Electronic Signatures And Citizen's Initiatives?

jamiefaye asks: "The San Jose Mercury News mentions that a digital signature bill has passed Congress by a lopsided margin of 426-4. Many states allow citizens to petition to pass laws through 'Citizens Initiatives' -- a process made difficult by the need to gather thousands of signatures on paper. Having digital signatures could make this much easier. What kind of legal changes can we expect if the somebody could throw up a Web page, attract attention, and pass a law? I would make telemarketers obey an 'opt-out list' for starters." Possibly, but this is one of the better ideas I've hear on the use of digital signatures. Thoughts? Update: 06/27 08:45 by C :Quite a number of you have pointed out that this bill is about Electric signatures and not Digital signatures as the story originally indicated. An electronic "signature" can be something as simple as clicking 'I agree' or pressing '1' on your phone. And now Congress wants such actions to be legally binding (Congress passed this unanimously, it was the House of Representatives that passed it by a vote of 426-4)? You can get more information by reading this analysis of the bill at Cryptome. This is not good. Also, the link to the above SJ Mercury article now seems to be invalid, but you can find more information on this from CNN. Thanks to all the folks who pointed this out, both in this discussion and by sending in submissions.

Initiatives without Bureaucracy Can't Work

Whether you love or hate the hordes of bureaucrats out there in "GovernmentLand," a government policy that they can't set down in way that the bureaucrats have both:

• Method to administer and
• Desire to administer

is not likely to turn out well.

If everyone votes that:

Yes, we hate people that cut us off in traffic; put those people

to death!

this does not mean that anybody will get put to death tomorrow or ever.

The only way that cool new proposal works is if you have the proper combination of police, judiciary, and administrators to actually implement the proposal.

Unfortunately, the "natural" result of this "fine-grained" democracy is that people will vote, assortedly, to:

• Diminish the number of government employees
• Diminish their tax burdens

  The first two items are compatible... but then add...

• Add additional government services, policies, or regulations...

  ...Which, due to the previous votes, there is no longer staff or funding to administer.

Sure, you can become a "snakeoil salesman," and gain power and money by collecting lobbying monies. But the notion that this is likely to make for good government should be disabused quickly...

Re:Oh The Possibilities

Sure the implications of allowing a larger voice from a community are there, when considering the amount of ppl using the internet, but what about all the trolls, (l)users, and other moronic types..

Actually, I'd be more worried about people who have no internet access at all. There is still a considerable percentage of the population that has no internet access (hard to believe, but it's true), and there's the danger that movements that exist only "on-line" would disenfranchise these people. You could also include in this category those who are not technically saavy enough to digitally sign a document.

I think electronic petitions are a good idea, but for the future. We're not quite there yet.

---

Brilliant idea

I for one think this could be the start of a great equalizer. People working long or odd shift hours can have a voice. No longer will petitioning be limited to the unemployed. I think this has been one of my biggest worries for the future of our country. How can we survive where the hardest working have no access to a voice. No longer will bs legislation pass because the onbly people who voted on it were the ones with the ability to get down to the voting station in the middle of the afternoon on a workday.

Mixed feelings

Hopefully this will allow the widest possible cross-section of society a far greater chance to participate in the process of law-making - after all, if people actually have a say in what laws may or may not be passed then their interest in the process will be increased, which is something that modern politics needs desparately to stem the rising trend of apathy.

But OTOH this can also be used to fool the gullible and insecure into supporting legislation that, through the intricacies of legalise, says one thing whilst meaning another. And unless you're a trained lawyer how are you going to be able to separate the real from the fake?

I don't know whether or not this will turn out for the best in the end - but in order for it to stand a chance it's going to require an educated and aware populace - something the US has a real problem with at the moment. If they can change this, then this could be the best idea in ages, otherwise it looks like it could all go horribly wrong.

---
Jon E. Erikson

Signature bill not what you think

According to Cryptome [cryptome.org]:

Knowledgeable Internet users might think that the "Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act" -- passed overwhelmingly by the US Congress last week -- would provide virtual world commerce with the same protections expected in the physical world.

Surprise! No, that would be "digital signatures", never mentioned in the Act. Digital signatures are designed to detect changes in digital content, and computationally irreversible functions ensure that the signature belongs to a particular entity.

Instead, these electronic signatures are a "sound, symbol, or process". By the simple act of pressing a telephone keypad that makes a sound ("press 9 to agree or 7 to hear this menu again"), clicking a hyper-link to enter a web site, or clicking "continue" on a software installer, the consumer consents to be bound to an electronic contract.

The Act imposes the language of UETA (the bastard sibling of the notorious UCITA that has been opposed by the attorney generals of most states) upon the US as a whole.

Re:This is a very disturbing trend.

I mean, when you allow technology like this, which the public does not understand, to become central to the democratic process, you empower a small technological elite who understands the technology and its limitations.

I think you're confusing the medium with the message. Does television favour those who know how infra-red remote controls work? Do airplanes favour those who understand aerodynamics?

What we're seeing now is a nascent attitude to digital signatures; when they become commonplace the signing of documents will be automatic and tech-free; you just click on 'sign this document'. Sure, lengthy passwords will always be a putoff for the lazier of the population - and these'll be easy targets for anyone harvesting sigs for a petition - but the answer there, as it is in reponse to most other problems we face - is education.

In the short term, though, I believe you have a point. If all that's needed to pass a law is for everyone on an electronic mailing list to click on a link, we're far more likely to see free beer for 31337 d00dz become mandatory. This isn't the fault of the technology; rather it's the indolent human nature that refuses to get of its collective arse that's the problem.

Difference between "electronic" and "digital" sigs

Arrgh! I have submitted articles on this topic no less than three times in the past two weeks, and each time they were rejected.

I'll try to fill in the gaps, because I've done a little bit of hunting for mor info about this. In particular, I found that one of the four people that opposed the bill in Congress was Ron Paul, a congressman from the district south of mine here in Texas. Paul is a libertarian conservative Republican (he once ran as the Libertarian candidate for President), and has a very good record on privacy rights. The fact that he voted against it was a warning signal to me.

Further, I strongly recommend reading this article analyzing the bill at Cryptome. [cryptome.org] (Pointers to other analysis of the bill would be welcome.) The author of this makes it clear that there's a daylight and dark difference between "electronic" signatures and "digital" signatures, the diference being that the latter provides significant protection against fraud and tampering that is completely absent in the former.

This is a terribly important issue, and I tried to sound the alarm two weeks ago because it is quite likely this will become the law of the land in the next few days. It may well be too late to stop it.

This Is Definitly A Shortsighted F.U.

I see a lotta optimists and a few wellspoken pessimists out there.
Let this soak in a moment:(most)People are cattle.Like cattle they will follow if merely led.
Observe the gen-x liberal whose politics track exactly what Mtv or the band-du-jour are shoveling
to them.How about those soccer moms?It would be ok
with them if we just did away with that unsanitary
bill of rights,what with guns and freedom of
speech and the press.People use those for baaaaad(pronounced like a sheep would) things.
Theres a flip side to this too,can you see
organizations like NAMBLA or the KKK voting
themselves special rights.Concentration of these freaks in some states may contribute to neccesary
numbers needed to pass a law.
As crooked as our lawmakers are,the upside is I can keep an eye on them and they are answerable.
Anything that is code can be hacked.Do we really
want E-signatures for ANYTHING?Dont gimme some line about crypto and security,thats crap.Todays
fortress is tomorrows kleenex box.
Time to give your legislator a lunk on the head and start the difficult process of repealing this FOLLY.

This is a very disturbing trend.

I mean, when you allow technology like this, which the public does not understand, to become central to the democratic process, you empower a small technological elite who understands the technology and its limitations.

I say all voting processes should stay on paper. Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures.

*Electronical* signatures not *Digital* !!!

The Bill "Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act" is not about "Digital Signatures". Please do not make this mistake.

Instead it is the evil sibling of the notorious UCITA that has been opposed by the attorney generals of most states.

It's primary purpose is to make one-line electronical agreements, legaly binding, when you click the "Agree" button.

Read the whole story on Cryptome. [cryptome.org]

--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?

Headline of the Near Future

IAMYOU virus sends 100,000 new bills to legislature.

Yesterday an unknown hacker used a flaw in a popular email software program to trick personal computers throughout the state into digitally signing petitions for 100,000 randomly generated laws.

The legislature has no way to determine which of the signatures were forged, but estimates that up to 95% of them may be bogus. Since there is no way to realistically debate each of the new measures, a proportional 5,000 of the bills will be randomly selected and summarily passed into law.

Although the outcome will not be known until next week, some of the new laws may include giving matching funds to bowls of hot grits running in open primaries, converting elementary school curricula to an all-haiku format, and reorganizing the the Boy Scouts of America into a beowulf cluster.

A spokesman for Microsoft denied the existence of the flaw and said a hotfix would be available sometime after the next election.