Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Signatures And Citizen's Initiatives?
jamiefaye asks: "The San Jose Mercury News mentions that a digital signature bill has passed Congress by a lopsided margin of 426-4. Many states allow citizens to petition to pass laws through 'Citizens Initiatives' -- a process made difficult by the need to gather thousands of signatures on paper. Having digital signatures could make this much easier. What kind of legal changes can we expect if the somebody could throw up a Web page, attract attention, and pass a law? I would make telemarketers obey an 'opt-out list' for starters." Possibly, but this is one of the better ideas I've hear on the use of digital signatures. Thoughts? Update: 06/27 08:45 by C :Quite a number of you have pointed out that this bill is about Electric signatures and not Digital signatures as the story originally indicated. An electronic "signature" can be something as simple as clicking 'I agree' or pressing '1' on your phone. And now Congress wants such actions to be legally binding (Congress passed this unanimously, it was the House of Representatives that passed it by a vote of 426-4)? You can get more information by reading this analysis of the bill at Cryptome. This is not good. Also, the link to the above SJ Mercury article now seems to be invalid, but you can find more information on this from CNN. Thanks to all the folks who pointed this out, both in this discussion and by sending in submissions.
Knowledgeable Internet users might think that the "Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act" -- passed overwhelmingly by the US Congress last week -- would provide virtual world commerce with the same protections expected in the physical world.
Surprise! No, that would be "digital signatures", never mentioned in the Act. Digital signatures are designed to detect changes in digital content, and computationally irreversible functions ensure that the signature belongs to a particular entity.
Instead, these electronic signatures are a "sound, symbol, or process". By the simple act of pressing a telephone keypad that makes a sound ("press 9 to agree or 7 to hear this menu again"), clicking a hyper-link to enter a web site, or clicking "continue" on a software installer, the consumer consents to be bound to an electronic contract.
The Act imposes the language of UETA (the bastard sibling of the notorious UCITA that has been opposed by the attorney generals of most states) upon the US as a whole.
I mean, when you allow technology like this, which the public does not understand, to become central to the democratic process, you empower a small technological elite who understands the technology and its limitations.
I think you're confusing the medium with the message. Does television favour those who know how infra-red remote controls work? Do airplanes favour those who understand aerodynamics?
What we're seeing now is a nascent attitude to digital signatures; when they become commonplace the signing of documents will be automatic and tech-free; you just click on 'sign this document'. Sure, lengthy passwords will always be a putoff for the lazier of the population - and these'll be easy targets for anyone harvesting sigs for a petition - but the answer there, as it is in reponse to most other problems we face - is education.
In the short term, though, I believe you have a point. If all that's needed to pass a law is for everyone on an electronic mailing list to click on a link, we're far more likely to see free beer for 31337 d00dz become mandatory. This isn't the fault of the technology; rather it's the indolent human nature that refuses to get of its collective arse that's the problem.
Arrgh! I have submitted articles on this topic no less than three times in the past two weeks, and each time they were rejected.
I'll try to fill in the gaps, because I've done a little bit of hunting for mor info about this. In particular, I found that one of the four people that opposed the bill in Congress was Ron Paul, a congressman from the district south of mine here in Texas. Paul is a libertarian conservative Republican (he once ran as the Libertarian candidate for President), and has a very good record on privacy rights. The fact that he voted against it was a warning signal to me.
Further, I strongly recommend reading this article analyzing the bill at Cryptome. (Pointers to other analysis of the bill would be welcome.) The author of this makes it clear that there's a daylight and dark difference between "electronic" signatures and "digital" signatures, the diference being that the latter provides significant protection against fraud and tampering that is completely absent in the former.
This is a terribly important issue, and I tried to sound the alarm two weeks ago because it is quite likely this will become the law of the land in the next few days. It may well be too late to stop it.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I see a lotta optimists and a few wellspoken pessimists out there.
Let this soak in a moment:(most)People are cattle.Like cattle they will follow if merely led.
Observe the gen-x liberal whose politics track exactly what Mtv or the band-du-jour are shoveling
to them.How about those soccer moms?It would be ok
with them if we just did away with that unsanitary
bill of rights,what with guns and freedom of
speech and the press.People use those for baaaaad(pronounced like a sheep would) things.
Theres a flip side to this too,can you see
organizations like NAMBLA or the KKK voting
themselves special rights.Concentration of these freaks in some states may contribute to neccesary
numbers needed to pass a law.
As crooked as our lawmakers are,the upside is I can keep an eye on them and they are answerable.
Anything that is code can be hacked.Do we really
want E-signatures for ANYTHING?Dont gimme some line about crypto and security,thats crap.Todays
fortress is tomorrows kleenex box.
Time to give your legislator a lunk on the head and start the difficult process of repealing this FOLLY.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I say all voting processes should stay on paper. Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures.
Are you adequate?
The Bill "Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act" is not about "Digital Signatures". Please do not make this mistake.
Instead it is the evil sibling of the notorious UCITA that has been opposed by the attorney generals of most states.
It's primary purpose is to make one-line electronical agreements, legaly binding, when you click the "Agree" button.
Read the whole story on Cryptome.
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Yesterday an unknown hacker used a flaw in a popular email software program to trick personal computers throughout the state into digitally signing petitions for 100,000 randomly generated laws.
The legislature has no way to determine which of the signatures were forged, but estimates that up to 95% of them may be bogus. Since there is no way to realistically debate each of the new measures, a proportional 5,000 of the bills will be randomly selected and summarily passed into law.
Although the outcome will not be known until next week, some of the new laws may include giving matching funds to bowls of hot grits running in open primaries, converting elementary school curricula to an all-haiku format, and reorganizing the the Boy Scouts of America into a beowulf cluster.
A spokesman for Microsoft denied the existence of the flaw and said a hotfix would be available sometime after the next election.