21 ms·

I'm in the US and as far as I know, a digital signature is completely valid. [edit: ~it's the same way here.~ Misinterpreted parent comment.] Yet Ford repeated

by radlad 5y ago

I'm in the US and as far as I know, a digital signature is completely valid. [edit: ~it's the same way here.~ Misinterpreted parent comment.] Yet Ford repeatedly insisted I print out the documents, sign them, and scan them. I tried a digital signature anyway - and they called me out on it.

rahimnathwani 5y ago
"I tried a digital signature anyway" Do you mean: A) a cryptographic signature? B) an image of your handwritten signature? C) something else? I think you and GP might be talking about different things.
- eof 5y ago
  Presumably B). I’ve had many instances where people insist I print, sign, scan, rather than e-sign. I too have put an image of my signature on the pdf rather than printing; I have had those both rejected and accepted. I don’t have a printer and have been annoyed by this insistence greatly. Enough that seeing this post filled me with glee.
- radlad 5y ago
  I meant B.
legalcorrection 5y ago
This is wrong, in the US an electronic signature can be just about anything. See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30025456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30025456
- radlad 5y ago
  What exactly is wrong? This doesn't contradict what I said. I agree my signature was valid without printing. It's frustrating that businesses do not. edit: I see that I misinterpreted the parent comment. Sorry.
jelling 5y ago
Yup, there was a literal act of congress that made e-signatures legally valid but it's not worth arguing with anyone who asks for an "ink" signature ime.
kube-system 5y ago
When companies ask for signatures to be done in a certain way, it’s often not because those things are a requirement to be a valid contract under the law, but because they want more evidence to support them should the contract be brought into question in court. You could theoretically, in some cases, run a business on nothing but verbal contracts, but you would be foolish to do so because you’d have difficulty proving anything if it were disputed.

by radlad 5y ago

rahimnathwani 5y ago

"I tried a digital signature anyway" Do you mean: A) a cryptographic signature? B) an image of your handwritten signature? C) something else? I think you and GP might be talking about different things.

eof 5y ago
Presumably B). I’ve had many instances where people insist I print, sign, scan, rather than e-sign. I too have put an image of my signature on the pdf rather than printing; I have had those both rejected and accepted. I don’t have a printer and have been annoyed by this insistence greatly. Enough that seeing this post filled me with glee.
radlad 5y ago
I meant B.

legalcorrection 5y ago

This is wrong, in the US an electronic signature can be just about anything. See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30025456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30025456

radlad 5y ago
What exactly is wrong? This doesn't contradict what I said. I agree my signature was valid without printing. It's frustrating that businesses do not. edit: I see that I misinterpreted the parent comment. Sorry.

jelling 5y ago

Yup, there was a literal act of congress that made e-signatures legally valid but it's not worth arguing with anyone who asks for an "ink" signature ime.

kube-system 5y ago

When companies ask for signatures to be done in a certain way, it’s often not because those things are a requirement to be a valid contract under the law, but because they want more evidence to support them should the contract be brought into question in court. You could theoretically, in some cases, run a business on nothing but verbal contracts, but you would be foolish to do so because you’d have difficulty proving anything if it were disputed.