Legal Analysis of Factual and Evidential Aspects of Attribution of Data Message in Iranian Electronic Commerce Law

Document Type : Original Article


Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Behshti University


“Attribution of data message” is one of the most important issues in Iran's e-commerce law. Due to the novelty of the subject and the weakness of the relevant legal and technical literature, the subject could be improperly interpreted and understood. In this article, while analyzing articles 18 to 21 of the Electronic Commerce Law of Iran as well as proposing an amendment to the provisions of Article 19, an attempt is made to remove the ambiguities related to them. The precise concept, elements and factual and evidential aspects of “attribution of data message”, proposed methods in proving attribution, the concept and instances of the third party which have been impliedly and very vaguely provided in paragraph b of article 19, have been analyzed and discussed. Factual and evidential aspects of attribution of data message in the form of three assumptions; namely a method introduced by or agreed with the originator and the actions of the third party; have been explained and interpreted. Other important topics such as secure and insecure methods and secure procedure have been discussed: a secure procedure and its instances in proving attribution of data message could be technologically very sophisticated such as an asymmetric cryptographic system (using public key and private key) or could be as simple as a telephone call to confirm the identity of the sender through another channel of communication.


Main Subjects

الف) منابع فارسی
1 .دهخدا، علی اکبر، لغت نامه اینترنتی دهخدا.
2 .جعفری لنگرودی، محمد جعفر، دانش نامه حقـوقی، موسسـه انتشـارات امیرکبیـر، چـاپ
پنجم، 1375 .
3 .جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر، دوره پنج جلدی مبسوط در ترمینولوژی حقوق، جلد 1،
گنج دانش.
4 .معین، محمد، فرهنگ آنلاین معین.
ب) منابع انگلیسی
5. Lance, Rose, Netlaw: Your Rights in the Online World, Osborne Mc
Graw-Hill, 1995.
6. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act (1999), (UETA), Drafted by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (with Prefatory
Note and Comments), 1999.
7. Savin, Andrej, EU Internet Law, Elgar European law, Edward Elgar Pub.,
8. Schellekens, M. H. M., Electronic Signatures: Authentication Technology
from a Legal Perspective,TMC Asser Press, The Hague The Netherlands,
9. United Nations, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law,
Promoting Confidence in Electronic Commerce: Legal Issues on
International Use of Electronic Authentication and Signature Methods,
United Nations, Vienna, 2009.
10. United Nations, United Nations Uncitral Model Law on Electronic
Commerce, Guide to Enactment 1996 with additional article 5 as adopted
in 1998, United Nations, New York, 2002. 
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 93 تحلیل حقوقی جنبههای ثبوتی و اثباتی انتساب داده پیام...
11. United Nations, Uncitral Model Law on Electronic Signature with Guide
to Enactment 2001, United Nations, New York, 2002.
12. Warwick Ford, Computer Communications Security: Principles, Standard
Protocols and Techniques,Prentice Hall, Englwood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.
13. Yun, Zhao, Dispute Resolution in Electronic Commerce, Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, 2005.
14. Agris, Repss and Ilze Znotina, “Electronic Evidence in Latvia”, Digital
Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, Volume 8, 2100.
15. Anjanette, H., Raymond & J Benjamin Lambert,“Technology, Ecommerce and the Emerging Harmonization: The Growing Body of
International InstrumentsFacilitating Ecommerce and the Continuing
Need to Encourage Wide Adoption”, International Trade andBusiness
Law Review, Volume 17, 2014.
16. Boss, Amelia, H., “Searching for Security in the Law of Electronic
Commerce”, Nova Law Review, Volume 23, Issue 2, 1999.
17.Froomkin, A., Michael, “The Essential Role of Trusted Third Parties in
Electronic Commerce”, Oregon Law Review, Vol. 75, 1996.
18. Mikellyn, Jason, Johnson, Charles, Transactions of the Centre for
Business Law, Consequences of and Problems with Electronic Contracts,
University of the Free State, Chapter 8, Issue 37, 2005.
19. Mann, Ronald J., Warren, Elizabeth: Westbrook, Jay
Lawrence, Comprehensive Commercial Law 2018: Statutory Supplement
(Supplements) Paperback, 2018, Wolters Kluwer.
20. Manuel, Alba, “Order out of Chaos: Technology, Intermediation, Trust,
and Reliability as the Basis for the Recognition of Legal Effects in
Electronic transactions”, Creighton Law Review, Volume 47, 2014.
21. Phang, A., & Seng, D., “The Singapore Electronic Transactions Act
1998 and the Proposed Article 2B of the Uniform Commercial
Code”,International Journal of Law and Information Technology,
Volume 7, 1999.
22. Pistorius, Tana, “Nobody Knows You're a Dog: The Attribution of Data
Messages”, South African Mercantile Law Journal, 2002, Volume 14.
23. Tan, Bryan (Singapore correspondent), “Case Note”, Digital Evidence
and Electronic Signature Law Review, 2005, at 114-15. Available at: 
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 93 تحلیل حقوقی جنبههای ثبوتی و اثباتی انتساب داده پیام...
24. Yaman Akdeniz& Others, “Cryptography and Liberty: 'Can the Trusted
Third Parties Be Trusted? A Critique of the Recent UK Proposals”,
Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 2, 1997.
25. Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO) v. Consolidation Coal Company
(Consol), United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, 30
December 2002, Federal Supplement, 2nd series, vol. 235, p. 916.
26. Chwee Kin Keong & Others v. Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA
2 (A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/50 II; Decision date13/01/2005; United
Nations, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Case
Law on UNCITRAL Texts (CLOUT)).
27. Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation v. Stanley Metal Associates,
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, 9
August 2001, Federal Supplement, 2nd series, vol. 186, p. 770.
28. Dickens v. State, 927 A.2d 32, 36-37 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007).
29. Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 554 (D. Md. 2007).
30. People v. Brown, A122791, 2009 WL 1878704, at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. June
30, 2009).
31. Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International, LLC, United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 3 April 2002, Federal Reporter, 3rd
series, vol. 285, p. 808.
32. State v. Taylor, 632 S.E.2d 218, 230 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
33. Superhighway Consulting, Inc. v. Techwave, Inc., United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 16 November
1999, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17910.
34. Talada v. City of Martinez, 656 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1158 (N.D. Cal.
35. United States v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 40 (D.D.C. 2006).
36. Singapore‘s Electronic Transaction Act Revised 2011.
37. Australian Electronic Transactions Act 1999.
38. Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), Drafted by the USA
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws,(1999).