5 ms·

It's still amusing to me that handwritten signatures, particularly in this day and age, are treated as secure or even meaningful for these kinds of purposes. C

It's still amusing to me that handwritten signatures, particularly in this day and age, are treated as secure or even meaningful for these kinds of purposes. Certainly they're useful symbols, but in the era of photoshop and copiers, a signed document without notarization isn't any more secure or meaningful as proof of anything than an unsigned one.

rayiner 11y ago
They're not treated as secure. They're mostly a symbolic gesture that indicates the final version of a document and provides a concrete act that can be the basis for a lawsuit or prosecution in the event false representations are made about a document.
- colordrops 11y ago
  But that's the point. How can a signature indicate the final version of a doc and provide basis for a lawsuit if the signature can't be verified as legitimate?
  - SEMW 11y ago
    It isn't providing the evidential basis, it's providing the legal basis. Ie the signature isn't used to authenticate in a public-key cryptography kind of way, it's being used as a legal trigger: 'if you write a name here that isn't yours, you are committing a criminal offence'. (How that offence is proved is a separate issue). Hence electronic signatures can be as simple as typing your name into a text box (or even just a checkbox). The (dubious) uniqueness of a handwritten signature is nonessential.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    In most every case, circumstantial evidence and witnesses can establish if the party that purportedly signed a document did in fact do so. The CEO of a company can't plausibly deny his signature on a contract when there are emails in evidence saying "let's get that contract signed tomorrow." So why do we bother to sign documents? Most of all, its a symbolic gesture intended to signal (to the parties and witnesses) the attachment of legal rights and obligations. It avoids disputes such as "yeah, he presented me with that document, but it was a proposal and I never agreed to it."
    - antsar 11y ago
      > can't plausibly deny his signature on a contract when there are emails in evidence saying "let's get that contract signed tomorrow." Is this true? An email showing intent to sign a contract, combined with a signature that somewhat resembles my own, is sufficient proof for a court that I actually signed that contract? That seems somewhat crazy.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Why does that seem crazy? Think about it statistically: you have evidence of intent to sign a contract, and a signed contract consistent with that evidence. In what percentage of cases was the contract actually not signed? Compare that to the burden of proof in a civil case--"more likely than not."
        antsar 11y ago
        I guess I assumed when they say "innocent until proven guilty", "proven" implies hard evidence, not just two facts that suggest that an event occurred.
        rdtsc 11y ago
        Yeah but "proven guilty" in a civil case is a different set of criteria than in a criminal case.
        peterwwillis 11y ago
        In most cases, there is no video tape, and almost never an actually smoking gun. "Proof" is whatever sounds reasonable to a judge or jury. It's also why our justice system is flawed: we sentence people without incontrovertible evidence all the time.
        tptacek 11y ago
        Defendants have a presumption of innocence, but accusers do not have a burden of mathematical proof. The closest you get to "innocent until proven guilty" in US law is common law's Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, and the Latin word "probatio" does a lot more work than just "mathematical proof". There's a good 30 minute Google jag you can have about this if you go search for [legal standards of proof].
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    Coincidentally, that's exactly the problem that notaries solve.
    - rdtsc 11y ago
      There are other things for signatures than just notaries. There is a "medalion signature guarantee" in which case certifying institution will be on the hook so to speak if they don't go the extra step to verify who is signing. They will usually ask for multiple ids, and will keep copies of them for records. Most people just never have to deal with that, it is kind of a obscure service that few bank provide these days to the public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medallion_signature_guarantee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medallion_signature_guarantee
- chipgap98 11y ago
  I don't think they are mostly symbolic when they constitute a legally binding contract
  - wvenable 11y ago
    They don't constitute a legally binding contract. You and I could have a conversation on the street and form a legally binding contract. Signatures are just used a simple form of verification of a contract.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      This depends upon which country the street is in.
      - peteretep 11y ago
        Which countries is that not true in?
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        In England I understand that a verbal contract is not worth much. However, in Scotland (very different legal tradition) a verbal contract can be totally and completely binding. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Don't sue someone/risk getting sued because of something I said!
        throwaway049 11y ago
        A verbal contract is binding in England but, as anywhere else, if you need to go to court to enforce that it's going to be harder to prove compared to a written contract with witnesses.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        I stand partially corrected. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/protection-for-the-consumer/consumer-contracts/consumer-contracts-must-the-contract-be-in-writing/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/protection-for-th... So you are right in many cases. But not all. The other example I was thinking of is regarding a house purchase. In England an offer to buy a house is not binding until contracts have been exchanged and a deposit paid and even then the deposit (usually 10%) is what your bound to. In Scotland however merely saying that you will buy someone else's house can supposedly bind you to the purchase. IANAL

rayiner 11y ago

They're not treated as secure. They're mostly a symbolic gesture that indicates the final version of a document and provides a concrete act that can be the basis for a lawsuit or prosecution in the event false representations are made about a document.

colordrops 11y ago
But that's the point. How can a signature indicate the final version of a doc and provide basis for a lawsuit if the signature can't be verified as legitimate?
- SEMW 11y ago
  It isn't providing the evidential basis, it's providing the legal basis. Ie the signature isn't used to authenticate in a public-key cryptography kind of way, it's being used as a legal trigger: 'if you write a name here that isn't yours, you are committing a criminal offence'. (How that offence is proved is a separate issue). Hence electronic signatures can be as simple as typing your name into a text box (or even just a checkbox). The (dubious) uniqueness of a handwritten signature is nonessential.
- rayiner 11y ago
  In most every case, circumstantial evidence and witnesses can establish if the party that purportedly signed a document did in fact do so. The CEO of a company can't plausibly deny his signature on a contract when there are emails in evidence saying "let's get that contract signed tomorrow." So why do we bother to sign documents? Most of all, its a symbolic gesture intended to signal (to the parties and witnesses) the attachment of legal rights and obligations. It avoids disputes such as "yeah, he presented me with that document, but it was a proposal and I never agreed to it."
  - antsar 11y ago
    > can't plausibly deny his signature on a contract when there are emails in evidence saying "let's get that contract signed tomorrow." Is this true? An email showing intent to sign a contract, combined with a signature that somewhat resembles my own, is sufficient proof for a court that I actually signed that contract? That seems somewhat crazy.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Why does that seem crazy? Think about it statistically: you have evidence of intent to sign a contract, and a signed contract consistent with that evidence. In what percentage of cases was the contract actually not signed? Compare that to the burden of proof in a civil case--"more likely than not."
      - antsar 11y ago
        I guess I assumed when they say "innocent until proven guilty", "proven" implies hard evidence, not just two facts that suggest that an event occurred.
        rdtsc 11y ago
        Yeah but "proven guilty" in a civil case is a different set of criteria than in a criminal case.
        peterwwillis 11y ago
        In most cases, there is no video tape, and almost never an actually smoking gun. "Proof" is whatever sounds reasonable to a judge or jury. It's also why our justice system is flawed: we sentence people without incontrovertible evidence all the time.
        tptacek 11y ago
        Defendants have a presumption of innocence, but accusers do not have a burden of mathematical proof. The closest you get to "innocent until proven guilty" in US law is common law's Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, and the Latin word "probatio" does a lot more work than just "mathematical proof". There's a good 30 minute Google jag you can have about this if you go search for [legal standards of proof].
- jdmichal 11y ago
  Coincidentally, that's exactly the problem that notaries solve.
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    There are other things for signatures than just notaries. There is a "medalion signature guarantee" in which case certifying institution will be on the hook so to speak if they don't go the extra step to verify who is signing. They will usually ask for multiple ids, and will keep copies of them for records. Most people just never have to deal with that, it is kind of a obscure service that few bank provide these days to the public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medallion_signature_guarantee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medallion_signature_guarantee
chipgap98 11y ago
I don't think they are mostly symbolic when they constitute a legally binding contract
- wvenable 11y ago
  They don't constitute a legally binding contract. You and I could have a conversation on the street and form a legally binding contract. Signatures are just used a simple form of verification of a contract.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    This depends upon which country the street is in.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      Which countries is that not true in?
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        In England I understand that a verbal contract is not worth much. However, in Scotland (very different legal tradition) a verbal contract can be totally and completely binding. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Don't sue someone/risk getting sued because of something I said!
        throwaway049 11y ago
        A verbal contract is binding in England but, as anywhere else, if you need to go to court to enforce that it's going to be harder to prove compared to a written contract with witnesses.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        I stand partially corrected. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/protection-for-the-consumer/consumer-contracts/consumer-contracts-must-the-contract-be-in-writing/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/protection-for-th... So you are right in many cases. But not all. The other example I was thinking of is regarding a house purchase. In England an offer to buy a house is not binding until contracts have been exchanged and a deposit paid and even then the deposit (usually 10%) is what your bound to. In Scotland however merely saying that you will buy someone else's house can supposedly bind you to the purchase. IANAL