3 ms·

Yes this is the point about docusign being half assed. It doesn't do any identity validation really. It should verify the signer and the signee are the parties

by baz00 3y ago

Yes this is the point about docusign being half assed. It doesn't do any identity validation really. It should verify the signer and the signee are the parties in question using identity services. It doesn't. I believe it can but it doesn't usually get used.

bombcar 3y ago
A signed document that isn't notarized is just a formality, in my opinion. If you care enough to get it really signed, pay the notary.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Most people's signature these days isn't much more an attestation than putting on an X on the line or checking a box that "I agree." Docusign just makes the process a bit more formal. To the degree that signing a lot of documents is something of a formality, most of us don't want to have to go to a notary every time we need to put our signature on something.
mindslight 3y ago
So then every Docusign use would demand that you help the surveillance companies verify the files they have on you, where you used to live, etc? And then they would use this shoddy "verification" as evidence that the person who clicked accepted was really you? No thanks! What actually needs to happen is that things like Docusign need to be contextualized and treated as the appropriate amount of evidence of a contract that they are. Which is to say not much, just like a piece of paper with a signature on it these days. A "signed" Docusign is evidence that someone opened an email link and clicked a box from a certain IP. It does not prove that a specific person did this. It does not prove that the person who did this actually read, understood, and agreed with the words in the document. In fact, a Docusign that didn't allow marking up the document is itself evidence that the person in question was coerced into accepting unilateral boilerplate terms, rather than being able to make modifications. Like many legacy systems in the US, the jankiness from using an antiquated system is actually preventing a much more draconian system that would develop if the abstraction was made solid (for a straightforward example, see "identity theft").

by baz00 3y ago

bombcar 3y ago

A signed document that isn't notarized is just a formality, in my opinion. If you care enough to get it really signed, pay the notary.

ghaff 3y ago
Most people's signature these days isn't much more an attestation than putting on an X on the line or checking a box that "I agree." Docusign just makes the process a bit more formal. To the degree that signing a lot of documents is something of a formality, most of us don't want to have to go to a notary every time we need to put our signature on something.

mindslight 3y ago

So then every Docusign use would demand that you help the surveillance companies verify the files they have on you, where you used to live, etc? And then they would use this shoddy "verification" as evidence that the person who clicked accepted was really you? No thanks! What actually needs to happen is that things like Docusign need to be contextualized and treated as the appropriate amount of evidence of a contract that they are. Which is to say not much, just like a piece of paper with a signature on it these days. A "signed" Docusign is evidence that someone opened an email link and clicked a box from a certain IP. It does not prove that a specific person did this. It does not prove that the person who did this actually read, understood, and agreed with the words in the document. In fact, a Docusign that didn't allow marking up the document is itself evidence that the person in question was coerced into accepting unilateral boilerplate terms, rather than being able to make modifications. Like many legacy systems in the US, the jankiness from using an antiquated system is actually preventing a much more draconian system that would develop if the abstraction was made solid (for a straightforward example, see "identity theft").