This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey, I made the first paragraph no longer US Centric. I also reorganized the page and added some introductory paragraphs to the technical sections. This reorganization and introductory paragraphs I hope create a clearer sense of the relation between the legal requirements for a contractually valid electronic signature, electronic signature schemes, and methods (such as digital signatures) regularly used to implement those schemes.
I added a separate section for electronic signature schemes, the high-level implementations of underlying methods (such as cryptography) which go on to see much use. There is very little content in this section so far, but because the actual technology implementations which go on to become popular for electronic contract signing is really core to what this article studies, I think it is a section, or at least a subject within in this article, that needs to be expanded upon. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 04:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC).
The first paragraph in the article is incoherent. An editing gremlin probably accounts for this.
The added section on cryptographic signatures is actually about digital signatures (as defined in that WP article) and should reference them. It is, additionally, subtly wrong in several respects, though entirely consonant with the general run of discussion about digital signatures in legal venues. As such, this section is currently an example of the confusion produced by incautious use of terms and unclarity about crypto.
I'll try to get to back to this to make some repairs in the near future. ww 20:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Digital signatures are a "subset" of electronic signatures. While there is confussion on the subject among some resources, major signture companies, Universities and the US Government define it as follows:
Additionally Current US State and Federal Law Defines Electronic Signatures not Digital Signatures
US law also REQUIRES that electronic signature provide Integrity (crypto file hashes), making many of the statements of this article inaccruate.
Digital Signatures are those that include an image or graphic to represent the signature. They are electronic signatures but not all electronic signatures are digital. These two articles on Wiki have much of the same information but are separated.
ww, I do appreciate that you took the time to comment to me regarding the edits to my posts and I realize that we may not view this subject the same. But, please also note that many well known businesses (not just the laws) also consider digital signatures as a sub-set of electronic ones. Adobe, Silanis and CIO along with many Universities. Its merely the terminology. No one (not even myself) is tring to define electronic signatures to some limited technology. Its just the term used to describe all virtual signature solutions, just as the term 'automobile' can include cars/trucks and many other types of vechicals.
I understand that there is a large number of people that feel the same as you regarding electronic vs digital. I agree that an electronic signature does not mean that a cryptographic solution is present. However we also cannot assume that a PKI/Cryptographic solution is the ONLY way to capture a virtual signature. It is merely ONE way out of many.
When I say that all electronic signature laws (and therefore all dig-signature laws) require non-repudiation and intregity I am NOT impling that they are requiring any kind of specific technology. As I had said before, any contract law (whether virtual or physical) requires that the contract be non-repudible and maintain intregity. HOW a business complies with these is up to them.
Isaacbowman 00:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Electronic Signature Vendors" section should be removed per WP:NOT#LINK, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM. -- Ronz 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This whole area of signatures, signing, electronic and digital is a mess. I see these problems:
a digital signature - an event where by [you] [affiliate] your [signature] to a [document] with the intent of agreeing with its contents AND accepting your role in it; Knowing that a truthful witness would, if called upon (at any time in the future) give an accurate accounting as evidence of this event.
where: [you] means a set of persons containing one or more persons. [affiliate] means the process of adding something (such as your [signature]) to the overall content of a [document]. [Signature] means a marker that relates to some person or group uniquely. [document] more than one collection of text and or graphics, a set of of such collections. [1]
As an exercise for the reader, is my name below a "signature" and is this extract "signed" ?
Iangfc ( talk) 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
References
The National Archives of Australia link. Tony (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The new section " Legally recognized providers" does not contain any citations from sources that are independent of the companies listed. Also, there is no adequate explanation of what "legally conforming" in the section title means, or how it differs from "legally recognized" in the text of the section. At least in the USA there is no requirement for electronic signature providers to be recognized by the government, except for a few situations. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think article Digital signatures and law should be merged with section Electronic signature#Laws regarding use of electronic signatures. Both cover the same topic and they have repeated links. ecse ( talk) 21:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
FrankFlanagan ( talk) 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
From the legal perspective, digital signatures (i.e., electronic signatures using cryptography) are a sub-set of electronic signatures. It would make sense to merge Digital signatures and law as most laws there as not technology specific, i.e. they recognise technologies other than cryptography (not necessarily at the same level of certainty), but these considerations could be added to better explain the issue. Tottorimu ( talk) 12:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Electronic signature. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I started editing the context which is/was in several cases not really substantiated.
To be done:
ScienceGuard ( talk) 14:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)ScienceGuard
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Electronic signature. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The article had multiple issues. Reasons were
Issues:
ScienceGuard ( talk) 13:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it visible like a handwritten scrawl? 12.33.223.211 ( talk) 17:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electronic signature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey, I made the first paragraph no longer US Centric. I also reorganized the page and added some introductory paragraphs to the technical sections. This reorganization and introductory paragraphs I hope create a clearer sense of the relation between the legal requirements for a contractually valid electronic signature, electronic signature schemes, and methods (such as digital signatures) regularly used to implement those schemes.
I added a separate section for electronic signature schemes, the high-level implementations of underlying methods (such as cryptography) which go on to see much use. There is very little content in this section so far, but because the actual technology implementations which go on to become popular for electronic contract signing is really core to what this article studies, I think it is a section, or at least a subject within in this article, that needs to be expanded upon. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 04:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC).
The first paragraph in the article is incoherent. An editing gremlin probably accounts for this.
The added section on cryptographic signatures is actually about digital signatures (as defined in that WP article) and should reference them. It is, additionally, subtly wrong in several respects, though entirely consonant with the general run of discussion about digital signatures in legal venues. As such, this section is currently an example of the confusion produced by incautious use of terms and unclarity about crypto.
I'll try to get to back to this to make some repairs in the near future. ww 20:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Digital signatures are a "subset" of electronic signatures. While there is confussion on the subject among some resources, major signture companies, Universities and the US Government define it as follows:
Additionally Current US State and Federal Law Defines Electronic Signatures not Digital Signatures
US law also REQUIRES that electronic signature provide Integrity (crypto file hashes), making many of the statements of this article inaccruate.
Digital Signatures are those that include an image or graphic to represent the signature. They are electronic signatures but not all electronic signatures are digital. These two articles on Wiki have much of the same information but are separated.
ww, I do appreciate that you took the time to comment to me regarding the edits to my posts and I realize that we may not view this subject the same. But, please also note that many well known businesses (not just the laws) also consider digital signatures as a sub-set of electronic ones. Adobe, Silanis and CIO along with many Universities. Its merely the terminology. No one (not even myself) is tring to define electronic signatures to some limited technology. Its just the term used to describe all virtual signature solutions, just as the term 'automobile' can include cars/trucks and many other types of vechicals.
I understand that there is a large number of people that feel the same as you regarding electronic vs digital. I agree that an electronic signature does not mean that a cryptographic solution is present. However we also cannot assume that a PKI/Cryptographic solution is the ONLY way to capture a virtual signature. It is merely ONE way out of many.
When I say that all electronic signature laws (and therefore all dig-signature laws) require non-repudiation and intregity I am NOT impling that they are requiring any kind of specific technology. As I had said before, any contract law (whether virtual or physical) requires that the contract be non-repudible and maintain intregity. HOW a business complies with these is up to them.
Isaacbowman 00:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Electronic Signature Vendors" section should be removed per WP:NOT#LINK, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM. -- Ronz 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This whole area of signatures, signing, electronic and digital is a mess. I see these problems:
a digital signature - an event where by [you] [affiliate] your [signature] to a [document] with the intent of agreeing with its contents AND accepting your role in it; Knowing that a truthful witness would, if called upon (at any time in the future) give an accurate accounting as evidence of this event.
where: [you] means a set of persons containing one or more persons. [affiliate] means the process of adding something (such as your [signature]) to the overall content of a [document]. [Signature] means a marker that relates to some person or group uniquely. [document] more than one collection of text and or graphics, a set of of such collections. [1]
As an exercise for the reader, is my name below a "signature" and is this extract "signed" ?
Iangfc ( talk) 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
References
The National Archives of Australia link. Tony (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The new section " Legally recognized providers" does not contain any citations from sources that are independent of the companies listed. Also, there is no adequate explanation of what "legally conforming" in the section title means, or how it differs from "legally recognized" in the text of the section. At least in the USA there is no requirement for electronic signature providers to be recognized by the government, except for a few situations. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think article Digital signatures and law should be merged with section Electronic signature#Laws regarding use of electronic signatures. Both cover the same topic and they have repeated links. ecse ( talk) 21:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
FrankFlanagan ( talk) 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
From the legal perspective, digital signatures (i.e., electronic signatures using cryptography) are a sub-set of electronic signatures. It would make sense to merge Digital signatures and law as most laws there as not technology specific, i.e. they recognise technologies other than cryptography (not necessarily at the same level of certainty), but these considerations could be added to better explain the issue. Tottorimu ( talk) 12:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Electronic signature. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I started editing the context which is/was in several cases not really substantiated.
To be done:
ScienceGuard ( talk) 14:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)ScienceGuard
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Electronic signature. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The article had multiple issues. Reasons were
Issues:
ScienceGuard ( talk) 13:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it visible like a handwritten scrawl? 12.33.223.211 ( talk) 17:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electronic signature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)