Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > As far as know, almost anything is acceptable in a UK court as valid > > proof, apart from a few stupid exceptions, such as "hearsay". > > > Not true, the UK has a set of rules as to what constitutes sufficient > authority to be bound by the contents of a document. The Electronic > Communications Act 2000 extended these to include digital signatures, > such as those created by PGP, if the signer so wished it to be > interpreted it that way.
This contradicts what I have been told. In any case, surely it is well known that it is possible to make a contract without any form of writing, and any relevant circumstance may be used as evidence that a contract was made, unless specifically excluded by rules such as "hearsay". > > It's obvious, however, that a signature made with a key that was > > accidently or deliberately published cannot in itself be evidence > > of anything particularly interesting. > > > This would be treated the same as a claim that someone forged a > traditional pen signature, or copied your wax seal. > Posessing a digitally signed e-mail from the author would have (under UK > law) the same power as holding a written letter signed by the author. That's bullshit, I think. But let's not bother discussing it any further. > > It has been argued that the term "signature" for what GPG does was > > badly chosed. It is more like a "seal". > > > A signature and a seal are the same thing. I disagree strongly, but let's not waste time on it any more. Edmund
