Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Digitally Notarized Documents in Brazil

Posted by michael on from the cryptographers-do-it-with-numbers dept.

Remote writes: "As of next year, Brazilians will be able to obtain notary-authenticated digital documents and have them sent over the Internet (English) . You can also obtain a CD or floppy from a notary office, containing your document encrypted with an assymetric key. The key generation, though, demands that one shows up in person at the notary office for ID verification. This was made possible by legislation that recognises public-key encrypted documents and signatures as legally valid. This is one first step, and I don't see why this wouldn't be applied to things like contracts, invoices, wills, etc. Brazilian Notary and Register Association claims that one can even print as many copies of, say, your driver license as desired, though I don't see how this part would work..."

4 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Already doing that for edifact. by leuk_he · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is really nothing new. we already use digitally signed and encrypted EDIFACT messages (Invoices) where a notary is used to give out the keys. The messages are then send over internet (unreliable ) but much cheaper then X-400 (now over 5.000 euro per month)

  2. Why Digital Signatures Aren't Signatures by fhwang · · Score: 5, Informative

    Everyone interested in this subject should read Bruce Schneier's piece on the subject: Why Digital Signatures Aren't Signatures. The gist of his article is that although cryptography came verify that a document can from a given computer, it cannot verify that it came from a given person, or even that that person intended to sign that document. "The mathematics of cryptography, no matter how strong," he writes, "cannot bridge the gap between me and my computer."

    --

    Do domain names matter?

  3. Re:Swiss Cheese... by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Informative
    Slashdot had an article about Brazil a couple months ago explaining about how their government was planning to break the patent on an AIDS drug because they couldn't agree with the manufacturer on a price.

    Here are a few statistics for you:
    • Brazil has the highest number of people with AIDS in Latin America, at around 200,000
    • a quarter of Brazil's annual AIDS treatment budget of $300m is spent on the drug in question (nelfinavir)
    • breaking the patent would allow them to save $34.8m per year, and so improve the level of care provided


    (Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1 505000/1505163.stm and http://asia.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/americas/08/22/aids .drug/)

    Your comparison with Cipro is, imho, spurious. There have been what, a dozen cases of anthrax in the US since 11/9, which have lead to about 4 fatalities? On the other hand, Brazil is facing an AIDS problem of epidemic proportions. Yes, I realise that anthrax could have been a real problem, and so in the face of this potential problem the US government started making threats. Well, Brazil's problem is very real, and only going to get worse. The length of time remaining on the patent is immaterial.

    I'm not against patents, just their misuse, and in my opinion charging too much for a drug that is so vitally needed is immoral and an abuse of the patent system.

    Cheers,

    Tim
    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  4. Re:Swiss Cheese... by vidarh · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is bullshit. Brazils laws allow the government to use compulsory licensing in the face of a medical emergency. Notice: Compulsory licensing, not "breaking" the patent. What this means is that they can force the manufcaturer to license a product at a reasonable price if they refuse to do so by their own choice in the case where the country faces a medical emergency.

    This is legal in Brazil, and a part of the terms you enter into when applying for a patent.

    A patent isn't some god-given right, but a privilege granted by a country for a limited period of time, provided that you fulfill whatever restrictions the particular country has placed on patents. In this case: They have to be prepared to accept compulsory licensing.

    Now, perhaps you believe that hundreds of thousands of people dying of AIDS doesn't constitute a medical emergency... In that case I'll just think you're an asshole.

    Either way, you are wrong that Brazil won't pay for the drugs - under the terms of their compulsory licensing law still pay licensing fees.