On 08/27/2011 11:44 AM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote: > On 8/27/2011 9:53 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: >> On 8/26/2011 11:40 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> Thats true for you and I and this community, but the legal community >>> and the medical community still rely on faxes for "security". >>> (Or something.... ) >> >> My understanding -- and this is incomplete information -- is that it >> falls down to the legal signature. A photocopy or facsimile of a >> document with a legal signature is considered to be a legal document for >> record keeping purposes. A digital-only scan of that document is not. >> This is a legal distinction, not a technical one. > > And an absurd one in an age when a lot of faxes are sent from > computers. A fax is actually easier to forge than a digital document > because of its relatively low resolution; it's trivial to pass off a > Photoshopped document as an original fax scan. Yet another case of the > law not keeping up with technical reality. Back before the BCS went bellyup, there were a couple of attorneys from the state who were somewhat active in the ISIG group. One guy was trying to work to get PGP signatures legalized.
-- Jerry Feldman <[email protected]> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
