2 ms·
In my ideal world I wouldn't need to futz with "e-signatures" or any sort of visual representation of my signature. I fail to see what's wrong with standard pub
by thecoffman 16y ago
In my ideal world I wouldn't need to futz with "e-signatures" or any sort of visual representation of my signature. I fail to see what's wrong with standard public key encryption - why can't I sign a document the same way I sign an email - with my keypair.
When it came time to renew my lease for my St. Louis apartment, but I was still in San Francsico, I had to do exactly what is described in this article. Sign a blank paper, photograph my signature, paste the photo into the PDF on the signature line, and send it back via eFax. How dumb is that? Its not secure in any way, and there's absolutely ZERO proof that it came from me. On the other hand if I sign it with my private key, there may not be a pretty handwritten copy of my name on the line - but there's fairly strong proof that I am the one that actually submitted the form.
Maybe there needs to be a fancy GUI on top of all of it that somehow links PGP signatures to images of handwritten signatures to satisfy people that are fixated on them, but to me, electronically signing documents with an honest-to-god handwritten signature is something that needs to die: yesterday.
- smalter 16y agoas visual representation of the signature isn't a requirement as a matter of law. places like docusign, etc., use it because it makes people feel safe and secure, as if they're hand signing paper documents. imagine if the question as to whether you signed a document came before a court. you're right: the question would be, what evidence shows that thecoffman signed this? and public key encryption would be stronger than an image of a handsigning.