Vint> I think one might distinguish between testifying as to process
and making assertions as to the significance of a digital
signature. I was trying to separate opinion from fact. I think
a PCA would presumably be willing to testify (and could be
subpoenaed in any event) as to the process by which certificates
were issued. Just what value to place on a digitally-signed
object, however, will evolve with use and possibly as legal cases
and legislation unfold. I'd be interested to know if my opinion
still differs significantly from yours.
I believe that we see very much the same way. I would like to
be sure, however, that PCA's would expect that one of the main
reasons for the trust that people place in them, would come from
their willingness to offer an expert opinion on the validity of the
entire signature process and their signature in particular.
Clearly the meaning that a signature takes in a given case
depends on the full weight of evidence in the case at hand. I
view one of my major tasks to help others to accept the
validity of Digital Signatures. I am always hopeful that others
in this development effort will see that unless society, as a whole,
begins to accept the Digital Signature in place of the Analog
Signature, that PEM, EDI and the other message structures will
find that their own foundations are very weak. This acceptance is
not yet a foregone conclusion.
Peace ..Tom Jones