Abstract
The origin of the electronic signature technology, in particular, digital signature, can be traced back to 1976 when the concept of public-key cryptography (PKC) was introduced by Diffie and Hellman. Two years later, the idea of PKC was extended to third party intermediary and digital signature certificates by Kohnfelder. Coincidentally, during the same period, the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea 1978 (the Hamburg Rules) was drafted. Article 14(3) of the Hamburg Rules states that:
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Whitfield Diffie and Martin E Hellman, ‘New Directions in Cryptography’ (1976) 22(6) IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 644.
- 2.
Loren M Kohnfelder, Towards a Practical Public-key Cryptosystem (Bachelor’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1978).
- 3.
United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea 1978 (The Hamburg Rules) Art 14(3) (emphasis added).
- 4.
The WP4 was set up by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe while looking into the problems associated with the signing of electronic documents and its legal implications.
- 5.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Recommendation No. 14 Adopted by the Working Party on Facilitation of International Trade Procedures (1979). http://www.unece.org/cefact/recommendations/rec14/rec14_1979_inf63.pdf at 30 January 2011.
- 6.
Ibid 85 (emphasis added).
- 7.
The CCC made recommendations to its members, United Nations organisations and its specialised agencies and Customs and Economic Unions.
- 8.
See Customs Co-operation Council, Recommendation of the Customs Co-operation Council Concerning the Transmission and Authentication of Customs Information which is Processed by Computer, (1981). http://www.wcoomd.org at 22 at June 2011.
- 9.
Ibid (emphasis added).
- 10.
These include the trade electronic data interchange systems, the Caddia and the Coordinated Development. See D Naezer, ‘EDI: A European Perspective’, in H B Thomsen and S B Wheble (eds) Trading with EDI: The Legal Issues (1989) 86, 89.
- 11.
Ibid.
- 12.
H B Thomsen and S B Wheble (eds) Trading with EDI: The Legal Issues (1989) 1.
- 13.
E Bergsten and R M Goode, ‘Legal Questions and Problems to be Overcome’, in H B Thomsen and S B Wheble (eds) Trading with EDI: The Legal Issues (1989) 125, 138.
- 14.
Ibid.
- 15.
Ibid.
- 16.
Chris Reed, ‘Authenticating Electronic Mail Messages – Some Evidential Problems’ (1989) 52(5) The Modern Law Review 649, 650.
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
Ibid.
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
R J Richards, ‘The Utah Digital Signature Act As “Model” Legislation. A Critical Analysis’ (1999) 17(3) The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law http://www.jcil.org/journal/articles/217.html at 12 September 2011. Please note here it refers to the previous Act which was superseded by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (UETA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 2000 (E-Sign). See below n 57 and 68.
- 21.
California Secretary of State, California Digital Signature Regulations: California Government Code Section 16.5, http://www.sos.ca.gov/digsig/code-section-16-5.htm at 28 January 2011. Please note here it refers to the previous Act which was superseded by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (UETA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 2000 (E-Sign). See below n 57 and 68.
- 22.
The US states such as Minnesota, Mississippi and Missouri followed the Utah model. All of these states’ legislation have been superseded by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (UETA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 2000 (E-Sign). See below n 57 and 68.
- 23.
The US states such as Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut and Delaware followed the Californian model. All of these states’ legislation have also been superseded by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (UETA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 2000 (E-Sign). See below n 57 and 68.
- 24.
Electronic Signature Act 1996 (Florida). http://www.bocaagency.com/MLS/Electronic%20Signature%20Act%20of%201996.htm at 25 January 2011. Please note here also it refers to the previous Act which was superseded by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (UETA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 2000 (E-Sign). See below n 57 and 68.
- 25.
Ibid § 4(4).
- 26.
Ibid § 4(3).
- 27.
Later on in order to provide uniformity across all US states, two technology-neutral initiatives were adopted: the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (UETA) and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 2000 (E-Sign). Both the Acts aimed to provide a uniform e-signature law for the use of e-signature and records. See below n 57 and 68. See also John S Stolz and John D Cromie, ‘E-Commerce Gets a Boost with E-Sign’ (2001) 10(4) Business Law Today. http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/bltmar01cromiestolz.html at 12 July 2011.
- 28.
American Bar Association, Digital Signature Guidelines (1996). http://www.abanet.org/scitech/ec/isc/dsgfree.html at 28 January 2011.
- 29.
Ibid 42.
- 30.
Ibid 3 (emphasis added).
- 31.
See UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996. The text of the Model Law on Electronic Commerce can be found on the UNCITRAL website at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html. 15 January 2011.
- 32.
Amelia H Boss, ‘Electronic Commerce and the Symbiotic Relationship between International and Domestic Law Reform (1998) 72 Tulane Law Review 1931, 1954.
- 33.
Countries that have adopted the MLEC include Singapore, Philippines, Brunei and Australia.
- 34.
MLEC Art 5.
- 35.
The term data message is defined as ‘information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy’: Art 2(a) MLEC.
- 36.
UNCITRAL, Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996) [46]. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/05-89450_Ebook.pdf at 3 July 2011. Further in [61], the Guide to Enactment states that ‘under the Model Law, the mere signing of a data message by means of a functional equivalent of a handwritten signature is not intended, in and of itself, to confer legal validity on the data message. Whether a data message that fulfilled the requirement of a signature has legal validity is to be settled under the law applicable outside the Model Law’.
- 37.
MLEC Art 7.
- 38.
Reed, above n 16.
- 39.
UNCITRAL, above n 36, [58] states that ‘[i]n determining whether the method used … is appropriate, legal, technical and commercial factors that may be taken into account include the following: (1) the sophistication of the equipment used by each of the parties; (2) the nature of their trade activity; (3) the frequency at which commercial transactions take place between the parties; (4) the kind and size of the transaction; (5) the function of signature requirements in a given statutory and regulatory environment; (6) the capability of communication systems; (7) compliance with authentication procedures set forth by intermediaries; (8) the range of authentication procedures made available by any intermediary; (9) compliance with trade customs and practice; (10) the existence of insurance coverage mechanisms against unauthorised messages; (11) the importance and the value of the information contained in the data message; (12) the availability of alternative methods of identification and the cost of implementation; (13) the degree of acceptance or non-acceptance of the method of identification in the relevant industry or field both at the time the method was agreed upon and the time when the data message was communicated; and (14) any other relevant factor’.
- 40.
UNCITRAL, above n 36, [60].
- 41.
MLEC Art 9.
- 42.
Brian Fitzerald et al., Internet and E-Commerce Law (2007) 545.
- 43.
Ibid.
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
Ibid.
- 46.
Ibid.
- 47.
Ibid.
- 48.
A certification authority (CA) is also known as certification service provider in some countries particularly the European Union countries.
- 49.
See Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community Framework for Electronic Signatures [2000] OJ L13/13. The text of the Directive can be found at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0093:EN: HTML 12 May 2011.
- 50.
Lance C Ching, ‘Electronic Signatures, A comparison of American and European Legislation’ (2002) 25 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 199, 212.
- 51.
Electronic Signatures Directive Art 2(1).
- 52.
Electronic Signatures Directive Art 2(2).
- 53.
A qualified certificate is a certificate that meets specific security standards and is issued by recognised certification service providers.
- 54.
A ‘signature-creation device means configured software or hardware used to implement the signature-creation data’: Art 2(5) of the Electronic Signatures Directive.
- 55.
Andrew Barofsky, ‘The European Commission’s Directive on Electronic Signatures: Technological “Favoritism” Towards Digital Signatures’ (2000) 24(1) Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 145, 154; Anda Lincoln, ‘Electronic Signature Laws and the Need for Uniformity in the Global Market’ (2004) 8(1) Journal of Small and Emerging Business 67, 76; Jennifer L Koger, ‘You Sign, E-Sign, We all Fall Down: Why the United States Should not Crown the Market Place as Primary Legislator of Electronic Signatures’ (2001) 11(2) Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 491, 505.
- 56.
Barofsky, above n 55, 158.
- 57.
The text of the Act can be found on the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) website at http://www.ncsl.org.
- 58.
For a current list of US states that have adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 1999, see the National Conference of State Legislatures, The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (2008). http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/ueta-statutes.htm at 11 May 2011. See also Christopher William Pappas, ‘Comparative US and EU Approaches to E-Commerce Regulation: Jurisdiction, Electronic Contracts, Electronic Signatures and Taxation’ (2002) 31(2) Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 325, 341. It is believed that there still exist some inconsistencies across jurisdictions. See Allison W Freedman, ‘The Electronic Signatures Act: Preempting State Law by Legislating Contradictory Technological Standards’ (2001) 3 Utah Law Review 807.
- 59.
Comment 1 in § 3 of the UETA states that ‘[t]he scope of this Act is inherently limited by the fact that it only applies to transactions related to business, commercial (including consumer) and governmental matters. Consequently, transactions with no relation to business, commercial or governmental transactions would not be subject to this Act’. See also B A Pearlman, ‘Finding an Appropriate Global Legal Paradigm for the Internet: United States and International Responses’ (2001) 29(3) Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 597, 615.
- 60.
UETA § 7(b). Note this is similar to MLEC Art 5.
- 61.
UETA § 7(d).
- 62.
UETA § 2(8).
- 63.
UETA § 9.
- 64.
Fitzerald et al., above n 42, 550. See also Thomas J. Smedinghoff, ‘Seven Key Legal Requirements for Creating Enforceable Electronic Transactions’ (2005) 9(4) Journal of Internet Law 3.
- 65.
Ian A Rambarran, ‘I Accept, But Do They? ‘The Need for Electronic Signature Legislation on Mainland China’ (2002) 15 Transnational Law 405, 420.
- 66.
J E Stern, ‘The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act’ (2001) 16(1) Berkeley Technology Law Journal 391, 399.
- 67.
Rambarran, above n 65, 420.
- 68.
See Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 2000 (E-Sign). The text of the Act can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ229.106 at 22 May 2011.
- 69.
See above n 57.
- 70.
Lincoln, above n 55, 74.
- 71.
However, it imposes additional requirements for the protection of consumers in electronic transactions. See Fitzerald et al., above n 42, 550.
- 72.
Amelia H Boss, Searching for Security in the Law of Electronic Commerce, (1998) 23(2) Nova Law Review 583, 623.
- 73.
Stern above n 66, 402 states that this approach was consistent with the minimalist principles laid down in the Framework for Global Electronic Commerce by the then president and vice president of the USA. See also William J Clinton and Albert Gore, A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce (1997) Technology Administration http://www.technology.gov/digeconomy/framewrk.htm at 21 March 2011.
- 74.
E-Sign § 7006(5).
- 75.
Rambarran, above n 65, 421.
- 76.
UETA § 9 states that: ‘(a) An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. The act of the person may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable; (b) the effect of an electronic record or electronic signature attributed to a person under subsection (a) is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances at the time of its creation, execution, or adoption, including the parties’ agreement, if any, and otherwise as provided by law’.
- 77.
E-Sign § 7003(a)–(b).
- 78.
UNCITRAL, Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures (2001). http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/ml-elecsig-e.pdf at 5 August 2011.
- 79.
See UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures 2001. The text of the MLES can be found on the UNCITRAL website at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/2001Model_signatures.html at 15 January 2011.
- 80.
The term commercial has been given a very broad meaning under the MLES. The Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures, above n 78, [87] states that ‘[t]he term “commercial” should be given a wide interpretation so as to cover matters arising from all relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not. Relationships of a commercial nature include, but are not limited to, the following transactions: any trade transaction for the supply or exchange of goods or services; distribution agreement; commercial representation or agency; factoring; leasing; construction of works; consulting; engineering; licensing; investment; financing; banking; insurance; exploitation agreement or concession; joint venture and other forms of industrial or business cooperation; carriage of goods or passengers by air, sea, rail or road’.
- 81.
MLES Art 1.
- 82.
Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures, above n 78, [7]. See also above n 37.
- 83.
MLES Art 2(a).
- 84.
See above n 37 for Art 7 of the MLEC.
- 85.
MLES Art 6(3).
- 86.
MLES Art 6(3) (a)–(d). However, Art 6(4) does not restrict any person to prove to establish in any other way the appropriateness and reliability of the electronic signature in question.
- 87.
Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures, above n 78, [12][28].
- 88.
The issue of reasonable care has been discussed by a few scholars. See below n 197.
- 89.
MLES Art 8(1) (a) and (b).
- 90.
Note these requirements are similar to those laid down in the Electronic Signatures Directive. See above n 49.
- 91.
MLES Art 2(f).
- 92.
MLES Art 11(a).
- 93.
MLES Art 11(b).
- 94.
Electronic Commerce Expert Group, Electronic Commerce: Building the Legal Framework-Report of the Electronic Commerce Expert Group to the Attorney General (1998) [Overview]. http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/e-commerce_Electroniccommerceexpert-groupsreport at 15 January 2006.
- 95.
Ibid.
- 96.
The text of the Act can be found on the Attorney General’s Department website at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/11866D05A55BE8F6CA25730200002C72?OpenDocument at 15 February 2011.
- 97.
These legislation are Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW), Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (SA), Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (Tas), Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (ACT), Electronic Transactions Act 2003 (WA), Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000 (Vic), Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2000 (Qld) and Electronic Transactions (Northern Territory) Act 2000 (NT).
- 98.
However, s 3 of the ETA defines electronic communication. Note the ETA is argued to be a light-touch legislation because it does not define electronic signatures. See Fitzerald et al., above n 42, 552.
- 99.
Note, however, the ETA has recently been amended in accordance to the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts 2005. Section 10 of the ETA that lays down the requirement for a signature in electronic environment is now similar to that provided in the Convention under Art 9(3), discussed in the following section. See Chap. 6 for further details.
- 100.
See UNCITRAL, 2005 – United Nations Convention on the use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (2005). http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/2005Convention.html at 10 June 2011.
- 101.
UNCITRAL, FAQ – UNCITRAL Texts http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts_faq.html#model at 13 May 2011.
- 102.
Ibid.
- 103.
See above n 100.
- 104.
‘Communication means any statement, declaration, demand, notice or request, including an offer and the acceptance of an offer, that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with the formation or performance of a contract:’ Art 4(a) of the Convention.
- 105.
‘Electronic communication means any communication that the parties make by means of data messages’: Art 4(b) of the Convention.
- 106.
‘Data message means information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, magnetic, optical or similar means, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange, electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy:’ Art 4(c) of the Convention.
- 107.
Article 9(3) of the Convention.
- 108.
See above n 37 for a discussion on Art 7 of MLEC.
- 109.
Heiko Roßnagel ‘On Diffusion and Confusion-Why Electronic Signatures Have Failed’, in S Fischer-Hübner et al. (eds) Trust and Privacy in Digital Business (2006) 71. See also Asina Pornwasin, ‘Drive for Greater Use of Digital Signatures’ 8 January 2008 The Nation. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/08/technology/technology_30061450.php at 10 May 2011; eGovernment, Take-Up of Electronic Signatures Remains Low in Germany (2004) epractice.eu. http://www.epractice.eu/document/1276 at 12 March 2008; Commission of the European Communities, Commission Frustrated that People Ignore Digital Signatures (2006) OUT-LAW.COM. http://www.out-law.com/page-6751 at 22 May 2008; Prud’homme, Pascale and Chira-aphakul, Hassana, E-Commerce in Thailand: A Slow Awakening, Thailand Law Forum. http://thailawforum.com/articles/e-commerce.html at 14 December 2011.
- 110.
Hans-Josef Vogel, ‘E-Commerce: Directives of the European Union and Implementation in German Law’, in D Campbell and S Woodley (eds) E-Commerce: Law and Jurisdiction (2000) 29, 64.
- 111.
Ibid.
- 112.
Commission of the European Communities, Commission Frustrated that People Ignore Digital Signatures (2006) OUT-LAW.COM. http://www.out-law.com/page-6751 at 22 May 2011.
- 113.
M S Ackerman and D T Davis, ‘Privacy and Security Issues in E-Commerce’, in D C Jones (ed) New Economy Handbook (2003), 922; Raymond Perry, ‘E-Conveyancing: Problems Ahead?’ (2001) 151 New Law Journal 215, 215.
- 114.
Ackerman and Davis, above n 112, 922.
- 115.
Perry, above n 112, 219.
- 116.
Perry, above n 112, 219.
- 117.
Jane K Winn, ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes: The Shocking Truth about Digital Signatures and Internet Commerce’ (2001) 37(2) Idaho law Review 353, 383.
- 118.
Ibid.
- 119.
Babette Aalberts and Simone van der Hof, ‘Digital Signature Blindness’ (2000) 7 The EDI Law Review 1, 9.
- 120.
J Dumortier and Patrick V Eecke, ‘The European Draft Directive on a Common Framework for Electronic Signature’ (1999) 15(2) Computer Law & Security Report 106.
- 121.
Ibid 107.
- 122.
David L Gripman, ‘Electronic Document Certification: a Primer on the Technology Behind Digital Signatures’ (1999) 17(3) The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law 769.
- 123.
Eugene Schultz, ‘The Gap between Cryptography and Information Security’ (2002) 21(8) Computers & Security 674.
- 124.
Ibid 675.
- 125.
Vince Tuesday, User Indifference Thwarts Electronic Signature effort (2002) Computerworld. http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,67303,00.html at 28 January 2012.
- 126.
Shark Tank: Not exactly what the doctor ordered (2003) Computerworld. http://blogs.computerworld.com/sharky/20030129 at 22 March 2011.
- 127.
Henry H Perritt Jr., ‘Legal and Technological Infrastructures for Electronic Payment Systems’ (1996) 22(1) Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 1; K H Pun, et al., ‘Review of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance: Can the Personal Identification Number Replace the Digital Signature?’ (2002) 32 Hong Kong Law Journal 241; Christopher P Keefe, ‘A Law student’s Guide to the Future of Transactions over the Internet: A Review of the Digital Signature Guidelines’ (1997) 1 Virginia Journal of Law and Technology. http://www.vjolt.net/vol1/issue/vol1_art6.html at 28 January 2011.
- 128.
Perritt Jr., above n 126, 43.
- 129.
Keefe, above n 126.
- 130.
John C Anderson and Michael L Closen, ‘Document Authentication in Electronic Commerce: The Misleading Notary Public Analog for the Digital Signature Certification Authority’ (1999) 17(3) The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law 833, 838.
- 131.
James Backhouse, ‘Assessing the Certification Authorities: Guarding the Guardians of Secure E-Commerce’ (2002) 9(3) Journal of Financial Crime 217, 217.
- 132.
Koger, above n 55, 511.
- 133.
Ibid 511.
- 134.
Ibid 512.
- 135.
Ibid.
- 136.
Michael J Hays, ‘The E-Sign Act of 2000: The Triumph of Function over Form in American Contract Law’ (2001) 76(4) Notre Dame Law Review 1183, 1202 (citations omitted).
- 137.
Ibid.
- 138.
Ibid.
- 139.
Ibid 1208.
- 140.
Ibid.
- 141.
Ibid.
- 142.
Pun et al., above n 126, 257.
- 143.
By freeze the authors imply that any changes made to the document after the digital signature has been attached are apparent. In other words, they refer to retaining the integrity of the document.
- 144.
Pun et al., above n 126, 252.
- 145.
M H M Schellekens, Electronic Signatures: Authentication Technology from a Legal Perspective (2004) 91. For Electronic Signatures Directive, see above n 52.
- 146.
John Angel, ‘Why use Digital Signatures for Electronic Commerce?’ (1999) 2 Journal of Information, Law and Technology. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1999_2/angel/ at 28 January 2012; Don Davis, ‘Compliance Defects in Public-key Cryptography’ (Paper presented at the 6th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium, Focusing on Applications of Cryptography, San Jose, California, 22–25 July 1996) 17; Perry, above n 112, 215.
- 147.
Roger Clarke, ‘The Fundamental Inadequacies of Public Key Infrastructure’ (Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, 27–29 June 2001).
- 148.
Stephen Mason and Nicholas Bohm, ‘The Signature in Electronic Conveyancing: An Unresolved Issue?’ (2003) The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 460, 465.
- 149.
Clarke, above n 146.
- 150.
Clarke, above n 146.
- 151.
Adrian McCullagh, Peter Little and William J Caelli, ‘Electronic Signatures: Understand the Past to Develop the Future’ (1998) 21(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 452.
- 152.
Ibid 464.
- 153.
See Stephen G Myers, ‘Potential Liability under the Illinois Electronic Commerce Security Act: Is it a Risk Worth Taking?’ (1999) 17(3) The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law 909, 941; Davis, above n 145.
- 154.
Mason and Bohm, above n 147, 465–466; Davis, above n 145.
- 155.
Mason and Bohm, above n 147, 465–466.
- 156.
R Julia-Barceló and T Vinje, ‘Towards a European Framework for Digital Signatures and Encryption’ (1998) 14(2) Computer Law & Security Report 79, 82; William Kuechler and Fritz H Grupe, ‘Digital Signatures: A Business View’ (2003) 20(1) Information Systems Management 19, 28; Myers, above n 152, 941.
- 157.
Myers, above n 152, 941.
- 158.
R R Jueneman and R J Robertson Jr., ‘Biometrics and Digital Signatures in Electronic Commerce’ (1998) 38(3) Jurimetrics 427, 428; Davis, above n 145.
- 159.
Jueneman and Robertson Jr., above n 157, 443; Davis, above n 145.
- 160.
Kamini Bharvada, ‘Electronic Signatures, Biometrics and PKI in the UK’ (2002) 16(3) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 265; Julia-Barceló and Vinje, above n 155, 82; Myers, above n 152, 941.
- 161.
Bharvada, above n 159, 269.
- 162.
Bharvada, above n 159, 274.
- 163.
Julia-Barceló and Vinje, above n 155, 82.
- 164.
Bradford C Biddle, ‘Legislating Market Winners: Digital Signature Laws and the Electronic Commerce Market Place’ (1997) 34 San Diego Law Review 1225, 1235.
- 165.
Nicholas Bohm, Ian Brown and Brian Gladman, ‘Electronic Commerce: Who Carries the Risk of Fraud’ (2000) 3 Journal of Information, Law and Technology [13]. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2000_3/bohm at 29 January 2012.
- 166.
See William A Hodkowski, ‘The Future of Internet Security: How New Technologies Will Shape the Internet and Affect the Law’ (1997) 13(1) Computer and High Technology Law Journal 217; Mason and Bohm, above n 147; Jueneman and Robertson Jr., above n 157.
- 167.
Hodkowski, above n 165, 273.
- 168.
Mason and Bohm, above n 147, 465.
- 169.
See Jueneman and Robertson Jr., above n 157.
- 170.
Ibid 431.
- 171.
Ibid 432–433.
- 172.
Ibid.
- 173.
Ibid 434–437.
- 174.
Ibid.
- 175.
Note the ETA and the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) make provisions for evidentiary issues associated with electronic signatures. A thorough discussion regarding this issue is provided in Chap. 6.
- 176.
McCullagh, Little and Caelli, above n 150, 465.
- 177.
Adrian McCullagh and William J Caelli, ‘Non-repudiation in the Digital Environment’ (2000) 5(8) First Monday http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_8/mccullagh/index.html at 28 January 2012.
- 178.
Ibid.
- 179.
Ibid.
- 180.
Ibid.
- 181.
Ibid.
- 182.
Ibid.
- 183.
Stephen Mason, ‘The Evidential Issues Relating to Electronic Signatures-Part II’ (2002) 18(4) Computer Law & Security Report 241.
- 184.
Ibid 241.
- 185.
Ibid.
- 186.
Ibid.
- 187.
Josh Bell et al., ‘Electronic Signature Regulation’ (2001) 17(6) Computer Law & Security Report 399, 400. Koger claimed that the evidentiary issue associated with the technology-neutral legislation such as E-Sign law is a major problem given that this legislation neither creates any presumption of validity nor provides any litmus test to ascertain the intent of the signer of an electronic signature and the authenticity of the document; the burden is on the recipient to determine the authenticity of the document. See Koger, above n 55, 508.
- 188.
The European Union Electronic Signatures Directive has been discussed in above n 49.
- 189.
As mentioned above, a qualified digital signature certificate is a certificate that meets specific security standards and is issued by a recognised CA. See above n 53.
- 190.
The burden of proof in such circumstances is on CAs to satisfy the court that they did not act negligently. Note that because the legislation fails to make provisions for CA’s financial liability, a CA can cap his liability by adding a liability ceiling limit clause to the digital signature certificate. See Michael J Osty and Michael Pulcanio, ‘The Liability of Certification Authorities to Relying Third Parties’ (1999) 17(3) The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law 961; Bell et al., above n 186, 400. However, in the case of digital signatures issued by CAs that are not recognised, the liability issue will be determined in accordance with the national liability rules of the respective country within the EU. See Bell et al., above n 186, 400.
- 191.
UETA has been discussed in above n 58.
- 192.
Biddle, above n 163, 1236.
- 193.
Ibid.
- 194.
Biddle, above n 163, 1237.
- 195.
Ibid.
- 196.
Ibid.
- 197.
See above n 58.
- 198.
Myers, above n 152, 931.
- 199.
Ibid 939.
- 200.
Ibid 924.
- 201.
Clarke, above n 146.
- 202.
Ackerman, and Davis, above n 112, 922.
- 203.
Ibid.
- 204.
Perry, above n 112, 220. However, Koger argued that there has been a decline in the cost of digital signatures. See Koger, above n 55, 512.
- 205.
Clarke, above n 146.
- 206.
Bell et al., above n 186, 402.
- 207.
Schultz, above n 122, 675.
- 208.
Roßnagel, above n 108, 77.
- 209.
Jennifer A Hartley, ‘Electronic Signatures and Electronic Records in Cyber-Contracting’ (2003) 49(1) The Practical Lawyer 51, 51. See also Mike Watson, ‘E-Commerce and E-Law; Is Everything E-okay? Analysis of the Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act’ (2001) 53(4) Baylor Law Review 803.
- 210.
Jeanne R Ramage, ‘Slow to Sign Online’ (2001) 23 Pennsylvania Lawyer 32; Donald C Lampe, ‘The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and Federal ESIGN Law: An Overview’ (2001) 55 Consumer Finance Law Quarterly Report 255; Adam R Smart, ‘E-Sign Versus State Electronic Signature Laws: The Electronic Statutory Battleground’ (2001) 5 North Carolina Banking Institute 485; Steven Domanowski, ‘E-Sign: Paperless Transactions in the New Millennium’ (2001) 51(2) DePaul Law Review 619.
- 211.
Ramage, above n 209, 34.
- 212.
Andrew B Berman, ‘International Divergence: The ‘Keys’ to Signing on the Digital Line – The Cross-Border Recognition of Electronic Contracts and Digital Signatures’ (2001) 28 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 125; Christina Spyrelli, ‘Electronic Signatures: A Transatlantic Bridge? An EU and US Legal Approach Towards Electronic Authentication’ (2002) 2 Journal of Information, Law and Technology. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2002_2 at 29 January, 2012. Bell et al., above n 186; Koger, above n 55.
- 213.
Bell et al., above n 186, 400.
- 214.
Koger, above n 55, 515.
- 215.
In particular, the MLEC, the MLES, the Electronic Communications Act 2000 (UK), the Electronic Signatures Directive, the E-Sign and the UETA were compared.
- 216.
Stephen E Blythe, ‘Digital Signature Law of the United Nations, European Union, United Kingdom and United States: Promotion of Growth in E-Commerce with Enhanced Security’ (2005) 11(2) Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 6, 18.
- 217.
Daniel F Visoiu, ‘Digital Signature Legislation in Central Europe’ (2002) 30(3) International Business Lawyer 109, 111. For ETLs in Belgium and Dutch jurisdictions, see J Dumortier and Eecke, above n 119; Schellekens, above n 144.
- 218.
Koger, above n 55, 493.
- 219.
Berman, above n 211, 155. Swire and Litan, however, suggest a supranational agreement on digital signature technology. See generally Peter P Swire and Robert E Litan, None of your Business: World Data Flows, Electronic Commerce, and the European Privacy Directive (1998) 206.
- 220.
Sarah Wood Braley, ‘Why Electronic Signatures can Increase Electronic Transactions and the Need for Laws Governing Electronic Signatures’ (2001) 4(2) Law and Business Review of the Americas 417, 443.
- 221.
Indira Carr, ‘UNCITRAL & Electronic Signatures: A Light Touch at Harmonisation’ (2003) 1(1) Hertfordshire Law Journal, 14, 25.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer India
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Srivastava, A. (2012). Electronic Signatures: Legislative Developments and Acceptance Issues. In: Electronic Signatures for B2B Contracts. Springer, India. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-0743-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-0743-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, India
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-0742-9
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-0743-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)