protocols, but many of those protocols arise
only because paper makes them possible or requires them. It should rather be
saying that the paper based systems developed protocols which allowed that
medium to achieve the purpose of evidencing legal acts.

What you want are ways of evidencing legal acts. If you chose to do this
with electronic media, there is little point in saddling this method with
protocols which were only necessary when using paper _because_ you were
using paper.