It's such a backward technology though and outside the convenience
most people's (or bureaucrats') rationales for wanting faxed copies
of something are deeply flawed. The assumption is that a faxed
document is somehow a proof of veracity than an EPS signature on an
electronic document. They are,
It's such a backward technology though and outside the convenience
most people's (or bureaucrats') rationales for wanting faxed copies
of something are deeply flawed. The assumption is that a faxed
document is somehow a proof of veracity than an EPS signature on an
electronic document. They are,
Fax is such a backward technology though and, aside from the
'convenience', most people's (or bureaucrats') rationales for wanting
faxed copies of something are deeply flawed. The assumption is that a
faxed document is somehow a proof of veracity than an EPS signature on
an electronic
No doubt bro, the very notion that a signature - without verification
of identity by an agreed upon third party, and then sealed/encrypted
to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks is simple ignorance.
will evans
emotive architect
hedonic designer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
617.281.1281
twitter:
Andy Polaine wrote:
The assumption is that a
faxed document is somehow a proof of veracity than an EPS signature on
an electronic document. They are, of course, both easily faked.
I've been in security for a long time now, and while I know that things
are easily faked, I also know what makes
The assumption is that a faxed document is somehow a proof of
veracity than an EPS signature on an electronic document. They are,
of course, both easily faked.
I've been in security for a long time now, and while I know that
things are easily faked, I also know what makes the lawyers
