An electronic digital dog in the hay, or what prevents to use EDS?

The benefits of using solutions that provide cryptographic protection in electronic document management (and in particular, the use of electronic digital signatures) are obvious at first glance. “There is no need to waste time standing in lines,” supporters of the use of EDS tell us from all sides - and it’s hard not to agree. But Russian realities, unfortunately, are such that a number of factors interfere with the normal development of the market for cryptographic protection solutions (however, as is usually the case).

We will not go into the problems associated with the legislative regulation of the industry (this is so much written and spoken about). Focus on other, more "mundane" problems.
In particular, the fact that in Russia the de facto market for cryptographic protection is monopolized is not a secret for anyone. There is a "Crypto-Pro", and there are all the rest. Perhaps the situation will change in connection with the entry into force of the new Federal Law No. 63 “On electronic signature”, but there is no 100% guarantee for cardinal changes, since it is clear that the monopolists will not give up the market just like that.

The development of the exchange of legally relevant documents in electronic form between companies, that is, those documents that may later be legally valid when applying to, for example, state bodies (this is especially important in the event of legal proceedings) is questionable. Imagine a situation where you are the director of a company and have agreed with your partners to use certain solutions (including EDS) to exchange documents electronically, and everything is going fine, and the process of interaction has become much simpler. But if a conflict or a controversial issue that has arisen between you and a partner can only be resolved in a court of law, then there is no guarantee that an electronic document will be recognized in a domestic court. In Russia there are examples of how an electronic document without a digital signature was recognized as legally significant based on the analysis of correspondence and the behavior of partners before a conflict situation. And there are reverse examples: a document with an electronic signature was not recognized as legally significant in court.
')
Naturally, no one wants to be in this situation. So until the issue of legal significance is resolved, the business will not trust electronic documents and EDS, and will not actively use them in their work, despite the fact that it is much more convenient than paper workflow. Here, in the end, everything again comes down to the “will of the state” so “loved” lately. In this case, everything depends on the “will” of government agencies regulating the industry.

Another pressing question: In Russia, the most common cryptographic standard is X 509, and in accordance with this standard you want it or not, but you have to live. At the same time, this standard is not the only one. There are other standards, which in some cases can be significantly cheaper and more convenient from the point of view of infrastructure organization.
For an unambiguous "easier life" with the help of EDS, there is also a lot to be clarified and finalized. For example, there are issues with the storage of electronically signed documents. In addition, while there is no clear procedure for "re-signing" the document after the expiration of the signature certificate. As in the previous version of the Russian law regulating this area, the new version states that if the electronic signature certificate has expired, the signed document is still considered legally significant if there is evidence that the signature was created at the time of “life” of this certificate.
Technically, this is a very strange decision: if the certificate has expired, it can be compromised, and the document itself is changed and you cannot trust it in its pure form. Unfortunately, focusing on this point of the law, people seldom think about the dangers that their documents are exposed to and what consequences this may have. And this is only part of the issues that require improvement.

For the dissemination of e-signature is also important educational moment. That is, a program would be very desirable (best of all, at the federal level), in which users were explained in an intelligible form what a tool like EDS is, where it can be used, what opportunities it gives, and so on. Now such a single program does not exist, and who will be involved (if it is implemented) the educational aspect is not clear.