This Comment argues that the potential liability of digital signatures under the Act is too great and, therefore, is not an effective mode of communication. Part II of this Comment explains the purpose, the significance, and the traditional role of the handwritten signature. Furthermore, Part II establishes the basics of the digital signature process as it relates to each participant. The participants in a digital signature process consist of a subscriber, a recipient, and a certification authority. Part III of this Comment analyzes and argues why the use of digital signatures, under the Act, is too great of a liability for the participants to be considered an effective mode of communication. Next, Part III argues why potential digital signature participants, because of the overwhelming liability imposed by the Act, must continue to use the notarization process until the Act is properly amended. Finally, Part III proposes amendments to the Act as well as suggests defensive tactics for the subscriber. Part IV of this Comment concludes with the assertion that the Act creates too great of a liability for digital signature participants, and that digital signatures must not be used as a mode of creating binding agreements until the Act is properly amended.
Stephen G. Meyers, Potential Liability under the Illinois Electronic Commerce Security Act: Is It a Risk Worth Taking?, 17 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 909 (1999)