Introducing HelloSign for Gmail
Why, why, WHY does no one even question the idea of graphic signatures to begin with?<p>This thing where we scan a piece of paper or paste in a little image has always smacked of forgery to me anyway? All I need is one image of your signature, and I can sign for you anywhere I want. It's like when they hand out rubber stamps for secretaries to use.<p>It's like somewhere along the line, wherever you see hand-written signatures still employed as a means of confirmation/verification, no one explained to the witless bureaucrats that accept them, that there may as well be an image of a spider cartoon.<p>For reference:
> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorne_%28writer%29" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorne_%28writer%29</a>
> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Internet-Playground-Irreverent-Correspondences-Online/dp/1585428817" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Internet-Playground-Irreverent-Corresp...</a>
> <a href="http://keboch.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/imagesspider-20as-20payment.gif" rel="nofollow">http://keboch.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/imagesspider-20as-...</a><p>Wasn't the whole idea of hand-written signatures supposed to be a pattern where it's difficult to readily forge the distinctive handwriting style of a fluid fancy cursive-script signature? When you paste in an image, it's a cookie-cutter perfect match every time. Where's the authenticity?<p>Hand-written signatures have no place in digital documents as a secure means of authenticity. Why are they used at all?<p>In general, they should be replaced by digital/cryptographic mechanisms, but in most cases the underlying concepts are to hard for people to explain or understand.<p>When people use scanned signatures, it's like we're still stuck in the 1800's where if you were illiterate, placing your "X" on the dotted line was good enough for a binding contract.<p>Am I the only one who sees things this way? Am I alone here?