|
|
|
|
|
|
by ksaj
1399 days ago
|
|
|
I have as well. Even a really long time ago, so it sounds like a long lasting habit. It reminds me of how lawyers are happy to accept signatures by fax. You could be a rather lousy forger, yet because of the huge and extremely black pixels, still make a passable forged signature over fax. You can even tape a real signature on the page, or make numerous corrections, because the resolution simply cannot show any of those details. There is not much one would consider reliable about a faxed document. |
|
|
The purpose of a lot of these sorts of requirements is not authentication. It's ensuring that if you do do it, you trigger the statutory requirement for some particular criminal offense. For example, a jurisdiction might have a crime of forgery which is substantially easier to prosecute than fraud (perhaps fraud would need the prosecution to prove intent to make financial gain, wheras forgery might be satisfied as soon as you can prove signature was forged -- hypothetical example, it will vary by jurisdiction and IANAL).
These sort of statues might have been written before computers or even faxes, and there might be caselaw to the effect that forging someone's signature and sending it by fax does satisfy its requirements of the offence, but none yet for just writing your name at the bottom of an email; things like that.