Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Will Digital Signatures Replace Handwritten Ones? (thestar.com) 111

Posted by EditorDavid from the cursive-foiled-again dept.
The Toronto Star notes "the near-elimination of cursive from the school curriculum and a move to paperless commerce" over the past two decades. So where does that leave handwritten signatures? Then the pandemic hit, and with it came an accelerated adoption of technology, including the electronic signature, which helped us through forcibly distant transactions. Overnight, companies like Docusign and Adobe became vital lifelines as people shifted to relying on e-signatures. Docusign, for example, went from 585,000 customers in 2020 to 1.1 million as of January 2022 and revenue over the same period grew from $974 million to $2.1 billion, according to the company's most recent annual report. "We believe that once businesses have shifted to digital agreement processes, they will not return to manual ones," noted Docusign.

So even as life has returned to a semblance of normal, the now near ubiquitous option to just tap an electronic device doesn't bode well for the signature as we know it.... During the pandemic, jurisdictions round the world, including Ontario, amended legislation or relaxed rules around contract activity to mitigate the challenges social distancing posed....

Since 2006, the Ontario language curriculum lists cursive only as an option beginning in Grade 3. A plan by the Toronto Catholic District School Board in 2019 to reintroduce it as part of a pilot project was shuttered by the pandemic. And so you get stories of parents shocked to discover their child has to resort to block letters on a passport because they don't know how to "sign" their name.
Digital signatures may be poised for even more growth. Market research firm P&S Intelligence estimates that just the U.S. digital signature market alone "stood at $921.3 million in 2021," and "will propel at a mammoth compound annual growth rate of 31.2% in the years to come, reaching $10.6 billion by 2030."

Of course, there's always the question of whether or not handwritten signatures ever worked in the first place.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Digital Signatures Replace Handwritten Ones? More

Will Digital Signatures Replace Handwritten Ones?

Comments Filter:
  • why bother when there are cameras everywhere doing facial recognition ?
  • Legally already is (an alternative), here in Brazil, in several areas

  • If you can't write or at least block print. (Score:3)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Saturday January 14, 2023 @07:01PM (#63209192)
    You will always be the lesser candidate on the hiring list. And be starting life with a big disadvantage.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Many of the best paid professions have notoriously bad handwriting, e.g. doctors. There was a story recently about Google's triumph in developing an AI capable of reading doctor's script.

      That said, handwriting has little to do with signatures. Neither does legibility.

      Signatures are already going digital too. Thanks to a tip from ShanghaiBill, I scanned by signature and now just paste it into documents that I want to send electronically. In Japan they never used signatures, they used unique name stamps inste

      • Yesterday, a Japanese woman told me how her aunt lost the family fortune because she and her husband used her father's stamp, interested the money unwisely and lost it...

        I consider that a warning for this story...

  • DIgital signature mean nothing! (usually) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Saturday January 14, 2023 @07:03PM (#63209196) Homepage
    Unless your digital signature is cryptographically based, such that there is only a single source of truth, PGP, then your digital signature is functionally useless! Of course, you don't have to use PGP, but unless you have a single source of cryptographic truth to absolutely verify "Murdoch5" IS "Murdoch5", then "Murdoch5" as a signature is the same as calling myself "Mr Rogers", and taking it on face value, something you should never do!

    Schools got rid of cursive, but that has very little to do with the scope of the problem. Society has moved from caring who is who, to just accepting anyone who calls themselves "X" is "X", think about it, how many times are sent you sent a PGP signed email? How many companies send you a PGP signed email? Hell, have you ever seen anyone PGP sign anything? My guess is no, which my point, people love to "digitally sign" stuff, but they use worthless signatures.

    • Re:DIgital signature mean nothing! (usually) (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday January 14, 2023 @07:59PM (#63209264)

      Digital signatures mean no less than analogue signatures.

      How many companies send you a PGP signed email? Hell, have you ever seen anyone PGP sign anything? My guess is no, which my point, people love to "digitally sign" stuff, but they use worthless signatures.

      I take it you've never worked in a company before? 100% of emails we send are digitally signed. Just because you don't see a big plain text load of gibberish at the end of an email doesn't mean it isn't signed, take a look at the header at some point. Same with PDFs. On a daily basis I get documents to sign. Hitting the "sign" button in acrobat does more than just drop your initials in a cursive font on the screen, it signs the document to allow you to verify its authenticity afterwards. If you work in a company with any halfway competent IT department it will automatically use a signature based on the same credentials you authenticate yourself to internally, meaning any legal challenge can very much identify *you* as the person who signed the document, ... or at least your PC.

      Then you may have heard of the little company Docusign? The one that has boomed hugely during the pandemic. Yeah underneath that little signature you can scribble on with your touch screen is also an X.509 certificate.

      You need to look a bit deeper before you claim that people don't do something that is widely done. The world has moved beyond appending a wall of plaintext gibberish to your emails.

      • Digital signatures mean no less than analogue signatures.

        This is the big detail. They do exactly the same things, and that's important.

        Signatures don't prevent fraud, and never have. That is, criminals don't think: "I was going to commit fraud, but I've changed my mind because there is a signature requirement!" That's not the point.

        Signatures have quite a few useful features, and they are important both for wet signatures and digital signatures:

        • * They provide evidence that they agreed to the same document, or to copies of the same document. If you went back a
        • You're absolutely right, but my point was that if we want to get into digital signatures, we need signatures that fulfill single source of truth to make them meaningful. A signature is effectively meaningless on paper, unless Y can show X signed it. If Y can't show X signed something, then X isn't actually bound to the conditions of Y's "contract", using that liberally to mean anything requiring signing.

          There are limited conditions where you automatically bound without signing, but for the most part you

          • my point was that if we want to get into digital signatures, we need signatures that fulfill single source of truth to make them meaningful. A signature is effectively meaningless on paper, unless Y can show X signed it. If Y can't show X signed something, then X isn't actually bound to the conditions of Y's "contract", using that liberally to mean anything requiring signing.

            Not really.

            Nonrepudiation is hard, and always has been. Even with witnesses and notaries fraudsters can find an accomplice if they try.

            A "single source of truth" has never solved the problem of authentication, and instead, merely served to create more ways to challenge or create problems.

            The actual problems people face regarding agreements are real, but those two specifically are almost never among them.

            As a whole, humanity has trillions of agreements every day, from major purchases with real estate and

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Then you may have heard of the little company Docusign? The one that has boomed hugely during the pandemic. Yeah underneath that little signature you can scribble on with your touch screen is also an X.509 certificate.

        This is pure theater, unless you are doing the signing on your own trusted hardware, which is basically unavailable. If you "sign" things on the hardware of your adversary, it is just asking for trouble.

        • Yup, Docusign is a joke. Putting a gibberishly aka handwritten name in a PDF has less than 0 value, as it cheats as if to be signed. I can put 10 of such in a PDF. Only ensurance, that it was me ever looking and probably intending to "sign" it is that I have to log on to their site before signing. But how secure is the logon and data storage and flow on their site and backends? How many employees can access my signed or not PDF? I am pretty sure they don't have enough security for me to trust every element
          • For me, I bought a car a few years ago, pre-pandemic. The dealer had this giant table and I assume it was docusign. I scribbled my sig on the table using a electronic pen. It was the biggest cluster-f I'd ever seen. Why they probably paid a ton for what worked just as well with paper was a mystery to me. And as you say, I still "signed" it the way I would paper, although just like when I use my finger to sign a cc electronic signature, the signature looked nothing like when I use pen and paper.
        • 100%, because if you don't have a single source of truth, you have nothing. The reason you need to get documents witnessed and notarized, is because you can't trust a signature. My entire point was that you need to prove X is X, and if X derives Y based on their private key, you MUST be able to show X owns that private key, to make Y (a public key), mean anything!

          I've been a supporter of PGP on email for years, because PGP can prove X sent you the email, period.

        • You're asking for a level of trust and authenticity that isn't there. The traditional signature can be forged as well. What of it? It works well enough that we built an entire functioning society around its use.

          "Theatre" or no, it gets the job done just fine.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

        100% of emails we send are digitally signed.

        I get many emails and have yet to see any corporate emails with a digital signature of the employee. I get a lot of SPAM that has a DKIM signature but that is not a signed document as referenced in the article.

        As far as Docusign is concerned it's a long way from replacing my signature. Docusign offers a service not a signature. I have yet to experience the service but I believe they don't give you the private key. I am sure you can't sign a document without their involvement so I really don't think it repl

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
          Hold on spam is DKMI signed, what domains does thatbsoam come from? If they come from a legit domain and server (ie if the spam comes fro ( poorly picked example) cnn.com and has a valid dkim signature for cnns mx, it's either time to see if you have some subscriptions going there or conract the right person and say that either there serir server is misconfigured or their dkim keys are compromize. Allso check that they use dnssec, if they don't we can't trust what dns return.
          • Microsoft often falls victim to this, and I've reported it N times, it gets insane how often they fail DNS verification.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

            DKIM signed SPAM comes from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo as well as from other sites. DNSSEC can't fix the problem. DKIM can fix spoofing but you have to check the domain to be sure that it's spelled correctly.

        • I get many emails and have yet to see any corporate emails with a digital signature of the employee.

          I take it you don't work at a major engineering firm. Shit even our vendors send digital signed emails, and no I'm not talking about DKIM.

          As far as Docusign is concerned it's a long way from replacing my signature. Docusign offers a service not a signature.

          Docusign is an implementation of something that allows you to sign, nothing more. If someone sends you a document via docusign, you signing it there replaces your signature. There's no ifs or buts about that. Whether you use their service personally to with others is irrelevant. Your post is like complaining about the bank teller handing you their pen to sign your mortgag

      • In the industry which I work, a digital signature is whatever image is injected into a PDF.

        Many our customersâ(TM)s customers want a paper contract to sign because cut and paste makes them nervous (rightfully so).

        I would prefer that digital signature (ala DocuSign or HelloSign) were used in place of images.

        So far, our customers have rejected the suggestion.

      • You completely misunderstood what I said, I asked have you seen PGP in action (paraphrased)? My point was that you, the person doing the signing has to control the private key, not a company, not a third party. Unless you, the person doing the signing, hold the private key, and derive public keys from it, then the public key means nothing because it's can't be cryptographically verified back to a single source of truth, that is controlled by the person making the signature.

        Of course we generically sign t

        • My point was we need single source of truth signatures

          No. What you are saying is that you want security that doesn't need verification. A "single source of truth" is desirable because it eliminates thinking. "Does this signature mean what we want it to mean?" becomes irrelevant if we can say the only person who could have possibly made the signature is X. The circumstances of that signature's creation then become trivial to ignore. "Well, they should have kept it secure!" pours out of the mouths of all who would desire such a system.

          In that regard, your pro

          • Absolutely not! "Security" as a summary topic is VERY important, but there's a huge difference between "security" as a summary topic; and “identity validation”. It's great SMNP can leverage TLS, and it's great we have things like DKIM, and DMARC, but none of those can prove “X” is “X”. At best, I have an email that was sent with reasonable security, but who sent it, and can I prove they sent it? Unless I can cryptographically verify the identity of X against a privately

      • Yeah underneath that little signature you can scribble on with your touch screen is also an X.509 certificate.

        Where is the private key for that certificate held?

  • I have one person on my team who essentially can't do cursive, and his printing needs extensive work. Trying to read some of his characters is almost like trying to read kanji. Sometimes even he can't tell what he wrote.

    If anyone needs a digital signature, it would be him. Also, he's a millennial.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 )

      I have one person on my team who essentially can't do cursive, and his printing needs extensive work. Trying to read some of his characters is almost like trying to read kanji. Sometimes even he can't tell what he wrote.

      If anyone needs a digital signature, it would be him. Also, he's a millennial.

      A millennial and a doctor too. That is impressive.

      • I have one person on my team who essentially can't do cursive, and his printing needs extensive work. Trying to read some of his characters is almost like trying to read kanji. Sometimes even he can't tell what he wrote.

        If anyone needs a digital signature, it would be him. Also, he's a millennial.

        A millennial and a doctor too. That is impressive.

        You forgot the /s.

    • Re:What about printing? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lowvisioncomputing ( 10234616 ) on Saturday January 14, 2023 @08:24PM (#63209322) Homepage Journal

      I have one person on my team who essentially can't do cursive, and his printing needs extensive work. Trying to read some of his characters is almost like trying to read kanji. Sometimes even he can't tell what he wrote.

      If anyone needs a digital signature, it would be him. Also, he's a millennial.

      If that person is left-handed, have them print the letters in reverse order. For example, when printing the numbers 1234.56, do the 6, then 5, then 4 etc. Turns leftie's illegible scrawls into easily readable printing.

      Pen nibs tend to dig into the paper when writing left-to-right. This makes the physical dynamics of the ball in the pen point work same as right-handed people - and this also applies for markers.

      • Every left-handed person I have met has already learned how to print from right to left without a problem. It's just the same as asking a right-handed person to draw a box counter-clockwise. It only takes about two minutes to learn to angle the paper so your writing hand doesn't drag over what you've just written.

        When left-handers can't rotate the writing surface enough, they adopt the iconic cranked wrist position so the ink has enough time to dry before the hand drags over it. Many of them prefer the e

        • Lol, you all make it sound like its some kind of major issue that us poor lefties have to deal with. I honestly haven't ever had much issue with the ink smearing on paper, even without resorting to special pens, angling paper, or weird hand positions. It just isn't typically an issue unless you're mashing your hand into the paper or writing with a fountain pen. But I'll bring it up in my next 'coping with left-handedness' victim's support group meeting and see if it causes trouble for others.

      • Or ... he could learn how to right. The world is full of lefties who write from left to right just fine without some magic "you won't believe this one trick!" solution.

        • How would you know, unless you're a leftie? It's damn hard to make writing legible because when you're pushing the pen/pencil, the point digs into the paper instead of being dragged along. This increases friction, resulting in more force and less precision. Also look at how so many lefties have to adopt an awkward writing angle just so they can actually see what they're writing - otherwise their hand blocks the letters as they write them.
    • Trying to read some of his characters is almost like trying to read kanji.

      Kanji is quite easy to learn if you try, and you can (well I can) look it up in a dictionary.

      Icons however, are completely indecipherable, and change every time there is a software upgrade, just to keep you confused.

      Icons are essentially a way to avoid communicating efficiently, and are unfit for most purposes for which they are currently used.

  • Yes and it's already the case (Score:5, Informative)

    by test321 ( 8891681 ) on Saturday January 14, 2023 @07:46PM (#63209256)

    Some countries are issuing identity cards which contain a cryptographic chip (like on the credit cards). PDF documents (contracts, etc.) are signed with the personal identity card (you buy a cheap usb card reader and need to type a PIN in an app). For certain procedures with the public administration, it's the standard way to sign documents, if not the only one already (except if you are a foreigner without that special ID card).

    This is not connected to the handwriting abilities from school. Also, Docusign is not a cryptographic signature (it's a service that keeps track of metadata like IP and browser fingerprint of who clicked which button at which time, giving them some sort of "evidence" it was a certain user that signed it).

    • Some countries are issuing identity cards which contain a cryptographic chip (like on the credit cards). PDF documents (contracts, etc.) are signed with the personal identity card (you buy a cheap usb card reader and need to type a PIN in an app). For certain procedures with the public administration, it's the standard way to sign documents, if not the only one already (except if you are a foreigner without that special ID card).

      There are similarities among identity cards, digital signatures, and East Asian signature seals, including being somewhat hard to create, hard to revoke, and relying on possession for authentication. These characteristics make these authentication tokens problematics when stolen (like the rogue ARM China guy who had possession of the all-important seal). Seals have been fading out of favor due to these reasons. The PIN used with the identity card is better than no PIN. However, it's similar in security

      • relying on possession for authentication.

        Yes that's great, that's exactly what I like about it. Nearly impossible to replicate remotely, you need to physically assault me to get it from me, followed by me complaining at the police and the stolen card becoming useless on the same day. Whatever happens after the police report will not be legally binding to me, which is all what matters. It's like the credit cards after reported stolen to the bank. I cannot confirm as it never happened to me, but I have great hopes that after I report a credit card s

    • Many laptops have a built in ID card reader option, that way you don't need an external reader.
  • Sure digitally sign something to verify it came through intact, but if it matters long term get a signature in writing on a document.

    And if you can only manage to put an X on the signature line - your school has failed you. We have failed you. You are a failure.

  • Written signatures are throwback (Score:4, Informative)

    by Malays2 bowman ( 6656916 ) on Saturday January 14, 2023 @08:12PM (#63209300)

    To the olden days. Centuries ago. And who outside of detectives even checks to see if a signature does belong to the person it's supposed to?

    It's no more than a legal formality but does absolutely little to nothing for security.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

      I stopped a few fraudulent checks because the signatures did not match. In the past it was easy to deny unauthorized credit card transactions based on the signature. It was called bank or credit card fraud. Today we have a PIN and cameras all over the place. Not sure if you can hide the PIN from all the cameras especially since the cameras are getting smaller and smaller. Now we call it identity theft and the banks have less to worry about. It's the consumers problem.

      I have yet to see a better implemented s

  • Because they forgot to teach kids how to write.

  • remembering the first 10 digits of Pi was hard already!

  • Cursive... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GotNoRice ( 7207988 ) on Saturday January 14, 2023 @08:49PM (#63209362)
    I have not had a single reason to use Cursive ever since I graduated from school. Why would anyone use cursive in modern times? Who hand writes anything at all these days beyond maybe a grocery list? I always felt that one of the failings of cursive is that it had just a bit too much "style". People write in cursive, and think it's a good thing when they do so with lots of "style" but what they are actually doing it making it harder for people to read. 50 years ago someone might have said "Nice handwriting!". Today, people just cringe when they see something written in cursive.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      I do a lot of hand-writing, for example interview notes. The cognitive load of using a computer is just too high and the possibilities are not the same. Eventually I may do that on a tablet, but at this time I am still on high-quality paper and high-quality ink-rollers (always a black and a red one). That said, I stopped using cursive immediately when I actually started to need to take notes. Cursive is badly designed crap and in the first math-lecture at University I tried to take notes in cursive which re

      • Practicing cursive used to be a way of teaching fine motor control but we have smartphones and game pads for that now. However I still think the basics should be taught if nothing more than to be able to have a signature - to me they still mean something.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          I have no problem at all with cursive being taught in art class (which is where it belongs). They could actually teach you how to come up with a personal signature as well there, but at least I never was taught anything like that. I do have a massive problem with cursive being taught as the primary way of writing. That is just malicious.

    • Why would anyone use cursive in modern times?

      Perhaps it's the exception that proves the rule, but a greeting card, personal letter, or formal invitation that is handwritten in legible, easy to read cursive seems more "personal" than than if it were written in non-cursive letters or done on a computer in a "script" font.

      Of course, if it's not legible, it's useless. If it's technically legible but hard to read, then please, please don't use cursive: It's borderline rude to make me, the recipient of your card/letter/invitation, strain my brain to read

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Cyberax ( 705495 )

      Why would anyone use cursive in modern times?

      I can write cursive in my native language fast enough to follow a normal-speed conversation. This is very helpful for things like interviews or when you're making notes on a presentation.

      I can type faster, but it's well-established by multiple studies that the act of writing helps to improve the amount of material that you memorize.

      • Same here: I can take notes in cursive faster than any other means (manual or electronic).

        But I've noticed that in training/handoff/spin-up meetings, none of the younger set takes notes in any form whatsoever. That I would like to hear an explanation for...

    • If you don't regularly handwrite stuff on paper, the I'm sorry, but it looks like you need to get your life together.

    • I take pages of notes in client meetings daily. I usually go through a legal pad every couple.of months. That much writing is faster for me to do in cursive than trying to print. Writing is less disruptive to a conversation than typing as well.

      When I transfer my notes later in the day from paper to electronic, I have an opportunity to review and possibly update the notes as I type them into other tools.

    • I know how to write cursive as I leant in school.

      Unfortunately my handwriting / signing is such that my signature is always different. So if I sign a cheque the bank either outright rejects it since it does not match what they have on file or have to contact me to verify if it's legit.

  • Cursive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Saturday January 14, 2023 @10:33PM (#63209482)

    >"the near-elimination of cursive from the school curriculum and a move to paperless commerce over the past two decades. So where does that leave handwritten signatures?"

    A paper/writing signature doesn't have to be cursive writing. It doesn't have to even be legible. It just has to be your unique and repeatable mark in your own hand.

    >"question of whether or not handwritten signatures ever worked in the first place."

    They have worked fine for hundreds and hundreds of years. And experts can examine the mark to ensure it was human-written and it contains a type of biometric that can be tied to other exemplars. Even more so when the writing is live-captured on a pad.

    • "They have worked fine for hundreds and hundreds of years. And experts can examine the mark to ensure it was human-written and it contains a type of biometric that can be tied to other exemplars. Even more so when the writing is live-captured on a pad."

      I don't think that this can really be stated. Fraud has always happened in history and while handwriting analysis is a thing it is generally done on longer statements where you have more samples which can be compared. A signature simply don't have many unique

      • Fraud (forgery) will always be a thing, regardless of how we "sign" documents. Important documents are signed in front of a witness or notary to reduce that possibility even more.

        Signing "electronically" has many risks as well, like someone stealing your key. And unlike a "wet" signature, there is even less ability to prove the person who signed it was actually the correct person. You could add a PIN or password to the process, but now it will have become extremely cumbersome and complex- depending on se

        • "And unlike a "wet" signature, there is even less ability to prove the person who signed it was actually the correct person."

          The point I tried was the signature doesn't prove who signed it either. It just says, a person had access to a copy of the real signature and practiced it a bit before a filling in some form or contract. Nobody checks if a signature matches the real one matches so it's as secure as an age verification that asks for your birthday. John Doe wants to do a contract so someone who claims t

  • My "cursive" signature is more of a squiggle than anything. Any signature I've done on a digital device ends up being a letter followed by a line. If you want some kind of "seal" that gives verifiable authority, a biometric like a thumbprint and blockchain to combine the document / fingerprint / timestamp. Anyways, signatures are about as useful as a wax seal. Chip and PIN on credit card transactions are far more reliable than signatures. I only sign receipts at restaurants nowadays.

    • Re:A signature doesn't need to be cursive (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Sunday January 15, 2023 @12:50AM (#63209618) Homepage
      The only reason you don't think signatures are reliable is because retailers stopped comparing the signature to the one on your ID out of laziness. Then no one bothered to verify a signature until there is a problem, that was the problem. At least chip and pin can sort of verify whoever is using the card has knowledge of the pin - and that pin is not ignored like so many now useless signatures - made useless because no one cared to verify anymore.

  • No. (Score:5, Funny)

    by LordHighExecutioner ( 4245243 ) on Sunday January 15, 2023 @02:45AM (#63209730)
    Signed: mr. Betteridge
    (this message is digitally signed)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
      Yes it might be, but in most cases Digital signature = cryptographic signature otherwise it us kind of hard to prove wether the signature was just scanned off another doc or not. This is why e-signature systems so way more than plop a jpeg of a sugnature on the document in question (it often forgoes the picturecaltogether). Example from norway. The kast time I moved my mortage i did not have to nanyakky sign anything, once i got the offer i just logged into the banks website, klicket sign, got redirected

  • I had a decade during which, for reasons left unexplained, my signature looked nothing at all like those on record. Never prevented me from doing anything that I needed to sign for. Not once. And that included buying property. And this whole trend for a while of signing with digital pens for courier services... that was worse. I would just make a straight line with a tick crossing it in the middle, and it never mattered.

    • Trouble is nobody cares to *verify* signatures unless/until there's a legal challenge. They just want the money to change hands.

      It's been probably 40 years since an investigative journalism piece was published in the US where they demonstrated banks would clear checks signed "Mickey Mouse" or "Abe Lincoln" etc. Repeatedly. Regardless the actual name on the account. At multiple different banks.

  • Cursive? Hell, kids today can barely even write in block letters. I expect we’ll end up with a system like in Japan, where many people have a custom made stamp (called a Inkan or Hanko) with their ‘signature’ on it. Evidently it is starting to fall out of favor there, but I could see it being adopted here.

    • That's part of what a digital token like a FIDO key does. It's like that physical stamp you must possess, and that simple and intuitive to use.

      But in a properly designed system a cryptographic key stored in that token also provides both undeniable identification and security the entire document cannot have been modified. The standard dual key crypto functions that PGP and the original RSA algorithms developed decades ago.

      Trouble is, in most countries law enforcement and security agencies don't want good cry

  • How secure can be a handwritten signature?
    To me HWS is just another game, historically here since thousands of years.
    How can anyone in a office check authenticity? No reasonable way.
    So?

  • ..are ancient relics of the past, almost totally unreliable and easy to forge. They should be eliminated. It's amazing how slow the law evolves compared to tech

  • Who in their right mind would call Docusign a "digital signature"? Did they mean like, break out the PGP/ GPG?

Slashdot Top Deals

Let the machine do the dirty work. -- "Elements of Programming Style", Kernighan and Ritchie

Close