Yep, but the parent comment asked: If both are subject to vulnerabilities are there any upsides to continuing to use fax? Like a lot of things in the world, a

Yep, but the parent comment asked: If both are subject to vulnerabilities are there any upsides to continuing to use fax? Like a lot of things in the world, actual use comes down to practicality. There hasn't been a big enough scandal, yet, with regard to legal recognition of faxed documents. And it's a legacy format that remains in place, that allows for immediate communication of same. So, people use it. Thinking of this reminds me of U.S. voter registration and voting. Right now, we have a manufactured political uproar about supposed fraud and abuse of the extant systems. But studies have shown this to be very negligible. Yes, in theory voter registration in the states and municipalities could be further "secured". But, up until this use as a political tool, doing so wasn't viewed as necessary. Localities did a sufficient job of managing registration and identification of their own bases. And actually, the "security" of voter registration had to be forcibly loosened, in order to prevent it from being used as a tool of disenfranchisement (e.g. difficult tests to pass, in order to register -- but only for African Americans). Faxes aren't really "secure". But they are used to put an official, sanctioned imprimatur on what is already understood and happening, anyway, when the parties involved aren't immediately face-to-face. Maybe there are some cases over whether a faxed signature is genuine, but these apparently haven't risen in prominence to the point of derailing the faxed signature as legal mechanism. They would have a lot of convenience and "efficiency" -- these days, "necessity" -- to outweigh, before they would do so.