[digitaltrees]

Yes. Fraud. It makes a document look like it existed in physical form. Imagine for example a purchase agreement for a house that was physically scanned. You could change the signature to a different name and then make it look like it was original.

I am not asserting the authors intent is to facilitate fraud or there isn’t any other practical use, but let’s not be naive and act like fraud isn’t a likely use.

Before you downvote at least respond with why you think my analysis is wrong.

[bluebarbet]

It's not that you're wrong, but the fact that it would be fraud is farcical and needs to be challenged.

My bank demands that I perform this ridiculous hoop-jumping. Like others here, I use ImageMagick hocus pocus to defeat them with trivial ease (a couple of times they complained so I tweaked the algo a bit and they were happy). The whole situation is beyond absurd. It's security theater in place of security.

[digitaltrees]

This is fraud. Your are passing off a document as authentic by misleading use of visual artifacts to make the origin of the document appear different than reality.

Just because you don’t like the security theatre does make it acceptable to misrepresent the origin of a document to satisfy the security requirements.

And I gave a specific example, slipping a page into a document that wasn’t in the original and making it look like it belongs by making it look scanned.

Imagine I changed the purchase price on your home to 10% of its value rather than the original agreed price and took it to court to enforce the purchase. This tech would make that appear more credible.

[falsemyrmidon]

You could just as easily edit it, print it, then scan it again. This tech doesn't enable you to do anything you couldn't already do.

The real problem is that written signatures are a poor form of authentication.