Isaacbowman

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Isaacbowman! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 05:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Privasign & ESIGN (et al...)

Quoting from my talk page:

Thanks for the note on Privasign. I am trying to put more relevant info in there but am so busy. I would like to ask for some advice though. I have spent the last 9 months or so researching electronic signature laws in the US. I just finished a major project. i would like to carry some of that info to wiki. But the Electronic signature and Digital Signature pages need serious help. Please see my suggestions in their discussions sections. The definitions are wrong. I am new to wiki, so how do I make a major change to a large page without someone getting mad? Who do I talk to? This is a major change that would affect several statements on both pages. Isaacbowman 04:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mm, personally, I've always made significant changes, put a note up on the talk page, thinking I'm Being Bold and it almost invariably turns out that the worst mistake I make is either not being bold enough or making a formatting error of some sort. In cases such as yours, you edit rather well, I would make sure that you work to present facts neutrally and cite proper sources, since your area of expertise is both well-documented online and held to a more scholarly presentation than, say, SpongeBob SquarePants. :)
If you make a change and others disagree with it, they can change it back. If you disagree with that change, I'd like to encourage you to discuss it with the person who reverted your change. If you end up being involved in a disagreement with them, please just remember to keep your cool.
Listen to the objections of the other side, if any pop up, make sure you put edit summaries (comments) on any edits you make, and make sure you remember that while others will have "WikiSeniority" on you, you're just as much an editor as they are.
If you have any other questions, want clarification on something I've mentioned, or otherwise have comments, please feel free to continue to contact me on the matter! I love having good conversations on my talk page, though I might be of limited technical use to you as I can barely describe the process involved in public key cryptography, much less anything of a more esoteric cryptomathematical context. Sorry!
I hope that answers your questions!
~Kylu (u|t) 05:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

changes at digital signature and electronic signature

I have made some changes to these articles, and if I follow the history correctly some of them are to eidts you made. I've left a note at Talk:electronic signature which will clarify the thinking behind some of them, if there are questions. ww 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

electronic signature and digital signature

Thanks for your note. I think we are operating somewhat at cross purposes.

I have (and the articles also take) long taken the posiiton that, in field which requires an appreciation of the engineering, muliple paties defining terms leads to confusion. And assorted enactments have actually done so. There is no cure for this, short of electro shock for those causing the confusion(s), but the best we can do here on WP is to reflect the underlying reality and the existence of the terminological confusion.

Regardless of how an attorney (judge, ...) may construe it, Esign does not require a cryptographic digital signature. Nor is a non-repudiation protocol required. It is, from a cryptographic engineering perspective, a poorly drafted law. With the problems which follow from such enthusiastic and ill informed policy enactments.

So, I'm opposed to letting these articles follow the majority positon (if one can actualy be identified) in the misunderstanding of the underlying cryptographic engineering. The sinews of the technical material necessarily control the reality, whatever arbitrary (or well meant misunderstanding) of that technical material.

If I understand your suggestion aright, this is more or less what you're proposing. Having now reread it, after waiting for your response long enough to have forgotten the details, that's the best I can make of your position. How close am I? ww 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

ww, I do appreciate that you took the time to comment to me regarding the edits to my posts and I realize that we may not view this subject the same. But, please also note that many well known businesses (not just the laws) also consider digital signatures as a sub-set of electronic ones. Adobe, Silanis and CIO along with many Universities. Its merely the terminology. No one (not even myself) is trying to define electronic signatures to some limited technology. Its just the term used to describe all virtual signature solutions, just as the term 'automobile' can include cars/trucks and many other types of vehicles.

I understand that there is a large number of people that feel the same as you regarding electronic vs digital. I agree that an electronic signature does not mean that a cryptographic solution is present. However we also cannot assume that a PKI/Cryptographic solution is the ONLY way to capture a virtual signature. It is merely ONE way out of many.

When I say that all electronic signature laws (and therefore all dig-signature laws) require non-repudiation and integrity I am NOT implying that they are requiring any kind of specific technology. As I had said before, any contract law (whether virtual or physical) requires that the contract be non-reputable and maintain integrity. HOW a business complies with these is up to them.

I am not sure what you refer to as the 'misunderstanding of the underlying cryptographic engineering'? I believe that you feel that Digital Signature and PKI are one and the same. But they are not. Wiki has a page for each topic and a read can drill down to get more specific information. Therefore Automobiles >> Cars >> Sports Cars would be similar to Electronic Sig >> Digital Sig >> PKI. The digital Signature page should discuss all topics relevant to Digital Signatures (like PKI, message authentication codes, file integrity hashes and digital pen pad devices) and then a reader could select the sub-page to learn more.

Making the dig sig page exclusively about PKI would be like only talking about 2-door cars without discussing all of the other options. If a reader wants to learn more about PKI then send them to PKI. If not then why the redundancy? Isaacbowman 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

IB, We certainly are skw to each other's perspective!!

The perspective I'm attempting to retain is:

elec sig > digital sig (which may or mayu not use PKI), in repect of taxonomy, AND

dig sig (properly done per the crypto engineering) > elec sig or other sig techniques, with regard to difficulty of forgery

And the point I do not wish readers to mistakenly take is that one non-repudiation technique is equivalent to another, just as one sort of electronic signature (eg, digital signature) is far more secure than all others known (such as scanned images of a pen and ink signature, or a pressure pad traing of a stylus emulation of a hand signature, or ...). To the extent that WP articles permit a misreading along these lines, I think that should be remedied.

On the question of a higher abstraction rubric including reference to a fuller coverage in anotehr article, it is exactly this I was attempting to do when last I did major edits at both elec sig and at dig sig.

On the question of the definitions that industry, law, etc use, I don't think WP should be bound by these when they diverge from the engineering reality. This is not a case in which arbitrary enactment is possible. There is an underlying reality, whatever terms are used, and legislation which gets this wrong (or is mostly oblivious to it), as Esign did (was), differently from other enactments, should not govern WP coverage, except to note the confusion of meanings implied by usage in these venues. Which was how I left both elec sig and dig sig when last I seriously edited them.

do this qualify my perspective? Is it in conflict with yours? ww 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Privasign-logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Privasign-logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)