Re: [openpgp] Steven Mason's "Electronic Signatures in Law" now in 4th edition and FREE!

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Sun, 11 December 2016 04:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45028129496 for <>; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 20:08:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.337
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FDMx0-EAi4m5 for <>; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 20:08:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 141E5129449 for <>; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 20:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f82so21851199wmf.1 for <>; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 20:08:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=pyKU3z+isGG3QEhJTu0FLomz8fHzo3L9M4lOCoEEtGM=; b=0p6DCjqtvhvx38ww/bwlA1QG4cbq59RmO4eDDArUQf8nrmp6Sd3ErvsWzOTpm9Mo+e xs/sDzcHVJ7sonV0fhYchchRzfQ0jyUaz7gzP2Rz50lCNSR8QJNAss7nVgQ20yLXBg5v 9+eRJEUjR9NluYb/xbM5c899TwneFWAJgwA8qLBDVlq4VoJKNqv7qLPQ5KxerT/z3EnM fR1s5d0eF6e3U9G/KyuaTEcX5dIxbZDtUS0pJ70N5aGIiiGZc9B4KhFzg9mZmKDtvYva 7AXTu3PFNa5BC4BUdQH+9lQnSCY1lhtTZebW7CkLyGqmbsgiJMssDR6tvToj73kpdnHJ 8yEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pyKU3z+isGG3QEhJTu0FLomz8fHzo3L9M4lOCoEEtGM=; b=T/q7KgEkFDMbsFrpOqhvUzMOv5x4fdXr2KU0ZhYGQXEIUew7giwsrefhPY1heEFiWF aX0nO1ORun+bOBDTjg9XR8fMk0J71HVjVMctgTWAFj7NXJZuwMEjB9h4LqIA9WhyFbqc j+RwkizU9lqYC2iG+DUqSY73TUsTKj5n/iJsUt3qlpebezkkD8eeckVHM9TkgqzuvLoj VA16qOe0BAHHPNH+VVjUfK7+x1K9T4q0+HxYu37RFa/Tszy1XgDHoYSWujp3gugL/css rMRKm+QgaGVnTpVVnrd/OD1yhiDOdbpV2nQYQ1s3804BRdKffKyr5e/ywauyv1JtCHcY a9+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00OfEEkWzfv/QB3Fu6oygNCiTDjLnLx2Ej0t8c1YWN8bHhkNY2IfE8Dd0KPUcrZKNWV4aEI3NhixwY2bw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id r123mr3880591wmg.137.1481429310302; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 20:08:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 20:08:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 23:08:29 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: vd2oN-juNJ_T5cC_rK49YLmDT6E
Message-ID: <>
To: ianG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114697bcccf1cd05435a236e"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Steven Mason's "Electronic Signatures in Law" now in 4th edition and FREE!
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 04:08:34 -0000

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:36 PM, ianG <> wrote:

> On 29/11/2016 04:25, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>> see e.g. Steven
>> Mason's excellent "Electronic Signatures in Law").
> Just as an aside, the 100 quid ++ excuse to not read Mason's book is now
> gone.  The 4th edition is out, it's free online, in a PDF form.
> erving-law-ials-open-book-service-law/electronic-signatures
> ​​
> And you can still purchase the paper versions or Kindle or etc if you're a
> lawyer!

​Which would appear to remove the argument that we should avoid digital
signatures because they are too difficult. It really isn't that difficult
to see that the digital signature does not make the legal position any
worse than it is with regular email and could if correctly applied make
things a lot better.

What we are really talking about here is not merely the creation of an
autography but the performance of an intentional act of signing.

I don't think that a regular email application or for that matter any
general purpose communication mechanism should be used for that purpose.
Rather, intent to sign should be expressed through a separate application
and a key that is specific for that purpose.