[cabfpub] Ballot 132 - EV Code Signing Timestamp Validity Period

[y-iida at secom.co.jp]

Inaba-san.  Thanks for reply.

I see that EVCS could be used for "other digital objects".
My colleague and I have found that article 33.2 of Commercial
Code, also known as SYOUHOU 33 NO 2 ZYOU in Japanese, permits to
electronic signature on Electromagnetic Records as an action in
lieu of the signing or the affixing of names and seals.
We've found that subarticles 435(2), 435(4) of Companies Act
permits to prepare Financial Statements as Electromagnetic
Records, as well as that, on stock companies, they must be
retained for ten years.
But we could not find that Commercial Code and/or Companies Act
require Financial Statements to be signed or affixed names and
seals (or an action in lieu of them).

Inaba-san seems to imply that Financial Statements needs the
signing or the affixing of names and seals, or action in lieu
of them.

Could I have authoritative source?
--
  iida

>I'm not sure whether I am appropriate or not to make a response
>to the question.
>
>
>The Rationale of the Ballot 132 says as follows... 
>
>Ballot 132 - EV Code Signing Timestamp Validity Period 
>Rationale for Ballot 132 
>1. Ideally, TSA services should be consistent across the
>multiple services that rely on them (Code Signing, EV Code
>Signing, AATLs, etc.)
>2. Time stamps are used not just to time-stamp code, but other
>objects, such as signed financial reports and other digital
>objects.
...
>>But I still just wondering that how code signing have
>>something to do with these subarticles 435(2), 435(4) of the
>>Japanese Companies Act.  Though I am a programmer and not a
>>lawyer, it seems for me that these subarticles are mentioning
>>paper works of physical documentations, not digitally signed
>>progmams or data.  (Or am I wrong?)