Schneier Asks Why We Accept Fax Signatures

Bruce Schneier's latest commentary looks into one of my pet peeves: faxed signature requirements. He writes "Aren't fax signatures the weirdest thing? It's trivial to cut and paste -- with real scissors and glue -- anyone's signature onto a document so that it'll look real when faxed. There is so little security in fax signatures that it's mind-boggling that anyone accepts them. Yet people do, all the time. I've signed book contracts, credit card authorizations, nondisclosure..." It's amazing how organizations are sometimes willing to accept low-quality, unverified scans delivered over POTS as authoritative, when they won't take the same information in a high-resolution scan delivered over (relatively secure) email.

Comments

A watermelon, eh?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Who wants a black and white watermellon?

In any case, a signature is more than just a verification tool. It's also (and indeed, probably primarily) a legal binding into a contract. Hence a fake signature is fraud, punishable by the full weight of the law.

I wish Schneieieier were a little brighter.