The End Of Paper
Today, in advance of the 2010 RSA Conference, I had the benefit of attending the 10th CSO Council Bay Area Round Table: The Last Mile: The End of Paper. It has been an interesting exercise with a mock trial (moderated by two Judges) involving three wills signed with three different technologies: ink signature, closed system electronic signature, and digital signature.
You would think this would be an easily decided scenario; the digital signature is a superior and more trustworthy technology, right? Well, not when you change the rules a bit. Basically they made the strength of process the inverse of the strength of the technology. Here are the key points from today’s trial, and I’d like your suggestions on which one you’d pick.
- Will 1: Ink Signature: happened a long time ago, seems to be in order but there are no surviving attesters to the signature. Gives the entire estate to his wife, and if she predeceases him, his son. As of today, the wife did predecease him, and his son has become estranged, will #2 being part of the reason.
- Will 2: Electronic Signature: signature is just a hash of the user name and the document being signed. Gives 1/2 the estate to Stanford University, and the other 1/2 to his son. The signature was not attested to by any other individuals. There are no security controls over the log files and no way to prevent modification. However, everything seems to be in order with the signature.
- Will 3: Digital Signature: signature uses the internal PKI of a legal firm which stores private keys on USB memory sticks (not cryptographic devices). A paralegal of the firm who helped create the PKI process is the sole beneficiary. The signature was counter-signed by two other individuals. The paralegal (“Bubbles”) administers the PKI system and theoretically could have recreated signatures or digital IDs.
So, if you had to vote for one of these as a juror, which one would you choose? Personally? I think all 3 are terrible and I fear the entire estate may need to go to probate. Let us know what you would choose as a juror in the comments.
One thought on “The End Of Paper”
Well, I’d presume will #1 was judged to be valid, if not the latest. We certainly accept signatures, and have for ages. But some niggling points:
* Was it witnessed?
* Can those signatures be attested to today?
* Can the decedant’s signature, or those of any witnesses, be compared against other documents? (especially if any of those are witnessed / notarized themselves)
Will 2: Technically, that one sucks. Not sure I’d trust it, since there are no controls and nobody else has attested to it. OTOH, how likely is it that Stanford (the new beneficiary) has forged this? What does “everything seems to be in order with this signature” mean? (the hash was valid?)
Will 3: I’d reject that right out, as the sole beneficiary is also the sole controller of the signature process. Simply can’t be trusted.
So, as a juror, I’d vote for #1, and against #2 and #3. None of them is really trustable, but if you start to question wet-ink signatures, then everything collapses like a house of cards. But I agree, simply having three conflicting wills, of questionable authenticity, probably guarantees probate.
Comments are closed.