Tony Lane via Gnupg-users wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 10/3/19 5:53 PM, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > And this is probably the reason why digital signatures from GnuPG were never
> > been adopted (for business related things) in the EU and elsewere.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/4/19 3:35 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
> And do those 20 companies business with their customers were GnuPG
> signatures are legally binding, like real signatures on letters?
_At least_ 20 fortune 500 businesses _that I know of_. Mind you, I'm not
Tony Lane wrote:
> Digital signatures are, in general, legally binding.
In the EU qualified digital signatures (QES) are legally binding
and I strongly doubt that in the U.S. with it's ESIGN Act the same
holds true for GnuPG home installations.
I guess a proper Google search will show it us. :-)
Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Tony Lane wrote:
>
> > Digital signatures are, in general, legally binding.
>
> In the EU qualified digital signatures (QES) are legally binding
> and I strongly doubt that in the U.S. with it's ESIGN Act the same
> holds true for GnuPG home installations.
>
> On 10/4/19 3:35 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
>> And do those 20 companies business with their customers were GnuPG
>> signatures are legally binding, like real signatures on letters?
>
> _At least_ 20 fortune 500 businesses _that I know of_. Mind you, I'm
not even counting governments.
20? Wow. Ther
