![]() |
Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
2011/8/27 Shirley M?rquez D?lcey <mark at buttery.org> > On 8/27/2011 9:53 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: > >> On 8/26/2011 11:40 PM, jk_xtblug at kinz.org wrote: >> >>> Thats true for you and I and this community, but the legal community >>> and the medical community still rely on faxes for "security". >>> (Or something.... ) >>> >> >> My understanding -- and this is incomplete information -- is that it >> falls down to the legal signature. A photocopy or facsimile of a >> document with a legal signature is considered to be a legal document for >> record keeping purposes. A digital-only scan of that document is not. >> This is a legal distinction, not a technical one. >> > > And an absurd one in an age when a lot of faxes are sent from computers. A > fax is actually easier to forge than a digital document because of its > relatively low resolution; it's trivial to pass off a Photoshopped document > as an original fax scan. Yet another case of the law not keeping up with > technical reality. > > You are not getting any arguments in this venue. We are reporting how it is, not how it should be. I do find it funny, as faxes are sent AND received by computers over analog phone lines that are really only analog (at most) for the last mile on each end.
![]() |
|
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |