RE: Discussion of notareqs document

[Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> OK, understand and agree on that. But the "premium" service is still a problem.
> Some (business) scenarios are build around short lifetimes of documents (e.g.
> tax declaration, valid for one year). This approach fails. I thnik we should
> expose the problem in some of the documents and at least provide conceptual
> approaches (or limitations) to solve them.
> 
I agree with the last sentence.

But a solution may be different than expected similar as with New York's problem
 of horse shit a century ago. :-)

A signature on a paper based income declaration has almost no meaning concerning
security. It is never verified. As soon as you accept to pay taxes according
to what you receive as a "receipt" of your tax declaration, you confirm
yourself the validity of your "signature" which still is not verified but
the fiscal service may only deduce that if they find out that you haven't
declared everything you had "two chances to lie".

A digital signature on a "income declaration" thus seems totally unnecessary,
it is in fact only a means to limit the number of multiple declaration for the
same 'customer', which by each occurence is not a problem because it can
be resolved, but their is the simple interest to limit the number of such cases. 

In all short term scenarios you have some more or less immediate reaction
with 'the customer' who in one or the other way will confirm the validity
of the signature if the transaction is initiated by the customer.

For a 'tax declaration', i.e. the statement from the state ...
someone else can explain the requirements?