4 ms·

I just had this conversation with my lawyer, in the Netherlands, and probably most or Europe, signing digitally is not legally binding. I’m sure this will be di

I just had this conversation with my lawyer, in the Netherlands, and probably most or Europe, signing digitally is not legally binding. I’m sure this will be different for different jurisdictions.

ryanlol 5y ago
This is nonsense. Adobe offers a handy review of the Dutch law on this subject https://helpx.adobe.com/sign/using/legality-netherlands.html https://helpx.adobe.com/sign/using/legality-netherlands.html
- dsomers 5y ago
  I don’t think you read or understood the link you posted or my original comment? You know I was saying that in the context of gp asking if it’s legal to sign in Apple preview which is essentially appending a picture of your signature to a pdf with no guarantee from a third party if it’s you that signed it. I don’t know, maybe English is not your native language, in that case, you’re mistake is understandable.
  - ryanlol 5y ago
    Your mistake, not mine. You’re confusing “legally binding” and “binding evidence”, these are two different things. You will have a bad time if you sign a contract using apple preview and then try to argue that you’re not bound by that contract.
    - dsomers 5y ago
      From the page you linked to: > For documents signed with a non-qualified electronic signature (e-signature), the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that the signature must be ‘sufficiently reliable’ for the document to be classified as binding evidence. If the documents are not classified as binding evidence, additional evidence may be required to demonstrate the authenticity of the e- signature. Apple preview is not sufficient in itself and needs additional evidence to support the reliability of it. I never said that it could not be used as evidence, but it’s not sufficient in itself. Again bro, reading skills, work on them.
      - ryanlol 5y ago
        I’m sorry that you’re incapable of understanding the text you just pasted. It confirms everything I’ve said. > Apple preview is not sufficient in itself and needs additional evidence to support the reliability of it. The situation is not meaningfully different than with a wet signature on paper. It doesn’t matter if you sign the contract with a pen or using the preview tool, in the Netherlands you are equally bound by both. If you dispute the authenticity of the signature, the situation will not be any different between the two. And bro, work on your attitude.
        dsomers 5y ago
        > The situation is not meaningfully different than with a wet signature on paper. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding the context of my original comment. Just because a wet signature could be used as evidence, does not mean you should go around spilling water on contracts, nor will any Dutch lawyer recommend you do so. I literally talked to my Dutch lawyer about this exactly situation with Apple Preview and she said no, it’s not a good practice and there’s no guarantee it will be accepted on its own. Seriously, how much legal experience so do have? You know law is not always exactly literal and has to be interpreted by real courts. I’m pretty sure you’re just some nerd on the internet that is just making a lot of nonsense assumptions about the law. Thanks, but I’ll stick with the advice of my 300 euro and hour lawyer that has practiced law for a decade rather than some know it all neck beard on an Internet forum.
        ryanlol 5y ago
        You’re utterly confused. Non-notarized paper signatures or apple preview signatures are obviously a questionable practice. They’re still legally binding, but not binding evidence. If there’s a dispute regarding the authenticity of the signature, that’ll require unnecessary litigation that would have been avoided by using a notary or an accepted cryptographic signature. (Or simply a video recording of both parties agreeing to the contract, this is really flexible) Let me quote your original comment: > I just had this conversation with my lawyer, in the Netherlands, and probably most or Europe, signing digitally is not legally binding. I’m sure this will be different for different jurisdictions. This is completely wrong, you are 100% bound by a contract you signed with Preview.app. Does that mean it’s a good practice? No. > it’s not a good practice and there’s no guarantee it will be accepted on its own. See, this is completely different from your original claim. I’m not sure why you are continuing with this bullshit, I think we both know that your original comment was incorrect.
ushakov 5y ago
from https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/eSignature+FAQ https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/eSig... > An electronic signature (either simple, advanced or qualified) shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements for qualified electronic signatures. more specifically: > Regarding qualified electronic signatures, they explicitly have the equivalent legal effect of handwritten signatures across all EU Member States. fire your lawyer i guess
- jasomill 5y ago
  To paraphrase my (non-lawyer) understanding of these two FAQ passages: 1. Evidence of an electronic signature is not a priori inadmissible in court. 2. A "qualified electronic signature", i.e., a cryptographic digital signature created by an approved hardware crypto device using keys from a certificate meeting certain requirements verified by an approved certification authority, is equivalent to a conventional paper signature. If anything, this suggests to me that, in many practical contexts, "'click here to sign'-style Web form signatures are not legally binding" may well be a reasonable plain-language summary of Dutch law, notwithstanding EU e-signature regulations.
- dsomers 5y ago
  Haha, okay random guy on the internet that’s probably has no legal qualifications. You know I was saying that in the context of gp asking if it’s legal to sign in Apple preview which is essentially appending a picture of your signature to a pdf with no guarantee from a third party if it’s you that signed it. Also note, laws are not always strictly literal and have to be interpreted by a court. But I’m sure you’re aware of that with your vast legal training.
detaro 5y ago
It really depends on the context. For plenty purposes, pretty much anything that indicates mutual agreement can be legally binding. E.g. if you call a company to order something, you enter a contract without anything written down at all, and it comes down to "but can you make a convincing case this actually happened as you say it did". Business deals can be made over email. etc. In any such cases, the digital signing services like DocuSign just add another way of documenting agreement. (and presumably people think it's clearer proof or more convenient or ... - it's an interesting question what a court would make out of whatever DocuSign records about a signature) For other things, there are stricter legal standards of what kind of form of agreement is required, and only then they don't work. I've mentioned this example here a few times, but recently a German grocery delivery startup fell into the trap of using DocuSign for their work contracts. You can enter work contracts just fine with it, but specific clauses in work contracts require paper signature (or a strong cryptographic digital signature), so suddenly the contracts they had intended to be temp contracts were permanent contracts. (I believe DocuSign also offers the "proper" qualified cryptographic signatures, but that's not the usual flows people think of when DocuSign is mentioned)
kaetemi 5y ago
A digital signature made using a government-issued smartcard is always a legal signature in Europe.
- logifail 5y ago
  > a government-issued smartcard Where are governments involved in directly issuing smartcards? The one "in my wallet" (spoiler: actually lurking in the back of my desk drawer, I use it so rarely) is issued by a private company who just happen to be on the government's list.
  - kaetemi 5y ago
    Belgium and Estonia, at least. It's part of the national id.
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      Just off the top of my head: Germany, France, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Romania (in Cluj, soon everywhere) I'm sure there are many more. E: Also Croatia, Czechia, Latvia, Liechenstein, Lithuania, Slovakia
- dsomers 5y ago
  You know I was saying that in the context of gp asking if it’s legal to sign in Apple preview which is essentially appending a picture of your signature to a pdf with no guarantee from a third party if it’s you that signed it.

I just had this conversation with my lawyer, in the Netherlands, and probably most or Europe, signing digitally is not legally binding. I’m sure this will be different for different jurisdictions.

ryanlol 5y ago

This is nonsense. Adobe offers a handy review of the Dutch law on this subject https://helpx.adobe.com/sign/using/legality-netherlands.html https://helpx.adobe.com/sign/using/legality-netherlands.html

dsomers 5y ago
I don’t think you read or understood the link you posted or my original comment? You know I was saying that in the context of gp asking if it’s legal to sign in Apple preview which is essentially appending a picture of your signature to a pdf with no guarantee from a third party if it’s you that signed it. I don’t know, maybe English is not your native language, in that case, you’re mistake is understandable.
- ryanlol 5y ago
  Your mistake, not mine. You’re confusing “legally binding” and “binding evidence”, these are two different things. You will have a bad time if you sign a contract using apple preview and then try to argue that you’re not bound by that contract.
  - dsomers 5y ago
    From the page you linked to: > For documents signed with a non-qualified electronic signature (e-signature), the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that the signature must be ‘sufficiently reliable’ for the document to be classified as binding evidence. If the documents are not classified as binding evidence, additional evidence may be required to demonstrate the authenticity of the e- signature. Apple preview is not sufficient in itself and needs additional evidence to support the reliability of it. I never said that it could not be used as evidence, but it’s not sufficient in itself. Again bro, reading skills, work on them.
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      I’m sorry that you’re incapable of understanding the text you just pasted. It confirms everything I’ve said. > Apple preview is not sufficient in itself and needs additional evidence to support the reliability of it. The situation is not meaningfully different than with a wet signature on paper. It doesn’t matter if you sign the contract with a pen or using the preview tool, in the Netherlands you are equally bound by both. If you dispute the authenticity of the signature, the situation will not be any different between the two. And bro, work on your attitude.
      - dsomers 5y ago
        > The situation is not meaningfully different than with a wet signature on paper. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding the context of my original comment. Just because a wet signature could be used as evidence, does not mean you should go around spilling water on contracts, nor will any Dutch lawyer recommend you do so. I literally talked to my Dutch lawyer about this exactly situation with Apple Preview and she said no, it’s not a good practice and there’s no guarantee it will be accepted on its own. Seriously, how much legal experience so do have? You know law is not always exactly literal and has to be interpreted by real courts. I’m pretty sure you’re just some nerd on the internet that is just making a lot of nonsense assumptions about the law. Thanks, but I’ll stick with the advice of my 300 euro and hour lawyer that has practiced law for a decade rather than some know it all neck beard on an Internet forum.
        ryanlol 5y ago
        You’re utterly confused. Non-notarized paper signatures or apple preview signatures are obviously a questionable practice. They’re still legally binding, but not binding evidence. If there’s a dispute regarding the authenticity of the signature, that’ll require unnecessary litigation that would have been avoided by using a notary or an accepted cryptographic signature. (Or simply a video recording of both parties agreeing to the contract, this is really flexible) Let me quote your original comment: > I just had this conversation with my lawyer, in the Netherlands, and probably most or Europe, signing digitally is not legally binding. I’m sure this will be different for different jurisdictions. This is completely wrong, you are 100% bound by a contract you signed with Preview.app. Does that mean it’s a good practice? No. > it’s not a good practice and there’s no guarantee it will be accepted on its own. See, this is completely different from your original claim. I’m not sure why you are continuing with this bullshit, I think we both know that your original comment was incorrect.

ushakov 5y ago

from https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/eSignature+FAQ https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/CEFDIGITAL/eSig... > An electronic signature (either simple, advanced or qualified) shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements for qualified electronic signatures. more specifically: > Regarding qualified electronic signatures, they explicitly have the equivalent legal effect of handwritten signatures across all EU Member States. fire your lawyer i guess

jasomill 5y ago
To paraphrase my (non-lawyer) understanding of these two FAQ passages: 1. Evidence of an electronic signature is not a priori inadmissible in court. 2. A "qualified electronic signature", i.e., a cryptographic digital signature created by an approved hardware crypto device using keys from a certificate meeting certain requirements verified by an approved certification authority, is equivalent to a conventional paper signature. If anything, this suggests to me that, in many practical contexts, "'click here to sign'-style Web form signatures are not legally binding" may well be a reasonable plain-language summary of Dutch law, notwithstanding EU e-signature regulations.
dsomers 5y ago
Haha, okay random guy on the internet that’s probably has no legal qualifications. You know I was saying that in the context of gp asking if it’s legal to sign in Apple preview which is essentially appending a picture of your signature to a pdf with no guarantee from a third party if it’s you that signed it. Also note, laws are not always strictly literal and have to be interpreted by a court. But I’m sure you’re aware of that with your vast legal training.

detaro 5y ago

It really depends on the context. For plenty purposes, pretty much anything that indicates mutual agreement can be legally binding. E.g. if you call a company to order something, you enter a contract without anything written down at all, and it comes down to "but can you make a convincing case this actually happened as you say it did". Business deals can be made over email. etc. In any such cases, the digital signing services like DocuSign just add another way of documenting agreement. (and presumably people think it's clearer proof or more convenient or ... - it's an interesting question what a court would make out of whatever DocuSign records about a signature) For other things, there are stricter legal standards of what kind of form of agreement is required, and only then they don't work. I've mentioned this example here a few times, but recently a German grocery delivery startup fell into the trap of using DocuSign for their work contracts. You can enter work contracts just fine with it, but specific clauses in work contracts require paper signature (or a strong cryptographic digital signature), so suddenly the contracts they had intended to be temp contracts were permanent contracts. (I believe DocuSign also offers the "proper" qualified cryptographic signatures, but that's not the usual flows people think of when DocuSign is mentioned)

kaetemi 5y ago

A digital signature made using a government-issued smartcard is always a legal signature in Europe.

logifail 5y ago
> a government-issued smartcard Where are governments involved in directly issuing smartcards? The one "in my wallet" (spoiler: actually lurking in the back of my desk drawer, I use it so rarely) is issued by a private company who just happen to be on the government's list.
- kaetemi 5y ago
  Belgium and Estonia, at least. It's part of the national id.
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    Just off the top of my head: Germany, France, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Romania (in Cluj, soon everywhere) I'm sure there are many more. E: Also Croatia, Czechia, Latvia, Liechenstein, Lithuania, Slovakia
dsomers 5y ago
You know I was saying that in the context of gp asking if it’s legal to sign in Apple preview which is essentially appending a picture of your signature to a pdf with no guarantee from a third party if it’s you that signed it.