The result is that I have a pacemaker that will take over some of the electrical work usually handled by one of the nodes in the heart. I’m doing fine and the technology has allowed me to discontinue taking some rather nasty medications that had been a part of my life for a long time. Besides hoping the chip is reliable, I hope the battery lasts longer than the usual computer battery, because changing the battery is much more involved than removing three screws to take the cover off my computer’s CPU.

My experiences of the last month convince me more than ever that the work of the Consortium is critical. The trend is to turn more critical, high risk, and health functions over to computers and robots. The margin for error is diminishing. 

Actually, I had planned to write about the movement of the UCITA (Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act) through the Texas Legislature in this month’s column. Our Legislature began its 2001 session in January and will be nearing the halfway point of the session by the time you read this. Guess what, no one has introduced a bill to adopt UCITA as of February 10th.  The last I checked only two states had approved this measure which I have mentioned in several past columns. You can follow the nationwide legislative progress at: http://www.ucitaonline.com/slhpsus.html.

This proposed law was drafted to provide reliability in the computer and information world. Although it must be adopted by each state, the hope was that the adoption of the same basic statute in each jurisdiction would remove some of the uncertainty of commercial use of the Internet and electronic transfers.

It has not met with universal approval. Attorneys General in more than twenty states have opposed it for allegedly compromising state consumer protection laws. Critics in the industry trade media have also urged rejection. You can find information in favor of UCITA at the UCITA Online website and information on the opposition at InfoWorld’s online site that backs its editorial stand against the law at http://www.infoworld.com/ucita/index.html. As part of that editorial stand, InfoWorld joined a new group that formed to actively oppose the adoption of the proposal in the states. The group, known as AFFECT (Americans For Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions).

You should not be confused by another proposed uniform law that has been introduced in the Texas Legislature. It is the UETA (Uniform Electronic Transactions Act). Despite a similar name, it is vastly different. This act has been introduced into both the Texas House of Representatives (HB 1201) and Senate (SB393) and it would become effective on January 1, 2002. UETA adopts statutory authority for parties by mutual agreement to “conduct a transaction by electronic means.” Further, either party is free to discontinue the use of electronic transactions. In short, it is unlike UCITA because the UETA is purely voluntary and only applies as long as the parties want it to apply. The two proposals do overlap but as a general rule UCITA affects the terms and warranties in the contract where UETA provides guidelines for negotiating and “executing” the contract by electronic means. 

One provision of UETA that will affect many business and governmental transactions is that it overrides portions of the recent federal digital signature law. That federal law was widely publicized as allowing the use of digital signatures, but actually, it did not make many substantive changes in how the signatures would work.  The UETA partially fills that void.

You can check on all Texas legislative actions at an incredibly useful site maintained by the Office of the Legislative Council, where you can search for bills, listen to and watch committee hearings and floor debate and read the schedules for upcoming activities. The site is a goldmine of information.