e-conveyancing

[David Swarbrick]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Nicholas Bohm
> Sent: 29 March 2001 11:47
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: e-conveyancing
>
>
> At 11:32 29/03/2001 +0100, Pete Chown wrote:
> >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.  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).
> >
> >The same is true for transfers of land.  It is essential that there be
> >a document which can be kept around authorising the change.
> >
> >(BTW, I wasn't sure I understood the original post, so I'm sorry if
> >this wasn't the point you were making.)
>
> There must certainly be evidence, but in the electronic context it becomes
> debatable whether "document" is a good name for the evidence.  But this is
> a matter of choosing good nomenclature.
>
> The underlying problem is precisely the limited security of private keys
> once in widespread use for valuable purposes.
>
> The lawyers seem to think the engineers have fixed this with mathematical
> magic.  The engineers seem to think the lawyers have fixed this with
> "non-repudiation clause" magic.  When people start falling through the gap
> and finding a hard landing, it will end in tears.

I agree. I have yet to see any convincing way in which ordinary individuals
are going to be able to use electronic signatures with any degree of
auythority in everyday life.

I use a very weak kind of signature when I use my credit card and pin number
at a cash machine. That works however because the values involved are low.
Even then the vast majority of people are unable to use memory only, as they
should, to store the pin numbers they need for the limited use we have now.

I am beginning to think that there is a more fundamental problem about it
all, rather than just an absence of practical answer.


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