Bogus digital signatures, Re: OT: utility account transfer frauds

[David Howe]

at Tuesday, October 15, 2002 6:54 AM, David Swarbrick
> Second, our definitions of digital signatures (how we ended up with
> two heaven knows) in ECA and RIP are deficient. They talk of '
> authentication', but that is not the job of a signature. When I sign a
> cheque, I do not authenticate it. I make a promise. The act of
> signature is a physical manifestation of me making a legal commitment.
> What is left afterwards is evidence that I made that commitment, a
> trace of that assenting to an agreement. It does authenticate the
> cheque, identify its origin and provenance as well, but that is not
> its main purpose.
True enough - but normally the (paper) contract is the physical
manifestation of what is committed to in the agreement - if either party
can alter that without effecting the signature (even theoretically) then
there is no proof that the contract before the judge is a fair
representation of the agreement entered into - so odds seem good that he
will declare the agreement nullified, and the parties will have to reach
a new agreement (presumably more acceptable to the defendent in the
case, or he wouldn't be forging documents in the first place)