John>
You shouldn't depend on your disclaimer to protect you. These things
have a
nasty way of being voided by other language or acts. Please take
note of the extensive case law regarding disclaimers.
So noted, and I probably agree, especially in the consumer protection area. In
most cases,
however, these are disclaimers against tort acts, i.e., where someone's product
causes
personal injury or damages. The issues may be close, but I would argue that a
legal notice
to a potential recipient of a document alerting him to the possibility of fraud
puts him on
notice and provides a significant DEGREE of protection. Obviously nothing is
absolute.
(This is akin to the chicken soup remedy for colds. "Who knows? But it can't
hurt!"
I think that you will find that if the text of the message explicitly
rejected the
disclaimer in the DN that the disclaimer will be severely weakened or
voided.
This is because the disclaimer is not part of the identity of the
person making
the disclaimer and because they do not make the disclaimer. Someone
else
made the disclaimer for them. This is true for disclaimers in policies
as well.
Again, you have a certain point. But I would argue that because the certificate
or the policy
PRECEDED the message in time, in a case of potential or alleged fraud the
disclaimer
would still have considerable merit, and the burden of proof would be primarily
with the plaintiff.
I must state that I think this issue has been poorly researched. Can
we have
a legal opinion as to the strength of disclaimers in general and some
examples
of how and when disclaimers have been weakened or voided ? Can we have
an opinion as to the strength of a disclaimer presented as part of a DN
?,
as part of a PCA policy ?
AGREE IN SPADES!!! But... shall we stop the world until this is accomplished?
Shall
we not release PEM implementations? More importantly, for those of us who have
some sort
an advisory responsiblity, shall we counsel all of our users and our management
to stay
completely away from such technology until the dust settles?
Until I know more, I will not rely on any technical solution to protect
me.
Probably prudent. I wouldn't rely solely on the disclaimer either. I'll still
take considerable
precautions with my computer and my keys. But you and I would generally be
considered
computer security experts. What about the poor schnook that just bought Apple's
AOCE
and starts using it because he saw something about digital signatures in
Scientific American
10 years ago? Don't we owe it to him to at least carefully define what the
ground rules are?
John
BTW: This means that I think that if you send me a content authorizing me to
do work
and bill GTE, and you have a DN with a disclaimer releasing GTE from your
statements
or offers, but you have a certificate issued to you by GTE, that I could
recover from GTE.
It also means that if GTE has policy with a disclaimer regarding actions of
their eimployees
that I could still recover.with an appropriate content and a strong apparent
relationship
to GTE implied in your DN.
That is specifically what the disclaimer is intended to address. Under normal
circumstances,
if I FAX you an order on company letterhead, even if I weren't authorized to
act as a
purchasing agent, you would generally be entitled to a reasonable presumption
that I was so
authorized, for otherwise I shouldn't have sent the order. (Of course, as I've
said before, if
you are a secretary ordering a Boeing 767 or the order is printed in crayon on
tablet paper,
that line of reasoning probably won't hold up as being representative of common
business
practices.) But if I have put you on notice through a well publicized
disclaimer and you still
accept my order, GTE would be able to present a much more credible case that
you have
acted imprudently in accepting what was alleged to be a forgery in any case.
I am much less concerned about honest errors of judgment or overr eaching.
Those kinds
of things happen, and most companies will make the appropriate adjustments on
either
side as necessary, although they may chastize or even fire the errant employee.
But
we want to make sure that someone can't rip us off by forging the signature of
someone
else.
Bob