2 ms·

I agree with this, but you can't dismiss the dissimilarity of these electronic "signatures" with the actual thing. Not being able to easily move the physical s

by nzp 13y ago

I agree with this, but you can't dismiss the dissimilarity of these electronic "signatures" with the actual thing. Not being able to easily move the physical signature still doesn't prevent forgery. In case of disputes the signature is examined and compared with the one you produce. The thing I can write on his pad, with my best effort, looks nothing like my signature. It's possible I'm some kind of an outlier (I have a sample of one, me), but I doubt it. I'm not sure it's just because of the mouse, though that makes things worse. Where I live we have smartcard IDs with biometric data on the chip. One of the things they record is the signature. It's done with a stylus and some kind of a touch sensitive screen (a really small one, which makes things worse). I took several shots but just couldn't write something that didn't look like a really bad fake of my signature. I pointed this out, but they were OK with it... EDIT: Just to add, the lines really do look nice though (much better than what I have on my ID card, for example)!

lisper 13y ago
You've missed the point. The problem is not the visual similarity of electronic and physical signatures (though that certainly doesn't help), the problem is that electronic signatures (not digital signatures -- two completely different things) are completely, utterly, irredeemably broken no matter what they look like. The visual aspects only matter insofar as so long as electronic signatures look bad people are less likely to take them seriously. But electronic signatures should never ever be taken seriously.
- nzp 13y ago
  Oh, no, no, maybe I didn't come through clear -- I completely understand and agree with what you're saying here. My remark was more along the lines of: even IF electronic signatures had the physical feature of not being easy to move, they still shouldn't be taken seriously because they don't look the same (in my experience at least). I also assume here that overt visual likeness plays a significant role in validation, but IANACE (court expert) so I may be completely mistaken.

by nzp 13y ago

lisper 13y ago

You've missed the point. The problem is not the visual similarity of electronic and physical signatures (though that certainly doesn't help), the problem is that electronic signatures (not digital signatures -- two completely different things) are completely, utterly, irredeemably broken no matter what they look like. The visual aspects only matter insofar as so long as electronic signatures look bad people are less likely to take them seriously. But electronic signatures should never ever be taken seriously.

nzp 13y ago
Oh, no, no, maybe I didn't come through clear -- I completely understand and agree with what you're saying here. My remark was more along the lines of: even IF electronic signatures had the physical feature of not being easy to move, they still shouldn't be taken seriously because they don't look the same (in my experience at least). I also assume here that overt visual likeness plays a significant role in validation, but IANACE (court expert) so I may be completely mistaken.