[LINK] Does High Court GetUp result clarify e-witnessing? [was: High Court case Re: Register Online to Vote Should be Legal]
swilson at lockstep.com.au
Tue Aug 17 09:47:30 AEST 2010
Philip Argy 25/7/2010 wrote:
> Section 98(2)(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 simply requires a
> claim form (in the approved form) to be "signed by the claimant". I have
> little doubt that s. 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 enables that
> signing to be performed by electronic means. However, and this aspect does
> not seem to have been much discussed, the immediately following subparagraph
> (c) requires the claimant's signature to "be attested by an elector or a
> person entitled to enrolment, who shall sign the claim as witness in his or
> her own handwriting".
> Whilst I have not seen exactly how the GetUp site was implemented, I'd be
> sceptical that a witness could satisfy that provision by using a mousepad.
> A proper signing tablet with stylus could possibly satisfy the requirement,
> and of course the physical requirement of witnessing of the claimant's
> signature also has to be met.
> So any legal challenge in my view is going to hinge on GetUp's ability to
> demonstrate that their system ENSURED compliance with s.98(2)(b) as well as
> the requirement for the claimant to sign
I wonder if you've had a chance to look at any of the detailed
deliberations, now GetUp won this case, and if they clarify at all the
legitimacy of witnessing performed 'electronically'?
I reckon witnessing is one of the missing pieces in e-signature
practice, where we need some fresh technological solutions, and/or a
review of why execution of certain documents needs witnessing in the
Phone +61 (0)414 488 851
Lockstep Consulting provides independent specialist advice and analysis
on digital identity and privacy. Lockstep Technologies develops unique
new smart ID solutions that enhance privacy and prevent identity theft.
More information about the Link