Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
26 lines (19 loc) · 3.22 KB

ZenDentity.md

File metadata and controls

26 lines (19 loc) · 3.22 KB

Blockchain Based Digital Signatures:

Admissibility and Enforceability

Lunch Workshop

  • Speaker: Dazza Greenwood, JD
  • Date/Time: February 1st, 12:30 PM - 2:00 PM
  • Location: Metta (21st floor California Tower LKF), Hong Kong
  • Sponsors: TBD

Members of Massachusetts Legal Hackers and the law.MIT.edu research team have been pursuing a unique approach to blockchain based cryptographic signature rapid development. Rather than starting with the idea of building out some technology because it is cool and innovative or attempting to catch the wave of a specific business opportunity this prototype effort is starting with the assumption that the users have ended up in litigation and working backwards from that scenario. The idea is to test the legal sufficiency of blockchain based digital signatures for purposes of executing standard commercial contracts and also to explore whether the software implementation and manner of usage are likely to produce predictable legal results. By probing the jurisprudential event horizon in this way, we hope to reveal some combination of confirmation of our implementation path and probably also some unexpected hitches and snags along the way.

Important questions and issues have already started to take form as we run through our draft “witness examination” scenario. Among other questions, we have discussed whether:

  • the parties have access to anybody who is qualified and has standing to lay a foundation for admissibility through first hand or expert testimony
  • the cryptographic and other verifiable data is correctly aligned to the specific activity and records necessary to legally attribute the technical signature processes to a given legal party (ie: can we prove which person in fact executed the digital signature?)
  • the purported signatory in fact had the requisite legal intent to sign (ie to authenticate, be bound by, assent to, attest, acknowledge, agree, authorize, etc) the contract or other record in question
  • the right evidence was created and properly maintained sufficiently to prove a valid chain of custody occurred
  • …and many more hitches, snags and snafus!

For references, this Google Doc includes a draft of the witness examination and other aspects of this novel process of “legal hacking”.

We expect and hope the above exploratory prototyping method will generate constructive and valuable feedback and other inputs to the software tool and practical innovation design and build process.

The intention is that downstream implications of design-phase decisions will become visible and understood through the visceral experience of role playing litigation and that the crucible of evidentiary and other procedural rules can provide a clear and beneficial source of requirements, constraints and other priority capabilities.

This is literally a process of “evidence-based” requirements gathering. Interested to follow along from afar? Want to grab an oar and help us row? This activity is being pursued as a participatory collaborative event series that is free and open to the public. To participate and contribute, start by joining Massachusetts Legal Hackers and RSVP to the next meetup event right here: https://www.meetup.com/Massachusetts-Legal-Hackers