Introducing HelloSign for Gmail
Why, why, WHY does no one even question the idea of graphic signatures to begin with?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.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.For reference:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorne_%28writer%29
> http://www.amazon.com/Internet-Playground-Irreverent-Corresp...
> http://keboch.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/imagesspider-20as-...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?Hand-written signatures have no place in digital documents as a secure means of authenticity. Why are they used at all?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.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.Am I the only one who sees things this way? Am I alone here?