Re: Use of the term "notarised signature"?

[Derek Atkins <derek@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ian,

Feel free to bring a lawyer to the table to provide input, but we're
here to create Internet Standards, not Legal Standards.  So long as we
define our own terminology (or use references to definitions) I see no
problem with using the same term as another field in a way different
than that other field uses it.

This is orthogonal to the issue of whether the OpenPGP Notarized
Signature is useful to a "Notary" (in the legal sense).  Making
something that is useful is a Good Thing (TM).  I'd rather make
something useful than make something non-useful.  But not being
a lawyer (or a Notary) I don't know what would be useful.

I would think that having the ability to reference just the signature
or also sig + document in a notary signature would be sufficient to be
useful to any definition of notary....

-derek

David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:25:14PM -0400, Ian Grigg wrote:
> > 
> > When the word "notarised signature" is used, is this
> > a term that has been tested against the legal meaning
> > of the words?
> > 
> > Specifically, the term has quite different significances
> > under civil code and common law.  In the civil code, a
> > notary is a very important person, perhaps more significant
> > than an attorney.  He or she has to study for 6 years to
> > obtain their qualification, and it is a tightly constrained
> > field (at least in the country I'm mildly familiar with).
> 
> The term "notary signature" should not imply any legal meaning
> whatsoever.  As you point out, it means different things to different
> people in different places.
> 
> I can't imagine the terminology is a problem.  After all, the terms
> "signature", and "certification" mean different things in different
> legal juristictions as well, and PGP has been using those terms for
> over a decade.
> 
> > If not, as a minimum, it might be a good idea to add
> > a statement that the use of the term is not meant to
> > draw from the legal definition(s) of same.
> 
> I'm okay with this if the WG thinks it is necessary, though if we're
> going to go down that route, it would probably be simpler to put a
> single sentence in the introduction disclaiming any legal standing for
> terminology used in the whole document than it would be to add
> specific notes to the notary section.
> 
> David

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       derek@xxxxxxxxx             www.ihtfp.com