FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 days ago
physical signatures are just asking you to write your name in a box…
Not a huge difference.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 days ago
physical signatures are just asking you to write your name in a box…
Not a huge difference.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
No I disagree, the idea with ohysical signatures is that you write it in cursive, so in theory nobody will do ot exactly the same way as you write it - but then people can forge things, and since people don’t actually write their name the exact same way every time, forgery is essentially as good as perfect.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Nobody has relied only on signatures to verify that a person signed it, since forever. Especially because forgery was always a thing.
This is why documents that are important aren’t just signed by one person; they’re signed by witnesses who presumably will vouch for it. (Like notary public’s are a thing.)
For lesser contracts they first verify you are in fact you.
There’s no functional difference online- to within a reasonable standard.
msage@programming.dev 4 days ago
Yeah, no.
I wanted to withdraw some money from my investment portfolio in bank, and the teller denied my request multiple times because of mismatching signature. Then they told me to change my stored signature, which took additional 10 minutes.
Like how in the fuck does any of that make sense. It needs to be same, but I can change it regardless, so what was achieved.
I never use handwriting, my signature isn’t even 60% same between any 2 attempts.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 days ago
So how did they know you were you?
They allowed you to update the signature. They may have been oddly fixated on the signatures matching, but they still verified your identity in some other way.
Or they’re idiots who shouldn’t be in control of other people’s money,
Natanael@infosec.pub 4 days ago
This is not universal. Many don’t proactively check, the signature is typically used afterwards when the account owner makes a claim that some action was fraudulent. Some businesses will check to avoid precisely dealing with those claims, but most don’t have to.
And also, legally the mark can be anything and it’s just a convention that it is your name.
Fmstrat@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Sorry that’s not right. You can see my other comment about the ESIGN Act here: lemmy.world/comment/25214883
Note: it also points out how the top response is just… well, wrong.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 days ago
And, most young adults don’t sign in cursive anymore, so, aside from terrible handwriting, their printed name isn’t really much different than a typed name.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
That seems like a terrible idea. I’m disappointed in humans yet again.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Meh. After hearing years of complaints from old people about how terrible young people are, and working with a lot of young people who are objectively much better people than the old ones that complain about them, I always try to stop to think about why traditions are valuable.
Does writing your words with extra loopy bits that are less legible than print REALLY make you a better person?
Not learning cursive is like not learning Latin. Maybe it was useful at some point, but the only reason to push for it now, is because “That’s how I did it, so it must be the best way, and everyone else is wrong!”
snooggums@piefed.world 4 days ago
Sure, some people who practice their signature and do it consistently can have theirs tested for consistency but forgery is a thing. I have never had a consistent signature in five decades which confirms the whole ‘unique signature’ thing is bullshit.
The whole point is just having something that holds up for the legal system, and a lot of bullshit does.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 4 days ago
How’s your cuneiform? Do you know how to use a quill pen? Do you know how to bleach a peace of expensive parchment so that it can be reused?
cattywampas@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Why? Everyone’s handwriting is different and unique whether it’s cursive or regular script.
dohpaz42@lemmy.world 4 days ago
You might disagree, but that doesn’t mean you’re right. A signature does not require cursive. It doesn’t even have to be legible. It’s a mark that you make signifying that you agree to whatever it is you’re signing.
thelegalguide.org/understanding-signatures-legal-…
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Could be a jurisdiction thing. Non-cursive signatures* get rejected in my country if the recipient bothers to check.
( * If written in the Latin alphabet.)
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Fair - the idea with a signature is that you ideally write it in cursive, unless you have a seal or stamp to hand? Depending on what the document asks, and most will ask a written signature.
Khanzarate@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Signatures have never required cursive. Historically, people who couldn’t read or write would just put an X in the signature spot and that was valid. Yeah, there is a marginal benefit to physically signing something in cursive, but the purpose of signing it has always been more of a final agreement step.
If handwriting and spelling and how I signed it actually mattered at all legally, then I could sign a different name when I buy a car, get keys, drive away, and later in court, say “well I never agreed to pay for this car, look at my signature, it says Frank Sinatra”. Same goes for a true forgery. The evidence I didn’t sign it myself is my statement in court saying “I didn’t sign this”, and whatever signs there are that I didn’t benefit from this.
Osan@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Where I come from the X thing wouldn’t be legally binding. What people who couldn’t read or write would do is using their fingerprints. They would put their finger on a stamp ink pad and then stamp the paper with their finger. That’s why we say “someone who uses their fingerprint” as a euphemism for “illiterate”.
Khanzarate@lemmy.world 4 days ago
That’s really interesting and a great way to do that, honestly. A singular fingerprint also makes more sense than needing handwriting analysis to detect a forgery, too. Kinda feel that should be the norm everywhere, honestly, a signing and a print next to it to verify against if the need arises.
HubertManne@piefed.social 4 days ago
So your last paragraph is a bit off. One it was generally checked with your id that the names were the same. I often had to sign a non typical signature because of a place that required the full name. then also signing someone elses name on a document would be something they can go after you for. Im not sure which all laws but you can’t pretend to be someone you are not with contracts and agreements and such.
Khanzarate@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I was still speaking historically, so I meant before easy checks like your ID were in place. Its definitely harder to do that, nowadays. But of course they can go after you for it, that’s my point. You’ve agreed to a contract by the act of signing anything. If I forge a name of a nonexistent person, they can still go after me as if I’d signed it normally, because the act of signing at all is what binds me, not what I actually sign. I held the pen, I agreed to the contract. It would be ridiculous to escape legal consequences by doing things like signing differently, and in this area of law, at least in the US, common sense prevailed and I’ll be liable for whatever I willingly signed, whether that’s my name, an X, a fingerprint, a fake name, or anything else.
stoly@lemmy.world 4 days ago
In parts of the world, paperwork is managed with stamps and a mark. Your doctor in latin america will stamp a blank prescription pad with a stamp that has their name and license number. They will then make a recognizable mark over the stamp. Same with your lawyer and all government offices. The point isn’t that someone can use handwriting analysis - which is just fluff - and rather that they possess the stamp and those who would read the paperwork recognize their particular mark.
BlackVenom@lemmy.world 4 days ago
“in cursive”
Laughs in years of deviating but programmed hand movements from which letters are rarely decipherable…
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Which can, in all fairness, be a benefit of it. Because you might want to write something that people can’t immediately read - notes to yourself, notes in class, a passed note to someone else.
I’m not going to claim I’m happy about having “cursive for handwriting” drilled into me and being forced to learn it, but I do think it’s helpful to know for signatures or when it’s fancy writing time. There’s not really a benefit to not knowing about particular thing/skill… almost ever. It’s like the most low effort skill, and all muscle memory.~___~