RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
And this is the beautiful thing about the paperless office--the delete key. ;) Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Come on Frank lighten up and smell the roses. My comment was tongue-in-cheek with a smiley face to boot; it was not an instance of coping an attitude. The thread, despite the length of time that some may think it has lasted, has existed for only two days. It started on 1/29/01 and has had a lot of posts addressing it so it must have hit a point of extreme interest to many despite its being off topic. Given the fact that it attracted so many responses and posts and that it has been in existence for only two days not two weeks, I think it was entirely appropriate to tell Michael Moore to relax and take it in stride, in what I intended to be a light kidding way, rather than getting excited and annoyed after only a couple of days. I think it is Tony's call to ask that a thread be terminated because it is off topic. Fortunately, he appears to be more tolerant than others on the list when it comes to OT discussions unless they are way off topic or have gone on for a week or more. By the way, you can start a thread on photographic Parrots as far as I am concerned and if others find it interesting, you will not find me complaining about it being off topic. :-) If I am uninterested, I will not spoil your fun and pleasure by insisting that you end the discussion; I will just use my delete finger and delete the posts that I am not interested in. Since it is Tony's list and it is costing him money to run it, I will abide by his commands without argument and defend his right to terminate discussions. However, I will not do the same for other members who do not have the same authority or investment in the list. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office If we're going to have that attitude, let's start a thread about parrots! Or at least photographing them... Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Sorry to hear that you broke your delete finger; hope it gets better soon. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Moore Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office I realize we all get a little OT at times, but this thing has gone on for DAYS
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
Thanks, Maris, I appreciate your reply. Hersch At 11:10 AM 02/01/2001 -0600, you wrote: The law is called the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. It is described at http://olpa.od.nih.gov/Legislation/1electronic.htm and the text is at http://www.ecommerce.gov/ecomnews/ElectronicSignatures_s761.pdf Maris - Original Message - From: "Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:18 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office | Interesting! Was it a Federal law? In what jurisdictions does it apply? | Hersch | | At 06:00 PM 01/31/2001 -1000, you wrote: | A law was just passed here in the US that makes a digital signature (i.e. | email) good in court. | | Spencer Stone | | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi | Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:00 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office | | | Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the | biggest | impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically | transmit | signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand | of a | document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax | machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature | is | most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. | | Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are | willing to | acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems | can | absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify | them, | and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the | legal | commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the | meantime, we | will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. | | Gordon | | Arthur Entlich wrote: | | Laurie Solomon wrote: | |I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office |technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive | invoices, |receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other |places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to | keep |paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case | as |do their workers for their personal security and use. | | | Arthur Entlich wrote | | We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality | over | many hundreds of years which have involved the use of paper/hard copy | documents, | books, etc. | | Ironically, when we have computers that more mimic our relationship with | paper, | we will get closer to the "paperless" society. | | Art | | |
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
It is - see my post of 12 hours ago. Maris - Original Message - From: "Sumtingwong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:49 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office | I would have to do more research on this. A well informed friend told me | about it at work. I do believe that it is now part of the U.S. Code, | though. | | Spencer Stone
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Sumtingwong wrote: I would have to do more research on this. A well informed friend told me about it at work. I do believe that it is now part of the U.S. Code, though. I hate for my first post to this list to be off-topic, but it is indeed federal law. The law is Public Law 106-229, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. It is part of the U.S. Code (not all federal statutes are); specifically, 15 USC sections 7001-7006, 7021 and 7031. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch Nitikman Interesting! Was it a Federal law? In what jurisdictions does it apply? It is federal law, but it's an odd one in that it doesn't apply in all jurisdictions. It does not apply in states that have enacted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or certain other similar acts. For example, it doesn't apply in Californi, which has enacted the UETA as California Civil Code 1633.1-1633.17. Basically, it's a gap-filler for those states that have not enacted what Congress feels is an effective electonic signatures statute. -- Terry Carroll | No representations, warranties or characterizations Santa Clara, CA | regarding any actual university, including any named [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "UC Sunnydale" or "University of California at Modell delendus est | Sunnydale" are intended and none should be inferred.
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
I appreciate the comments about the law changing and I was aware of the US law change. That will not, however, make it happen quickly and everywhere. Wherever lawyers can find a chink in a defendant's armor, they will and no law will make a prudent lawyer tell a client to not play it safe and keep the papers. This will be especially true when there is a potential for economic and/or moral interests to be involved. I am not a lawyer but just the ability to electronically manipulate documents and data can be used to raise doubt in a case. Nixon had a 10 minute gap on a tape and the opinions on what it meant were as many and varied as there were people discussing it.. I would not expect to see a truly paper less ( or even negative less (?)) society in my life time or yours. I fear that this is getting OT so.. Gordon Sumtingwong wrote: A law was just passed here in the US that makes a digital signature (i.e. email) good in court. Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive invoices, receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to keep paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case as do their workers for their personal security and use. Arthur Entlich wrote We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality over many hundreds of years which have involved the use of paper/hard copy documents, books, etc. Ironically, when we have computers that more mimic our relationship with paper, we will get closer to the "paperless" society. Art
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
Interesting! Was it a Federal law? In what jurisdictions does it apply? Hersch At 06:00 PM 01/31/2001 -1000, you wrote: A law was just passed here in the US that makes a digital signature (i.e. email) good in court. Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive invoices, receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to keep paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case as do their workers for their personal security and use. Arthur Entlich wrote We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality over many hundreds of years which have involved the use of paper/hard copy documents, books, etc. Ironically, when we have computers that more mimic our relationship with paper, we will get closer to the "paperless" society. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
Recent legislative changes both in the US and Canada, have recognized the legality of electronic documentation under certain conditions. Eventually, through the use of bio-metrics, your electronic "signature" will be as "good" and as unique as your fingerprint. My on-line brokerage allows me to make legal trades, and monetary transfers with a password, my bank allows me to move money the same way. Art Gordon Tassi wrote: Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system.
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
While what you note may very well be true, I for one do not think that the legal aspects per se are the obstacles to a paperless society or office; I think it is more human nature and work habits, convenience, efficiencies in effort, and personal trust that comprise the major obstacles among others. I do not want to have to get out and fire up a palmtop or lap top every time I write a check in order to keep a record of that check and then have to go home and back up that record everyday so as to have a backup copy of the current check register. I don't want to spend more money on buying and upgrading one more electronic gizmo to conduct my daily life or carry one more electronic item on my person that I have to worry about electromagnetic fields or pacemakers coming close to it and destroying the data or people. I do not want to have to read 20 screen displays on a palmtop to get two or three normal screen displays at a size that my eyes can read or three normal screen displays to get one letter size paper page at a size I can comfortably read under most lighting for any length of time. As for personal security, the banks have tried to change over to all electronic transactions in the recent past. Old folks like myself have not taken to it and do not trust it; we want the personal security of having a hard copy in our hands and under our control (without being charged extra to get it or have to wait longer than was the case when the banks used paper as their basic media). I personally have found too many erroneous entries in the electronic records which then become almost impossible to track down and correct ( with each party telling the other that they are wrong because their computer says what they say). Younger people tend to be more accepting of the electronic banking, having grown up with it and not knowing otherwise in many cases; but even here, many are discovering the pitfalls of relying exclusively on electronic records generated and controlled by others, of depending on the institutions to not commit errors in entering data or outputting results, or of accepting on faith the client's complaint that there is an error on the part of the institution in the record. Ever try and prove that the banks cashed a check for more than it was drafted for because a teller somewhere down the line was sloppy in reading the amount off the check or their data entry when you do not have any hard copy (original cancelled check, photocopy of the check, or photograph of the check in hand to back up your claim? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sumtingwong Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office A law was just passed here in the US that makes a digital signature (i.e. email) good in court. Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive invoices, receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to keep paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case as do their workers for their personal security and use. Arthur Entlich wrote We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality over many hundreds of years which have involved the use of paper/hard copy documents, books, etc. Ironically, when we have computers that more mimic our relationship with paper, we will get closer to the "paperless" society. Art
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
Eventually, through the use of bio-metrics, your electronic "signature" will be as "good" and as unique as your fingerprint. What you say may be true enough; but even that only guarentees the authenticity of the signature and not the content of the document that the signiture has been affixed to. Hence the problem of counterfeiting still is not solved when it comes to the authenticity of documents. Nevertheless, I do not think that the legalities are the major impediment to a totally electronic paperless society; it is convenience and trust. Just because something is legal does not mean that people should or will trust it or those that engage in using it. You may be able to make legal banking and borkerage house transactions; but will you take the word of those institutions concerning those transactions at face value or will you insist on a confirmation (and will you be satisfied and feel secure with an electronic confirmation that has not been memorialized in hardcopy)? If, for example, you have engaged in such a transaction; and as I have, you receive an electronic confirmation saying one thing. However, when the requested hard copy arrives, you find that they disagree; you have a basis for any claims of error which you would not have had if you depended only on that original electronic confirmation. I treat electronic documents like answering machines; I trust them but verify. I may leave a message on the answering machine; but I do not trust or take for granted that the person has actually gotten the message until I have spoken with them voice to voice. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Recent legislative changes both in the US and Canada, have recognized the legality of electronic documentation under certain conditions. Eventually, through the use of bio-metrics, your electronic "signature" will be as "good" and as unique as your fingerprint. My on-line brokerage allows me to make legal trades, and monetary transfers with a password, my bank allows me to move money the same way. Art Gordon Tassi wrote: Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system.
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
True electronic signature systems include three components - non-repudiation, authentication, and no-change. Like a pen signature, an electronic signature has to change the document not sit beside the document. -Original Message- From: Laurie Solomon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Eventually, through the use of bio-metrics, your electronic "signature" will be as "good" and as unique as your fingerprint. What you say may be true enough; but even that only guarentees the authenticity of the signature and not the content of the document that the signiture has been affixed to. Hence the problem of counterfeiting still is not solved when it comes to the authenticity of documents.
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
I realize we all get a little OT at times, but this thing has gone on for DAYS ... "Hornford, Dave" wrote: True electronic signature systems include three components - non-repudiation, authentication, and no-change. Like a pen signature, an electronic signature has to change the document not sit beside the document. -Original Message- From: Laurie Solomon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Eventually, through the use of bio-metrics, your electronic "signature" will be as "good" and as unique as your fingerprint. What you say may be true enough; but even that only guarentees the authenticity of the signature and not the content of the document that the signiture has been affixed to. Hence the problem of counterfeiting still is not solved when it comes to the authenticity of documents.
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
Sorry to hear that you broke your delete finger; hope it gets better soon. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Moore Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office I realize we all get a little OT at times, but this thing has gone on for DAYS ... "Hornford, Dave" wrote: True electronic signature systems include three components - non-repudiation, authentication, and no-change. Like a pen signature, an electronic signature has to change the document not sit beside the document. -Original Message- From: Laurie Solomon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Eventually, through the use of bio-metrics, your electronic "signature" will be as "good" and as unique as your fingerprint. What you say may be true enough; but even that only guarentees the authenticity of the signature and not the content of the document that the signiture has been affixed to. Hence the problem of counterfeiting still is not solved when it comes to the authenticity of documents.
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
If we're going to have that attitude, let's start a thread about parrots! Or at least photographing them... Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Sorry to hear that you broke your delete finger; hope it gets better soon. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Moore Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office I realize we all get a little OT at times, but this thing has gone on for DAYS
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
Come on Frank lighten up and smell the roses. My comment was tongue-in-cheek with a smiley face to boot; it was not an instance of coping an attitude. The thread, despite the length of time that some may think it has lasted, has existed for only two days. It started on 1/29/01 and has had a lot of posts addressing it so it must have hit a point of extreme interest to many despite its being off topic. Given the fact that it attracted so many responses and posts and that it has been in existence for only two days not two weeks, I think it was entirely appropriate to tell Michael Moore to relax and take it in stride, in what I intended to be a light kidding way, rather than getting excited and annoyed after only a couple of days. I think it is Tony's call to ask that a thread be terminated because it is off topic. Fortunately, he appears to be more tolerant than others on the list when it comes to OT discussions unless they are way off topic or have gone on for a week or more. By the way, you can start a thread on photographic Parrots as far as I am concerned and if others find it interesting, you will not find me complaining about it being off topic. :-) If I am uninterested, I will not spoil your fun and pleasure by insisting that you end the discussion; I will just use my delete finger and delete the posts that I am not interested in. Since it is Tony's list and it is costing him money to run it, I will abide by his commands without argument and defend his right to terminate discussions. However, I will not do the same for other members who do not have the same authority or investment in the list. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office If we're going to have that attitude, let's start a thread about parrots! Or at least photographing them... Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Sorry to hear that you broke your delete finger; hope it gets better soon. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Moore Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office I realize we all get a little OT at times, but this thing has gone on for DAYS
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
I would have to do more research on this. A well informed friend told me about it at work. I do believe that it is now part of the U.S. Code, though. Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch Nitikman Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Interesting! Was it a Federal law? In what jurisdictions does it apply? Hersch At 06:00 PM 01/31/2001 -1000, you wrote: A law was just passed here in the US that makes a digital signature (i.e. email) good in court. Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive invoices, receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to keep paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case as do their workers for their personal security and use. Arthur Entlich wrote We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality over many hundreds of years which have involved the use of paper/hard copy documents, books, etc. Ironically, when we have computers that more mimic our relationship with paper, we will get closer to the "paperless" society. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
In a message dated 2/1/2001 11:17:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: . My comment was tongue-in-cheek with a smiley face to boot; it was not an instance of coping an attitude. Amen
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
I work for the government. I am not that old. I keep hard copies of *everything*. ;) Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office While what you note may very well be true, I for one do not think that the legal aspects per se are the obstacles to a paperless society or office; I think it is more human nature and work habits, convenience, efficiencies in effort, and personal trust that comprise the major obstacles among others. I do not want to have to get out and fire up a palmtop or lap top every time I write a check in order to keep a record of that check and then have to go home and back up that record everyday so as to have a backup copy of the current check register. I don't want to spend more money on buying and upgrading one more electronic gizmo to conduct my daily life or carry one more electronic item on my person that I have to worry about electromagnetic fields or pacemakers coming close to it and destroying the data or people. I do not want to have to read 20 screen displays on a palmtop to get two or three normal screen displays at a size that my eyes can read or three normal screen displays to get one letter size paper page at a size I can comfortably read under most lighting for any length of time. As for personal security, the banks have tried to change over to all electronic transactions in the recent past. Old folks like myself have not taken to it and do not trust it; we want the personal security of having a hard copy in our hands and under our control (without being charged extra to get it or have to wait longer than was the case when the banks used paper as their basic media). I personally have found too many erroneous entries in the electronic records which then become almost impossible to track down and correct ( with each party telling the other that they are wrong because their computer says what they say). Younger people tend to be more accepting of the electronic banking, having grown up with it and not knowing otherwise in many cases; but even here, many are discovering the pitfalls of relying exclusively on electronic records generated and controlled by others, of depending on the institutions to not commit errors in entering data or outputting results, or of accepting on faith the client's complaint that there is an error on the part of the institution in the record. Ever try and prove that the banks cashed a check for more than it was drafted for because a teller somewhere down the line was sloppy in reading the amount off the check or their data entry when you do not have any hard copy (original cancelled check, photocopy of the check, or photograph of the check in hand to back up your claim? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sumtingwong Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office A law was just passed here in the US that makes a digital signature (i.e. email) good in court. Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive invoices, receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to keep paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case as do their workers for their personal security and use. Arthur Entlich wrote We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality over many hundreds of years which have invol
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive invoices, receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to keep paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case as do their workers for their personal security and use. Arthur Entlich wrote We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality over many hundreds of years which have involved the use of paper/hard copy documents, books, etc. Ironically, when we have computers that more mimic our relationship with paper, we will get closer to the "paperless" society. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
I don't think we'll ever be even mostly paperless. Paper has 2 values I can't see computers replacing despite technology improvements in ways we can't even imagine now. Ease of use in all too many instances - flipping back and forth between pages of a book, or a filmscanner review, or often even a catalog though computers have paper beat there for ease of search and find. And written material needs but one object - the paper. Your own eyes read it. Written material in computer code needs three - the data on some medium, the computer to read and translate it to discernible text, and the monitor. For this reason also, not everyone will be able to afford a computer despite drastically reduced costs - we are still dealing with buying 3 items (disk, computer and monitor) rather than 1 (paper). Archival and security - as many have mentioned, platforms change but paper doesn't. Computers crash and storage media deteriorate - much more likely than a fire or earthquake, and even there provisions can be made to store the paper in environmentally safe vaults onsite and/or off. Maris. - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 3:46 AM Subject: filmscanners: Re: paperless office | Laurie Solomon wrote: [snip] | It is still easier | for people to printout and read a hard copy version of a 100 page report | than to read it online or off the monitor - and often more convenient as | well. | We either have to evolve at a faster | rate, or transform our digital/electronic media into something than more | resembles what we have grown used to as a culture, something that | resembles paper. I won't get into the many values paper has, but I | think smaller, lightweight, easily readable screen which can accept | input, or electronic paper., which can be erased after use, are more | likely to succeed where heavy, CRT laden computers cannot.
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
The Electronic Communications Act 2000 is a start. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/2007.htm Maris - Original Message - From: "Gordon Tassi" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:59 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office | Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest | impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit | signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a | document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax | machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is | most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. | | Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to | acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can | absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, | and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal | commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we | will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. | | Gordon
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
In a message dated 01/31/2001 12:00:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Electronic Communications Act 2000 is a start Faxed copies of legal documents such as lien waivers, applications and affadavits are being accepted as "legal" to the courts in some areas. Some counties have public record items on their websites such as property owners or criminal records, for example. Ed in Atlanta
RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
A law was just passed here in the US that makes a digital signature (i.e. email) good in court. Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive invoices, receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to keep paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case as do their workers for their personal security and use. Arthur Entlich wrote We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality over many hundreds of years which have involved the use of paper/hard copy documents, books, etc. Ironically, when we have computers that more mimic our relationship with paper, we will get closer to the "paperless" society. Art
