That didn’t quite explain everything. I want to add that there are “type your name to sign” forms that are just what you described, just bytes spelling out your name. In those cases, you’re right, those bytes don’t have your handwriting to prove anything, but they do accomplish something. If the form is secured behind a login and not a totally buggy heap of garbage, then the act of typing your name on that form demonstrates that whoever logged in deliberately expressed their approval. And whatever level of identity verification is needed for login is then playing the part of demonstrating who did that. That’s not perfect, but the level of evidence might match the level of risk enough to justify that mechanism to the company providing it, and it’s important to consider all factors: not just system cost, but end user tolerance.
E.g., there was (maybe still is?) a “ham” radio logging system that had end users generate their own PGP signing key pair to sign their log books, which are simply a list of who they talked to over the radio, always for non-commercial purposes (by law). Many questioned whether a secure web site with good 2FA might suffice and be much more convenient, manageable, and adequate risk level for most users.
“Digital signature” is a proper term that should mean what the parent comment explained–public key crypto “signing” (a hash of) a document’s content–but “sign here by typing your name” will inevitably get called a signature and, obviously, is also digital, just not a real “digital signature”.
Thank you, I was definitely thinking of the first paragraph but the context of third paragraph (and MentalEdge’s comment) helps me to understand why that system actually works/is considered good enough.
atx_aquarian@lemmy.world 4 days ago
That didn’t quite explain everything. I want to add that there are “type your name to sign” forms that are just what you described, just bytes spelling out your name. In those cases, you’re right, those bytes don’t have your handwriting to prove anything, but they do accomplish something. If the form is secured behind a login and not a totally buggy heap of garbage, then the act of typing your name on that form demonstrates that whoever logged in deliberately expressed their approval. And whatever level of identity verification is needed for login is then playing the part of demonstrating who did that. That’s not perfect, but the level of evidence might match the level of risk enough to justify that mechanism to the company providing it, and it’s important to consider all factors: not just system cost, but end user tolerance.
E.g., there was (maybe still is?) a “ham” radio logging system that had end users generate their own PGP signing key pair to sign their log books, which are simply a list of who they talked to over the radio, always for non-commercial purposes (by law). Many questioned whether a secure web site with good 2FA might suffice and be much more convenient, manageable, and adequate risk level for most users.
“Digital signature” is a proper term that should mean what the parent comment explained–public key crypto “signing” (a hash of) a document’s content–but “sign here by typing your name” will inevitably get called a signature and, obviously, is also digital, just not a real “digital signature”.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Thank you, I was definitely thinking of the first paragraph but the context of third paragraph (and MentalEdge’s comment) helps me to understand why that system actually works/is considered good enough.