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

Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

#111

Post by janosdebugs »

noodlesUK wrote: post #73
ljm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t speak for every country in Europe but once you get a national ID or residence permit in some of them then the card will contain a chip with a certificate that can be used for public key crypto. If you need to sign something then you sign it with your ID. Same ID can get you into your accounts online. No different to Estonia’s digital ID scheme a decade ago.

The UK and Ireland are uniquely countries in Europe that don’t have any form of national ID card. The UK was going to get (continental) EU style ID cards in 2008-2010 but this proved to be rather controversial at the time due to perceptions of government overreach and dragnet biometrics. Instead of just doing a simple ID card with just facial biometrics (like a passport), the whole project was scrapped. I don’t know…

Austria has them, but almost nobody has one in practice since AFAIK there is no requirement to carry an ID. Everyone has a social security card though, which has a cryptographic chip. Digital signatures are also possible via a web platform called "Handysignatur", which is pretty good.

Re: Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

#112

Post by Our_Benefactors »

ghaff wrote: post #59
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It must be the full document plaintext and date signed with your private key and should be verifiable with your public key by a court before a claim is even approachable. This is called a notary public. Its a routine requirement with immigration documents. .They can also certify copies as true. In UK for sone reason it costs over £100, and noone uses them, but in eastern europe its common and notarising documents i…

In the US, you usually just go into your bank branch. I'm not sure what the deal is if you don't have a local financial institution/lawyer/etc. (Exec admins are sometimes also notaries.)

Note: in many states, banks must provide notary services to the public. You do not have to be a bank customer. Banks will try to ask you to sign up for an account “so you can make an appointment with the notary”, but you can decline - insist that you just want a document notarized.

They may give you the run around saying “the notary isn’t in today”, options here are ask them to tell you which branch you could visit where the notary is available, or what day and time is best that you’ll surely catch the notary. They will be uncomfortable about this pressuring but they are required to provide this service.

Re: Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

#114

Post by [deleted] »

ghaff wrote: post #59
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It must be the full document plaintext and date signed with your private key and should be verifiable with your public key by a court before a claim is even approachable. This is called a notary public. Its a routine requirement with immigration documents. .They can also certify copies as true. In UK for sone reason it costs over £100, and noone uses them, but in eastern europe its common and notarising documents i…

In the US, you usually just go into your bank branch. I'm not sure what the deal is if you don't have a local financial institution/lawyer/etc. (Exec admins are sometimes also notaries.)

[deleted]

Re: Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

#115

Post by mindslight »

baz00 wrote: post #5
jacquesm wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone forged my signature on docusign on a pretty official document and I raked them over the coals for it. Highly annoying these services, they don't do even the most basic verification that the person signing really is the person that should be signing.

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.

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").

Re: Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

#116

Post by onlyusername »

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #110

Ever heard about the bogus ChemArxiv (as opposed to ChemRxiv) a few years ago? https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cen-09446-notw13 It turns out the same scammer (Krzysztof Siennicki from Villa Europa) had its part in it: https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1764106.htm

It is mentioned in the article, but I appreciate the context.

Re: Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

#117

Post by dotnet00 »

EGreg wrote: post #42
bdjeudug wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re intentionally returning unsigned contacts to employers hoping they don’t notice? Seeing how you’re first action in each of your new jobs is done in bad faith I think I see why you’ve had to fill out six of them…

How does a handwritten signature prove anything? They are so easy to forge. I always wondered WHY ARE PEOPLE IN THE US ASKED TO SIGN A RECEIPT WHEN THEY PAY BY CREDIT CARD? I can draw literally any scraggles and they’ll accept it. Are they supposed to compare to the signature I put on my card?

I haven't had to sign for a while now, but when that was more common, I just assumed it was for your own ease of verification, since you could see the signature alongside the transaction online/in-app and so if you see a transaction you don't remember, you can just check the signature to see if it's like what you typically do.

Re: Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

#118

Post by Eisenstein »

oefnak wrote: post #108
baz00 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I do. I have an amendment on my contract about intellectual property being owned by the company changed from "while under employment" to "using company equipment in employed hours". They sent me two copies they had signed, I modified both with the change, signed it and scanned the contract. The returned copy was accepted by HR via email (not sure if they ever read it or not) What will be interest…

You changed the document after they signed it? If you didn't also remove their signature, that's forgery.

Doesn't sound like forgery. Whether it will hold up in court is iffy. If you are not a lawyer I would be more hesitant to state your legal opinions as fact.

* https://www.adamsdrafting.com/making-sneaky-changes-to-a-con...

Re: Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

#119

Post by throwawaymaths »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #112
ghaff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, you usually just go into your bank branch. I'm not sure what the deal is if you don't have a local financial institution/lawyer/etc. (Exec admins are sometimes also notaries.)

Note: in many states, banks must provide notary services to the public. You do not have to be a bank customer. Banks will try to ask you to sign up for an account “so you can make an appointment with the notary”, but you can decline - insist that you just want a document notarized. They may give you the run around saying “the notary isn’t in today”, options here are ask them to tell you which branch you could visit w…

Most UPS stores in the US offer notary services and advertise that they do.

Re: Scientists hit with massive bills after speaking at COVID-19 ‘webinars’

#120

Post by mindslight »

frankus wrote: post #67
DarkmSparks wrote: post #58

Putting aside any ethics questions. Sounds like the guys on their way to court did actually sign the contracts. Not sure there is much get out clause for them tbh, Im not aware of any court anywhere that will take "didnt read the contract" as a get out of jail free card. Always read the contract kids.

We need “anything sketchy about this 20-page contract” as a service (for something less than the cost of retaining a lawyer).

Rather than increasing the complexity even further, we need laws that anything longer than two standard pages of 12 point text is prima facie invalid. Exceptions for when attorneys are involved, or negotiated contracts that go back and forth a few times with substantive changes. Subjecting individuals to unbounded contract terms, often by contracts of adhesion, is an anti-feature.
Post reply on HN