3 ms·
I worked for a company with the most complete, secure and law-reliable e-sign solution. And this kind of startups offer, well, nothing more than a straight "sig
by meerita 14y ago
I worked for a company with the most complete, secure and law-reliable e-sign solution. And this kind of startups offer, well, nothing more than a straight "signature" solution. They don't offer any more than that. That signature has more o less 'Level 0' of evidence information in case you want to go a dispute.
The signature method is more or less like the current signatures you will use in USA, because you don't have an eID like us, europeans, wich allows us to sign documents with higher levels of law conformity, security and evidence.
Put it like this: anyone can make this, anyone. Unless you go with stronger methods, profiting eIDs, and certificates, you're just doing an useless signature solution.
- netcoyote 14y agoI'd be interested in learning more; can you provide the URL?
- meerita 14y agowww.tractis.com is one example of secure and more complete e-signature solution.
- BHSPitMonkey 14y ago> you're just doing an useless signature solution. I'd have to disagree; The authors are clearly filling a need by simplifying a process that a large amount of people (many of whom are here in this thread, it seems) do on a regular basis. Is the process itself horribly flawed? Of course. But people still have to do it this way, so we may as well automate it.
- meerita 14y agoI'm ok with that: filling the gap by simplifying _one_ type of progress. But it is not, clearly, the solution to the problem: do a esignature easy, automated (if such) and secure.