Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The dubiousness of digitized signature services

blog.certisfy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#61

Post by paultopia »

cperciva wrote: post #32
paultopia wrote: post #26

For serious identity variation in paper legal land we don't use signature matching, we use notaries: show id to a trusted 3rd party who can be later dragged into court, sometimes even with an additional witness to vouch for identity. (In closely related news, just try buying a house during a pandemic, I dare you. There are amusing pictures floating around online of my wife and I shoving documents back and forth throu…

just try buying a house during a pandemic, I dare you Did that. (Offer made and accepted in August; moved in on October 1st.) All of the legal paperwork was done online on the basis of "here's a scan of two pieces of ID and click click click I agree" -- the only "shoving through a window" moment was with a bank draft, and even that could have been done digitally if I had been comfortable with transferring such a larg…

Heh, yeah, I definitely did mine in a legally backwards state.

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#62

Post by paultopia »

vageli wrote: post #27
paultopia wrote: post #26

For serious identity variation in paper legal land we don't use signature matching, we use notaries: show id to a trusted 3rd party who can be later dragged into court, sometimes even with an additional witness to vouch for identity. (In closely related news, just try buying a house during a pandemic, I dare you. There are amusing pictures floating around online of my wife and I shoving documents back and forth throu…

> (In closely related news, just try buying a house during a pandemic, I dare you. There are amusing pictures floating around online of my wife and I shoving documents back and forth through barely-cracked car windows for notarization ...) I closed on a house a month ago. Notarization was done online by smartphone. Worst part was working with a local bank that had little to no online services.

Oh man, lack of bank services is a whole 'nother issue. The number of panicked calls I made to my bank to make sure there would be a person who could process the wire for the down payment amidst covid chaos...

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#63

Post by nulbyte »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #48
GordonS wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something US-related instead of Japanese, is that cheques) or "checks" in US English) are still in common usage. I run a B2B micro-ISV, and the number of times I've been mailed checks, despite slapping "NO CHECKS ACCEPTED" on everything, is ridiculous.

I thought a business couldn't legally refuse checks, except for some places like supermarkets where there is a high risk of fraud?

Checks are negotiable instruments, they can be treated as a substitute for cash, but they are not cash. That said, in the U.S. at least, businesses can refuse any form of payment they want, even cash.

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#64

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

nulbyte wrote: post #63
BlueTemplar wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought a business couldn't legally refuse checks, except for some places like supermarkets where there is a high risk of fraud?

Checks are negotiable instruments, they can be treated as a substitute for cash, but they are not cash. That said, in the U.S. at least, businesses can refuse any form of payment they want, even cash.

Unless it’s payment for a debt, in which case cash must be accepted.

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#65

Post by [deleted] »

hedora wrote: post #40
buckminster wrote: post #29

These signature services make no sense. My UK estate agent is trying to get me to use an American signature service to renew my lease. - What I get is an email from a third party (the signature service) with whom I have no business relationship. Why would I trust anything they say? - How do I know the agent has signed the lease? - What can I do if the American service claims I signed a contract when I didn't? If I si…

We refinanced during the pandemic with $MEGABANK, and they almost exclusively used third parties and email for the entire transaction. The last step was a total stranger (employed by another subcontractor we’d never heard of) stopping by our house and notarizing each signature in the closing paperwork. There was a day or two where we’d directed the previous lender to transfer title, and had already wired $100K’s to a…

[deleted]

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#66

Post by monkeycantype »

quantified wrote: post #60
hedora wrote: post #20

I think this article misunderstands the purpose of signatures. The purpose of a signature is to inform the signer that they are entering a binding contract. It is simply the modern equivalent to a handshake. Sadly, precedent around Eula’s mean that signatures are no longer necessary to execute contracts. If anything, society would be better served by making it more difficult to enter into binding agreements than to m…

The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance. In a legal proceeding, the artifact can be produced as evidence. That is the purpose of all contract signatures. If you have a contract that obliges something from me, and it’s not my signature, you may be attempting fraud on me. See bankers and robo-signing. That is why I need to see, on your copy, my signature and an…

A dispute as to whether or not a person signed a contract will be difficult to resolve regardless of whether the document was signed on paper or glass.

I don't think this is the problem that these services solve.

Their purpose is to replicate the ritual of signing a document, to draw on the meaning of that tradition, so that that reasonable parties to an agreement understand there is a clear threshold that signifies the transition from negotiation to agreement, and all parties have a common version of the details of that agreement.

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#67

Post by quantified »

monkeycantype wrote: post #66
quantified wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance. In a legal proceeding, the artifact can be produced as evidence. That is the purpose of all contract signatures. If you have a contract that obliges something from me, and it’s not my signature, you may be attempting fraud on me. See bankers and robo-signing. That is why I need to see, on your copy, my signature and an…

A dispute as to whether or not a person signed a contract will be difficult to resolve regardless of whether the document was signed on paper or glass. I don't think this is the problem that these services solve. Their purpose is to replicate the ritual of signing a document, to draw on the meaning of that tradition, so that that reasonable parties to an agreement understand there is a clear threshold that signifies…

Agreed that the purpose of the services is to replicate the ritual, with higher speed and lower cost. That’s separate from the specific aspect of what a signature is to convey.

That all parties have a common version is exactly the point of the signature aspect. The idea of signing with ink is to have a personalized mark. Of course, with these services, the generic “signature” lacks the personalization.

The fact that many an agreement is pushed on the signer to be signed without reading it indicates that the mark is the important thing.

If pen-like inputs were more common, it would be easier to use one’s own mark. Of course, signatures are easier to fake in the all-digital realm too if you have a specimen you can copy-paste from.

Always keep a paper copy in case of disputes.

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#68

Post by quietbritishjim »

quantified wrote: post #60
hedora wrote: post #20

I think this article misunderstands the purpose of signatures. The purpose of a signature is to inform the signer that they are entering a binding contract. It is simply the modern equivalent to a handshake. Sadly, precedent around Eula’s mean that signatures are no longer necessary to execute contracts. If anything, society would be better served by making it more difficult to enter into binding agreements than to m…

The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance. In a legal proceeding, the artifact can be produced as evidence. That is the purpose of all contract signatures. If you have a contract that obliges something from me, and it’s not my signature, you may be attempting fraud on me. See bankers and robo-signing. That is why I need to see, on your copy, my signature and an…

> The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance.

This sentence is correct but subtly conflates two elements, essentially contained in the respective words "signatory’s" and "acceptance":

* It proves the signatory's identity i.e. it was this person that agreed to the contract rather than some other person.

* It proves actual agreement i.e. this wasn't just a draft contract that we were still in the process of negotiating, but the final contract we had settled on.

If it came to court and the first one, identity, was in dispute then a signature is fairly unlikely to resolve that, at least on its own. But if the second point was in dispute "yeah I know I said that but it was conditional on blah blah other thing" then a signature on a contract makes that much harder to argue. The second one is very similar to what the parent comment said: the fact the signatory went through the ritual shows that they understood they were actually agreeing to precisely those conditions.

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#69

Post by matthewheath »

buckminster wrote: post #49
woah wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard for programmers to understand signatures and law in general, because it is somewhat similar to programming but with very different rules. The signature is just evidence of an agreement between you and the other party. It is not the only thing that matters. For example, if someone forged your signature on some paper transfer documents, would they then be able to move into your house? No. In your scenario, it…

I understand perfectly well that if it goes wrong I will, most likely, be able to unpick the damage. But I also understand that this can take years and lots of money. Especially if the signature service is in a different country. So-called identity theft is a real problem. My particular concern is that I believe I'm entering into a tenancy but then discover, due to some bug in the software, that the landlord never ac…

The court will take into account more than just the lack of the landlord's signature on an electronic document. They will look at the intention between you two, as well as any correspondence between you and the landlord's agents.

A contract does not have to be written to exist, although it certainly helps. An oral agreement that you'll continue in the lease and will treat the document as a formality would suffice.

There will be evidence you will be able to adduce in your favour beyond this signature service.

Furthermore, there are strict rules around eviction; the landlord can't immediately evict even when you're not on an AST.

Re: The dubiousness of digitized signature services

#70

Post by quantified »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #68
quantified wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance. In a legal proceeding, the artifact can be produced as evidence. That is the purpose of all contract signatures. If you have a contract that obliges something from me, and it’s not my signature, you may be attempting fraud on me. See bankers and robo-signing. That is why I need to see, on your copy, my signature and an…

> The purpose of the signature is to create an artifact that demonstrates the signatory’s acceptance. This sentence is correct but subtly conflates two elements, essentially contained in the respective words "signatory’s" and "acceptance": * It proves the signatory's identity i.e. it was this person that agreed to the contract rather than some other person. * It proves actual agreement i.e. this wasn't just a draft c…

Agreed on the role in a good-faith process: “this is the thing we all signed off on”.

Our loop is around whether or not we can establish who the “we” was. The original commenter was making a statement about the purpose of a signature and I was stating a disagreement with that purpose. At very best, we need to recognize multiple purposes. But since contracts all come down to what is supported by a court of law, it needs to be the right signature. If you’re saying the presence of a signature is all that is necessary, it’s perfectly fine for you to create a contract in which I pay you money and assign some mark that says I agreed to it. But you better be a decent forger then. Some of the ritual elements are in place to protect against bad faith.

Post reply on HN