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 |
On 08/27/2011 11:44 AM, Shirley M?rquez D?lcey wrote: > 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. Back before the BCS went bellyup, there were a couple of attorneys from the state who were somewhat active in the ISIG group. One guy was trying to work to get PGP signatures legalized. -- Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |