RE: e-Government uses "Authority-stamp-signatures"

["Jimi Thompson" <jimit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<SNIP>
for a legal signature ... as in manual signature, there is concept of
intention ... i.e. demonstrate that person intended to sign what they
signed. it is easier to show that when a person writes thier signature,
they intended to write their signature.

issue in technology with digital signatures ... a piece of computer
equipment may have been programed to apply signatures to messages, aka just
because the technology has been labeled digital signature doesn't make it a
digital equivalent of signatures.
</SNIP>

I mentioned this whole thing again for these very reasons since the overall
impression was that there would be some form of non-repudiation going on for
traffic that was merely flowing between 2 servers.  As Lynn so clearly
illustrates, this is not a valid use of "signatures".

I have a suggestion.  In order to avoid confusing ourselves and others,
let's make a small change in nomenclature instead of lumping everything in
under "signature".   Perhaps "authorizing" and "verifying" or whatever to
distinguish the two.

Thanks,

Ms. Jimi Thompson

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed
by those who are dumber. - Plato