5 ms·

Having an audit log of access (both email and IP address) is extremely useful if someone asks "did this person actually perform the e-signature". You can then p

by judge2020 5y ago

Having an audit log of access (both email and IP address) is extremely useful if someone asks "did this person actually perform the e-signature". You can then perform motions regarding whether their email has compromised and, if needed, go to their ISP for IP assignment records to see if their account (mobile or home internet) was assigned to that IP. Docusign being the source of authority for the validity of the original IP<->signature log completes the chain of trust and allows this sort of validity defense to work.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
DocuSign does not have that source of authority exclusively. Competitors also have it.
- judge2020 5y ago
  I agree, competitors like HelloSign and Adobe Sign are pretty feature-complete and would have just as much brand recognition, and do have these same audit log features that specifically help with verifying the authenticity of documents in court. If I had to guess on why people might still choose docusign, it'd be because Docusign was the first on the scene and has the brand recognition - people are going to recognize it more often than if you mention a lower-marketshare competitor like "PandaDoc"[0]. Another reason is probably how the cost difference between competitors is such a low amount of admin overhead that it doesn't matter if you save a few thousand a year in costs or not. 0: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/22/pandadoc-the-e-document-startup-now-valued-at-1b-as-it-closes-a-big-series-c/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/22/pandadoc-the-e-document-st...
Teever 5y ago
I've always felt that this is the kind of service that a government should offer. It seems a little silly to have to pay a private entity for this kind of service and also a bit unreasonable that a private entity like Docusign is so enmeshed with the legal system.
- sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
  The government can barely keep a port open or bomb a proper target, and we want to give them control over what is true and what isn't?
  - Teever 5y ago
    Would you advocate for the privatization of the entire justice system?
    - rmbyrro 5y ago
      At least where I live, private arbitration is well appreciated: much faster, cheaper and reliable than the judicial system. So, yes, here I'd advocate most of the judicial system to be privatized.
      - rectang 5y ago
        Where I live (USA), private arbitration is definitely preferred by many corporations who require it, and despised by the people who are forced into it. See for example, "The Problem of Sexual Harassment and Forced Arbitration": https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-forced-arbitration/ https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-f...
        drdaeman 5y ago
        It's not an issue with private arbitration per se, it's an issue of being practically forced into it under unreasonable terms with no alternative options.
        rectang 5y ago
        The fact that you can't do that with the public courts but you can with private arbitration makes it an issue with private arbitration. Parties with fewer resources are at a huge disadvantage in either system, but there are degrees of disadvantage. It is misleading to examine the outcome of arbitration once the rules are "agreed" to without taking into account that the process of setting the rules strongly influences said outcome.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

DocuSign does not have that source of authority exclusively. Competitors also have it.

judge2020 5y ago
I agree, competitors like HelloSign and Adobe Sign are pretty feature-complete and would have just as much brand recognition, and do have these same audit log features that specifically help with verifying the authenticity of documents in court. If I had to guess on why people might still choose docusign, it'd be because Docusign was the first on the scene and has the brand recognition - people are going to recognize it more often than if you mention a lower-marketshare competitor like "PandaDoc"[0]. Another reason is probably how the cost difference between competitors is such a low amount of admin overhead that it doesn't matter if you save a few thousand a year in costs or not. 0: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/22/pandadoc-the-e-document-startup-now-valued-at-1b-as-it-closes-a-big-series-c/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/22/pandadoc-the-e-document-st...

Teever 5y ago

I've always felt that this is the kind of service that a government should offer. It seems a little silly to have to pay a private entity for this kind of service and also a bit unreasonable that a private entity like Docusign is so enmeshed with the legal system.

sushsjsuauahab 5y ago
The government can barely keep a port open or bomb a proper target, and we want to give them control over what is true and what isn't?
- Teever 5y ago
  Would you advocate for the privatization of the entire justice system?
  - rmbyrro 5y ago
    At least where I live, private arbitration is well appreciated: much faster, cheaper and reliable than the judicial system. So, yes, here I'd advocate most of the judicial system to be privatized.
    - rectang 5y ago
      Where I live (USA), private arbitration is definitely preferred by many corporations who require it, and despised by the people who are forced into it. See for example, "The Problem of Sexual Harassment and Forced Arbitration": https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-forced-arbitration/ https://www.correiaputh.com/news/problem-sexual-harassment-f...
      - drdaeman 5y ago
        It's not an issue with private arbitration per se, it's an issue of being practically forced into it under unreasonable terms with no alternative options.
        rectang 5y ago
        The fact that you can't do that with the public courts but you can with private arbitration makes it an issue with private arbitration. Parties with fewer resources are at a huge disadvantage in either system, but there are degrees of disadvantage. It is misleading to examine the outcome of arbitration once the rules are "agreed" to without taking into account that the process of setting the rules strongly influences said outcome.