Slashdot Mirror


Robo-Arm Signatures Are Legal, Gov't Buys One

AndreV writes "It's endlessly comforting to know a recently designed and implemented long-distance robotic signing arm can produce signatures legal in both the US and Canada. The aptly named LongPen replicates the handwriting from a person writing in a remote location — with the unique speed, cadence and pressure of a human pen-stroke. It started as an idea from author Margaret Atwood to help free her from grueling, multi-city, multi-country book tours, but the hard stuff was done by a bunch of Canadian haptic gurus, whose design took into consideration many factors of the human arm and how we write. How it works: from the author-end, data protocols are set up, and the pen pressure is measured on a special tablet. The data streams to the robot, while algorithms smooth out all the missed points. Complex math operations were used to help the mechatronic limb repeat the hand's motions without unnecessary jerking, and programmers had to 'scale time' or 'stretch time' by breaking down the movements, essentially tricking the eyes into thinking the robot is writing fast. It was recently adopted by the Ontario Government to sign official documents. It helps criminals sign books, too."

154 comments

  1. Margaret Atwood by conureman · · Score: 1

    Canada's best-known novelist and inventor of the LongPen.
    Boy, you learn something every day.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    1. Re:Margaret Atwood by rackserverdeals · · Score: 3, Informative

      And obviously someone that doesn't understand why people obtain signatures.

      A signed copy of a book can increase it's value but when you consider how many book signings they do these days, it's pretty meaningless, at least for the near future.

      People get autographs for the same reason they take pictures with celebrities. To have some sort of proof they met the celebrity.

      With digital cameras so readily available and portable, I'm surprised people are still looking for autographs (other than to sell on ebay).

      With book tours, people don't just want their book signed, they want to have their 15 seconds to talk to the author.

      --
      Dual Opteron < $600
    2. Re:Margaret Atwood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're using the system to do video-conference book-signings. You still get your 15 seconds, and you still get a personal signature. The only difference is that the author doesn't have to travel, and doesn't have to smell you.

    3. Re:Margaret Atwood by omeomi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With book tours, people don't just want their book signed, they want to have their 15 seconds to talk to the author.

      Realistically, I suppose I'd be more likely to head down to the book store to see the weird robotic arm signing books than to talk with some random author I've never heard of.

    4. Re:Margaret Atwood by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Author's security from that over-friendly fan.

      --
      signature is pants
    5. Re:Margaret Atwood by rackserverdeals · · Score: 1

      They're using the system to do video-conference book-signings. You still get your 15 seconds, and you still get a personal signature. The only difference is that the author doesn't have to travel, and doesn't have to smell you.

      The fans want to see the author in person. Might as well just have the author take email requests for book signings, record it, put it on youtube or even do it live over the internet. Then ship the autographed book. Would be much cheaper.

      This is just an author being lazy. I can understand if the author couldn't physically make it, but this just seems like a case of an author that can't be bothered with her pesky readers. In the end, I think it might give her what she wanted, but not how she wanted.

      --
      Dual Opteron < $600
    6. Re:Margaret Atwood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is just an author being lazy. I can understand if the author couldn't physically make it, but this just seems like a case of an author that can't be bothered with her pesky readers. In the end, I think it might give her what she wanted, but not how she wanted.

      She's 69. She has been writing for 50 years. We don't know what her health is like. Her fans will take what they can get. You aren't bothering to look into the particulars of this at all, are you?

    7. Re:Margaret Atwood by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because it's such a hard life jet-setting around, waving at adoring fans hopeful that you'll scribble something in their copy of a $24.99 book turning it into a priceless artifact of literature all the while being paid huge amounts of money for it.

      Only a modern human would be lazy enough to want to automate being famous.

      --
      I hate printers.
    8. Re:Margaret Atwood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Margaret Atwood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first club to pay it (hi)'s members.

    10. Re:Margaret Atwood by Metaphorically · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, there are cases where people send things to a celebrity to be signed and get it back with a video of the signing. Can't think of where I heard this so I don't have a reference.

      --
      more of the same on Twitter.
    11. Re:Margaret Atwood by pmarini · · Score: 1

      And obviously someone that doesn't understand why people obtain signatures.

      oh, does it mean that I cannot use the preface page with her signature as a personal cheque?

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    12. Re:Margaret Atwood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realistically, I suppose I'd be more likely to head down to the book store to see the weird robotic arm signing books than to talk with some random author I've never heard of.

      Perhaps you could start reading more.

    13. Re:Margaret Atwood by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      It depends on the author. Some will send you a book plate that affixes to the book. Some will sign a book if you send it with return postage. Some will refuse to sign anything sent without permission. Some only do signings in a controlled setting, etc.

      I was reading where some nutjob harassed Piers Anthony till he relented and signed a book but he's a bit of a wimp. Most would have jailed the cretin.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  2. Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...what could possibly go wrong with this idea!?

    1. Re:Great Idea by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Cheque fraud would be awesome.

      --
      signature is pants
    2. Re:Great Idea by omeomi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, if only we had some sort of inexpensive way of signing a document, and then producing some sort of copy of that document at a different location, in a relatively short period of time. You know, some sort of facsimile device that could use some sort of transmission medium...I don't know, we could call it a "telephone line"...to transmit data that could tell a second facsimile device on the other end of the line how to reproduce a document. Too bad... We'll just have to go with the robotic arm. I wonder if it comes with a secondary robotic arm to hold the paper still...

    3. Re:Great Idea by obarel · · Score: 1

      So you've heard of my invention then?

      I speak into a machine that has 15,000 sensors that measure the air speed at each point in a three-dimensional cube. It then converts my speech into a complex symbolic description which is passed by e-mail to another machine. The other machine then converts it into movements of synthetic diaphragm, lung, throat, tongue, teeth and lips (it cost me $1,500,000 to build this unique machine).

      The result is a near-perfect replica of my voice. This allows me to send my voice remotely, and to actually have conversions with people in other places (well, it's unidirectional at this point, but the other direction can be implemented by phone... oh, wait...)

    4. Re:Great Idea by codewritinfool · · Score: 1

      This is very similar to what Alexander Bell was thinking about before he invented (or didn't) the telephone. Seriously. You can read about it in "The Telephone Gambit".

    5. Re:Great Idea by joshuaheretic · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I saw this in a movie about a bus that had to speed around the city, keeping its speed over fifty. And if its speed dropped, the bus would explode! I think it was called... 'The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down.'"

    6. Re:Great Idea by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Yeah.... and if only such a facsimile device was equipped with a camera that logged time-stamped video of the sender, proving he/she really did sign the document?

      Oh yeah, fax machines don't provide any of those layers of security -- unlike this robotic arm setup. Nevermind ....

    7. Re:Great Idea by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Oh yeah, fax machines don't provide any of those layers of security -- unlike this robotic arm setup. Nevermind ...."

      Of course, it's not as if the process to duplicate the signature could be stored to be used afterwards without knowledge of the real arm's legit owner to produce a legally valid signature at leisure.
      Nevermind ....

    8. Re:Great Idea by ChinaLumberjack · · Score: 0

      Signatures have distinguishing features that are unreproducible using FAX machines. Such as the engraving left on the paper due to varying pressure applied to the paper from the pen by the signer.

    9. Re:Great Idea by againjj · · Score: 1

      You will find that photocopies (essentially what faxes and scan/email/prints are) do not have the same legal weight as an original. It is harder to forge an original than it is to forge a photocopy. Or do you think that a photocopy of any document should be allowed to have the same significance as an original? Like driver's licenses, passports, birth certificates, contracts, etc.?

  3. The real question by spiritraveller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is whether a handwriting expert can tell the difference.

    1. Re:The real question by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real question is whether a handwriting expert can tell the difference.

      Between the Robo-Arm signature on the document you intended to sign, and the Robo-Arm signature on the document you didn't? I doubt it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:The real question by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The workaround for that problem is to get a signature notarized, so that the signer can't disavow it. Same solution we've had for a long time before this technology came along.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:The real question by TheRedSeven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Right, because Notaries Public are always scrupulous, have high standards and ethics training, and never notarize documents signed outside of their presence.

      I have signed documents and later found that someone had them notarized without my knowledge. Legal? No. Does it happen? Without a doubt.

    4. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A persons brain produces Analog writing
      In robotic arms, There wil be segmented gaps , as a stepper motor or other motor has only a finite resolution.
      example 3600 steps per revolution of the motors shaft or .1 degrees per step , but these gaps also identify the writer as a robotic arm , so the signature has Both parts of the real person and parts of the roboric arms
      It may not fool a writing expert if he/she can see this segmentation, because digital /robotic writing must contain segments no matter how fine, the size a function of the resolution of the motors accuracy /

    5. Re:The real question by j_sp_r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might be able to use a mechanical solution between the shaft of the motor and the driven shaft. Think of a spring-damper system that dampens the step movement to a smooth path.

    6. Re:The real question by tepples · · Score: 1

      In robotic arms, There wil be segmented gaps , as a stepper motor or other motor has only a finite resolution.

      How do you know the gaps will be segmented, and not smoothed out by some sort of low-pass filter?

    7. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much low pass filtering , smoothing as you say would also destroy the unique ID of the person , Rendering the signature useless .

    8. Re:The real question by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The robo-arm doesn't really add a lot or problems to that though (and if someone uses a naive playback attack to forge multiple signatures, the fact that they are too similar should make it easier to successfully deny the signature).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:The real question by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      because digital /robotic writing must contain segments no matter how fine
      However it is certainly plausible that they are lost in the noise.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    10. Re:The real question by jcr · · Score: 1

      I have signed documents and later found that someone had them notarized without my knowledge.

      That's fraud. Did you file charges, or complain to the authority who issued the notary's license?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    11. Re:The real question by kohaku · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hah, well this won't affect me: my signature comes out different every time!

    12. Re:The real question by camperdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In robotic arms, There wil be segmented gaps , as a stepper motor or other motor has only a finite resolution.

      Who says they have to use stepper motors? There is a type of motor called a selsyn or self-synchronizing motor. The way it works is this: You take two identical motors, called the transmitter and the receiver. You hook them up coil for coil. Then you supply power to the rotor coils. Any movement of the rotor on the transmitter motor generates a voltage in the stator coils (the stationary coils in the motor). These voltages are transmitted to the receiving motor, and produce a magnetic field that turns the transmitter motor's rotor by the exact same amount. This type of motor permits continuous angular displacement (ie no stepping). All you have to do is transmit the voltage levels long distance.

      Granted, when you transmit things over the phone lines, there is an analog-digital-analog conversion that takes place. However the phone system samples at a high enough rate (8000hz) that a voice signal comes through. I think it could handle the 60Hz synchro motor signals with a high enough resolution that any digitization artifacts would be unnoticeable.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:The real question by SIR_Taco · · Score: 1

      According to an interview with one of the inventors (on CTV):
      "We worked closely with forensic scientists and they deemed it 100% accurate in replication as well as pressure"

      Now take that with a grain of salt, but they seem to have done their homework.

      --
      I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
    14. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handwriting experts are frauds, and have been found as such as testing. It's pseudoscience at best. They simply don't have the ability to analyze writing as they claim.

      My point, a handwriting expert can't reliably tell the different in any situation, let alone with this technology.

    15. Re:The real question by codewritinfool · · Score: 1

      In a practical sense, I doubt that movement would be at all fluid in the system you propose. The pen would only move when the magnetic force on the second motor was high enough to overcome the friction losses. The result is non-fluid movement, or no movement at all if the input was subtle enough. The second part of your comment doesn't make sense to me. Digitization artifacts are a function of the A/D conversion, not of the transport mechanism. Over a telephone, that is remedied by time.

    16. Re:The real question by jshackney · · Score: 1

      Geez, so now there'll be a Notary service at every book signing. Sounds like a business opportunity.

    17. Re:The real question by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The problem is it won't make it any easier. If someone comes to court and tries to allege their signature could have been forged by a robotic arm, the judge/jury is not prone to believe that.

    18. Re:The real question by bughunter · · Score: 1

      No, the real question is whether the LongPenIs Mightier Than The Sword.

      (Perhaps we should ask Sean Connery.)

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    19. Re:The real question by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The robo-arm doesn't really add a lot or problems to that though (and if someone uses a naive playback attack to forge multiple signatures, the fact that they are too similar should make it easier to successfully deny the signature)."

      Do you know what "non repudiation" is? Since they are too similar which one is the good one? I'd be more than happy to sign you a one million check knowing that the day you try to get it I'll go with one hundred copies so I can deny to pay.

      The robotic arm is twofold bad idea: it is open to reply attacks and allows me to repudiate my own signature if needed.

    20. Re:The real question by maxume · · Score: 1

      I don't think it really affects anything, signatures are weak to begin with; in any case, I don't see myself ever using one, and I hope that I am never in the situation where I am arguing about my signature (or something that is claimed to be my signature).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    21. Re:The real question by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Well synchros are used for gyroscopic compasses, so the accuracy is going to be there. Also, they are used in weapons fire control systems, so the power is there also. Keep in mind, that these things are driven by AC current, so there will always be an induced current in the stator windings. As far as the pen moving only when there is high enough magnetic force to overcome the friction losses, well that applies to stepper motors and regular motors as well.

      As for the second part of my post, I can only surmise that it was due to pre-morning coffee fog. I think the point I was trying to make is that a single phone line could handle the bandwidth of such a device. Of course you'd need A/D and D/A for each stator coil. You'd also need some sort of clocking signal to keep the synchros in synch.

      Anyways, the main point is that a synchro doesn't have the angular stepping resolution issue that a stepper has. I don't have time to think it through right now, but I think any digital side effects would show up as velocity changes moreso than angle changes, and would therefore be irrelevant.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    22. Re:The real question by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      LongPenIs

      You're thinking of a different invention altogether, there.

    23. Re:The real question by pmarini · · Score: 1

      The real question is whether a expert assisting the jury can tell the difference.

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    24. Re:The real question by pmarini · · Score: 1

      can I instruct the robotic-arm to squirt ink in order to repel a fanatic and who does get sued in this case, the manufacturer or the writer ?

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    25. Re:The real question by pmarini · · Score: 1

      ...therefore we agree that infinite is just a convention and that the number of discrete atoms of ink on that sheet of paper is not the same (or that the number of sides in a polygon inside a circle can never match its curvature)

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    26. Re:The real question by pmarini · · Score: 1

      variable-size dots and lines can smooth anything unless seen by an electronic microscope... ink-jet printers have been using this technology for years and I'm sure you can't tell a gap there... blend in some colour and the job's done

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    27. Re:The real question by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      There wil be segmented gaps , as a stepper motor or other motor has only a finite resolution.
      example 3600 steps per revolution of the motors shaft or .1 degrees per step

      You can double the resolution of a stepper motor by making half-steps (energising 2 coils at once will cause it to stop half way between the 2 steps). You can also greatly increase the resolution by PWMing the energised coils - between these 2 methods, using 256 PWM levels your 0.1 degree resolution motor now has a resolution of 0.0002 degrees. Want a higher resolution? Just increase the number of PWM levels you use.

      Yes, it's still digital and therefore still has discrete steps, but between the flexibility of the apparatus, the texture of the paper, the viscosity of the ink, etc. once you get to a small enough resolution it's going to be indistinguishable on the final output.

    28. Re:The real question by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1

      It is fraud. But it was fraud that benefitted me without my fore-knowledge, so I did not report it.

      (It was on a visa application for a trip I took through my college. The leader collected all our signatures, had the university notarize them all (!?!) and then submitted them to the appropriate embassy. I only found out about the notarization after I got the visa back with a copy of the notarized form...)

    29. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked for the company for a while. I tested all of my friends with something written by hand vs. something on the longpen...it fooled no one.

  4. Better than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is less laughable to me than the State of Michigan where government workers are required to "sign" memos by typing their name in italics over their non-italicized name.

    1. Re:Better than by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Legally, in English common law jurisdictions at least (which includes the US) the signature itself is irrelevant: what matters is the intent. All you need to do is signify (note the etymology) that you have consented to whatever you have "signed". An X is more than acceptable. So are signature stamps and autopens ( by the way, can anyone enumerate the difference between this and an autopen?). Even a physical mark is not strictly necessary: contracts, after all, can be verbal and effected with nothing more permanent than a handshake.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:Better than by rich_r · · Score: 1

      Amusingly, the application forms used by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency in the UK still have a space for people to make their mark as well as a signature box.

  5. Write once, reproduce more by piripiri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How this handle security? If the signature is sent remotely, it is possible to store ones signature to reproduce it several times afterwards.

    1. Re:Write once, reproduce more by rackserverdeals · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only that, how do you know what you're actually signing if you're not there to read it in person?

      You don't even need to figure out a way to store and reproduce it. Just through a piece of carbon paper under the document and have a second contract under it, or even just a blank sheet of paper to be filled out later.

      --
      Dual Opteron < $600
    2. Re:Write once, reproduce more by bentcd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How this handle security? If the signature is sent remotely, it is possible to store ones signature to reproduce it several times afterwards.

      Signatures don't handle security, and it's a very very long time since they did. The robo-arm introduces nothing new wrt reproducing signatures that fax machines didn't already bring to the masses several decades ago.

      I suspect that signatures, together with other low-security authentication mechanisms such as PINs and credit card numbers etc, are really only there so that when people do falsify or misuse them you can legitimately lock them up for various forms of fraud.

      Note that in certain situations involving signatures, you still need for both parties to sign at the same time, with two or more witnesses who also sign the document. This shows us that there is little or no security in the signatures as such, but that the security aspect is handled by having well known eye witnesses to interview should the validity of the contract come under dispute at some point.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    3. Re:Write once, reproduce more by koro666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From my experience, when filling forms that use carbon paper, there's no carbon under the signature area so you have to sign all copies separately.

      I'd assume a carbon-copied signature would not be considered binding at all, and would be also be dead easy to spot.

    4. Re:Write once, reproduce more by SpinyNorman · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you search for LongPen videos on youtube you can see a demo of this at a trade show...

      It's more than just a remote signature product - it's really meant for legal/financial use where there may possibly be disputes over what was signed, who was present. etc.

      What the product does is transmit a photo of the document in the robo-pen device to the remote signing end where it appears in a display built into to the tablet device you sign on - it's as if you're singing the real document on the appropriate line/whereever. The system also takes and stores before/after photos of the signed document and saves audio/video of the remote signer (& robot end?) so that these can be brought up if there's any legal challenge... It should be noted that the anticipated legal challenges arn't because of this being a remote signature device, but rather that the whole photo/audio/video capture system is designed to address the challenges that already occur with traditional signed documents.

      There are various comments in reply to this article about how this is nothing new, but from the video it seems that not only is it an entire singing/verification system, but also the signature reproduction quality is very high - it detects/reproduces 60 different pressure levels and samples at 2000/samples sec.

    5. Re:Write once, reproduce more by NonSequor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As I see it, a signature is a sort of signifier that a person recognizes they are agreeing to something that they can't trivially disavow later. It's basically evidence that someone entered into an agreement or issued a statement under their name willingly. It doesn't prove who actually did the signing, but as you said other evidence can corroborate that.

      It's not something you can claim you did accidentally. If you sign something without reading it, then you're willingly trusting the person who asked you to sign it.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    6. Re:Write once, reproduce more by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      Someone could just cut a small hole in some random document needing signed and put something else underneath it. It is doubtful someone could tell the difference and the machine would be signing directly onto the paper. Just shred the document that was SUPPOSED to be signed and claim something happened to it. Unless you sign your documents slightly differently when you use the robo-arm there would be no way to tell. Maybe a special ink could be used or a tiny code that indicated the machine that signed it could be added.

    7. Re:Write once, reproduce more by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So what happens when one of dozens of pages that need to be signed have a 'window' cut out into the page and a hidden page attached behind it?

      The video pertains to the document being signed, but the page planted behind it could be anything, that the signer isn't alerted about.

      Unless there's an affirmative means of detecting the signature was produced by a robotic device, the signed document (the one the signer didn't know about), could later turn up in a legal proceeding..

      Whoever was using the 'signed' document as evidence wouldn't present it as a document signed by "robosigner", they'd claim the person physically signed it (with no remote-signing involved, hence no video _failing_ to show that document signed).

    8. Re:Write once, reproduce more by lilomar · · Score: 1

      I suspect that signatures, together with other low-security authentication mechanisms such as PINs and credit card numbers etc, are really only there so that when people do falsify or misuse them you can legitimately lock them up for various forms of fraud.

      Rknpgyl. N fvtangher vf gb senhq nf ebg-13 vf gb QEZ. Abj cercner gb or QZPN'q. :)

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    9. Re:Write once, reproduce more by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Signatures don't handle security, and it's a very very long time since they did.

      I still get asked occasionally to sign for my credit card, and the shop assistant always peers intently at the back of my card to see if they match.

      And we still rely on signatures as a first-line-of-defence for identifying people in written correspondence at work (including in formal documents and forms). For most important things there are other checks, but a matching signature is still often required.

      Being able to accurately reproduce someone's signature would still be a big boon for any would-be fraudster.

    10. Re:Write once, reproduce more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reproducing more part sounds good.

    11. Re:Write once, reproduce more by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      >>How this handle security? If the signature is sent remotely, it is
      >>possible to store ones signature to reproduce it several times afterwards.

      That's easily fixed. Just make it a requirement that the signer must also sign a second document to indicate that they are not using a pre-recorded signature.

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    12. Re:Write once, reproduce more by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      The easy response to someone with such a "signed thru a hole cut in another document" would be to show the court the photo recorded by the device of the document it appeared to be signing, where the signature would be identical to the one they were presenting... Two genuine signatures by the same person are never precisely identical.

      In reality I doubt you could cut a hole in a document that would not be visible in a hi-res close-up photo.

    13. Re:Write once, reproduce more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the shop assistant doesn't understand the system. You sign because it legally binds you to pay, not for fraud detection.

  6. This is news? It isn't new. by pz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Robotic signature machines have been around for decades. Some of my colleagues at MIT worked on the first modern ones based on plotter technology in the late 1980s/early 1990s which were quickly bought by places like the US White House to sign letters.

    A 5-second search on Google for "signature machine" comes up with 8 thousand hits. There's an autopen entry on Wikipedia indicating that mechanical signature machines have been around since the early 1800s (yes 1800s), and lists three current manufacturers of the devices.

    So, this is news? Just because someone hooked up the recording part and the writing part across an internet connection and made them work in real time? That makes it to the front page? Is that really the first time it was ever done? Lots of other things have been done telerobotically already.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  7. long pen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    longpenislong

    1. Re:long pen by codewritinfool · · Score: 1

      No one wants your longpenis machine.

    2. Re:long pen by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      No one wants your longpenis machine.

      I have an inbox full of spam that says otherwise

  8. Does not make much sense for authentication by tucuxi · · Score: 1

    Manually signing things is cumbersome because (a) you have to be within arm's reach of the signature's destination, and (b) because it takes a certain amount of time to sign each paper.

    These folks seem to have a (complex) system to create signatures remotely, addressing (a). If you record and play back what comes into the signing machine, you would also have (b) - at the expense of an even greater security headache. I really hope they are keeping the connection encrypted. And kudos to them on account of imitating fine manipulation.

    But signatures as authentication are more than flawed. Only a specialist can distinguish between a valid signature and a forgery of any quality, and there are few specialists. About the only saving grace of signatures is that they are low on technology - anyone can sign, and anyone can "low-leve-verify" a signature.

    If you are going to use a machine and a secure communications channel for identification -- use cryptography.

    Also, if whatever the machine signs in your name is going to be legally binding, you had better be very sure that the machine is signing what they tell you that it is signing. I can imagine all types of mischief with blank checks instead of "book covers". An advantage of being (a) within arm's reach of something is that you can easily examine what it is that you are signing.

    1. Re:Does not make much sense for authentication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I don't see the point of this solution.

      Here in Finland nearly all officials (anyone working for the ministry, police, etc.) gets a card with a chip. In addition to letting you to crypt emails with any card holder's public key, it also allows you to give electrical signatures (which need your card and a six digit PIN) that are legally accepted here.

      Every new personal ID card given here also has similar chip and lets you do the same things but the systems are separate (IE. the police have their personal cards and one from their work) to let the employers to remove any cards from their registries without affecting the people's personal lives...

      It is a good system. It works well. It is much more reliable than this kind of crap. Why not use something similar?

      (And yes, it has the single pitfall that it requires the certificate authority to be trusted. Here our VRK (Population Register Centre) is the only entity that has been authorized to give certificates that are legally binding in signatures.)

    2. Re:Does not make much sense for authentication by Tacvek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My understanding is that under US law, anything intended by the signer as a signature legally qualifies as a signature. That includes, but is not limited to standard signatures, electronic signatures, press seals, wax seals, visible fingerprints, etc. Now, this leaves open the question of weather a given mark is intended as a signature, and if so, what the signature is intended to mean. The signature may mean that I have seen and agreed to the contents, that I have seen the contents, that I am the author of the contents, or quite a few other things.

      Now, the law will in some cases require specific types of signatures for some things, such as a true written signature, but not always.

      For example for online trademark filing at the USPTO, the signature is any textual entry of the submitter's choice, as long as it begins and ends with the forward slash character. The USPTO considers that just as binding as a "normal" signature on a paper form.

      In the same way, a PGP signature on a textual contract could be considered valid, subject to validity of the signature itself according to the OpenPGP standard.

      For the record, IANAL.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  9. I don't know where to post this... by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

    Yes, off topic. Where should I post this then?

    Slashdot's CSS is all broken. I can't see any images! And the pages are fugly. My error console in firefox has "$ is not defined" about a million times for slashdot.org, even if I log out. Anyone else getting this? It's been going on for about a day.

    1. Re:I don't know where to post this... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Refresh your cache.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:I don't know where to post this... by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I did. Many times. :\

      Not fixed...

    3. Re:I don't know where to post this... by iYk6 · · Score: 1

      What browser and OS are you using? And can you give us a screenshot?

    4. Re:I don't know where to post this... by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1
    5. Re:I don't know where to post this... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Do you mean that you pressed reload, or do you mean that you deleted your disk cache?

      The most likely reason that I can think of is that you have a partial CSS file stuck in your browser cache. That certainly isn't the only thing that might be wrong though.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:I don't know where to post this... by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      I went tools> clear private data > disk cache. I also restarted firefox after that.

    7. Re:I don't know where to post this... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Looking at the source of this page, Slashdot loads javascript and css from s.fsdn.com, so I would guess that s.fsdn.com is somehow being blocked (or otherwise failing) on your end.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:I don't know where to post this... by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      Aparently that's not just me, though:
      http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://s.fsdn.com/

    9. Re:I don't know where to post this... by maxume · · Score: 1

      At the moment, I can successfully load this url:

      http://s.fsdn.com/sd/core-tidied.css?T_2_5_0_252a

      This one also works (in fact, the above loaded from cache and the below from the network):

      http://s.fsdn.com/sd/core-tidied.css

      It is their content delivery network, something in the configuration must be tricking downforeveryoneorjustme.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:I don't know where to post this... by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      I can load both of those URLs.

    11. Re:I don't know where to post this... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the source of a page. If you see javascript and css being pulled from s.fsdn.com, I'm out of ideas, if you see them being pulled from somewhere else, check that out.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:I don't know where to post this... by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      Ooooh, it says it's loading all the stylesheets from "//s.fsdn.com/sd/core-tidied.css?T_2_5_0_252a" and such malformed urls. It's missing the http! Firefox can't access those URLs. Is this a bug in slashcode?

    13. Re:I don't know where to post this... by maxume · · Score: 1

      It might be a bug in slashcode, but if Firefox couldn't access those urls people would be chipping in to say that they have the same problem as you do (among them, me). It could be something specific to your platform or build, but I am pretty sure it isn't anything Firefox in general has trouble with.

      I expect that you are having a problem with an extension or something blocking the fsdn content. If you are seeing the problem in browsers other than firefox, you are really up a creek. Another thing you could try is saving a page locally and fixing the links.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:I don't know where to post this... by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your help.
      I'm very sure that the source code of the page contains "" and various other oddities. I can, however, access the url "s.fsdn.com/sd/core-tidied.css?T_2_5_0_252a" just fine. It's the preceding // that's messing firefox up.

    15. Re:I don't know where to post this... by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      Ah, it was an errant entry into ad-block that was stopping access. Weird. Thanks for your help in figuring out what it was!

  10. Re:This is news? It isn't new. by DavidR1991 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Auto signature machines are not the same as long distance signature machines. It's also worth noting that mechanical signature systems are rarely used for sensitive data etc. (they're normally used on cheap merchandise etc. and hand writing experts can tell the difference between the mechanical version and a real signature)

  11. anything that can be sent can be recorded by bombastinator · · Score: 1

    On a business, rather than celebrity autograph level, how is this different than an autopen except that it's (lots) harder to detect forgery? How is this a good thing?

    Anything that can be sent can be recorded, and anything that can be encrypted can be decrypted given enough time. The security of the device seems to be based on the fact that it is more or less unique. This will not remain true, and therefore the security offered will not continue to exist. All this machine has done is make one of our last fairly good low tech verification systems useless not even for some other great purpose, but for the convenience of celebrities. Forgive me if I find this less than noble.

  12. We all know where this is heading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cryptographic signature anyone?

  13. How many versions... by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1

    It's going to be hilarious when the LonPen 15 is introduced...

    1. Re:How many versions... by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      It's going to be hilarious when the LonPen 15 is introduced...

      Well, perhaps for those who get the joke.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    2. Re:How many versions... by bughunter · · Score: 1

      I can see the Marketing Slogan now:

      The LongPen 15
      Mightier than the Sword!

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    3. Re:How many versions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not mightier than the LongSword, surely.

    4. Re:How many versions... by chis101 · · Score: 1

      I won't say the joke went over your head, but I don't know what the term is for when a joke is too juvenile that a person misses it :)

      For anyone that is curious, 15 looks a bit like IS

  14. Impact == 0 by physicsphairy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The value of a signature is its difficulty to replicate. The historical cut off for this has been the talent and prevalence of expert forgers. Having automated forgers is quite irrelevant if they require more investment of time and effort to perform the same replication. (which would clearly be the case for this implementation, at least)

    If anything, I would say the problem is that these machines are being underapplied. What they should *really* be used for is to create extremely complicated signatures a human being would not be able to accurately reproduce. Then for the first time in hundreds of years written signatures would become more secure.

    (Granted, only until someone develops a machine that can reverse-engineer them, but at that point human-written signatures would have been even less helpful.)

    1. Re:Impact == 0 by ivucica · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that these forgeries are for some reason legal in US and Canada, and God-knows-where-else.

    2. Re:Impact == 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a watermark

  15. Historical footnote by earlymon · · Score: 1

    http://www.earlyofficemuseum.com/copy_machines.htm

    Scroll down to the Polygraphs paragraph.

    I swear I saw in a very old movie the original-idea polygraph on a machine separated over a phone line. Cannot find a reference to it anywhere.

    I love /. for what I learn while looking for other things - originally, a polygraph was a machine to copy signatures.

    Props to the LongPen for its tech - but I think we have a history-recording gap between it and the polygraph.

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  16. 100's of years, just now piped somewhere by cenc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These have been around for hundreds of years I believe. We just now can send them longer distances.

  17. Complicated solutions to easy problems by Tarrio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Using robotic arms to sign official documents? In Spain we use rubber stamps.

    1. Re:Complicated solutions to easy problems by pimpimpim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed, often I get documents where there is a signature of someone else, like the secretary, just saying "in assignment of". If the document is really important you could always have it hand-signed later on.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  18. Re:This is news? It isn't new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone hooked up the recording part and the writing part across an internet connection and made them work in real time

    Excellent! Someone just worked out my business model patent! I'm going to be rich! I love how this works, think of a idea, get a patent on it, then wait for someone to actually work out the details.

  19. Wot? by XMode · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where is the 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' tag?!

  20. Did this in 1992 by pcjunky · · Score: 1

    Look at patient #5,222,138

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5222138.PN.&OS=PN/5222138&RS=PN/5222138

    It was called the Telesignature and used dual key RSA for authentication and encryption. The system used a combined scanner (chinnon planetary configuration scanner) attached to a flat bed plotter inside a security enclosure. A pen computer was used at the remote end to review and sign the document. I am listed as co-inventor as I was responsible for most of the systems design. My wife and best friend did all of the programming. We first showed the operating prototypes at Fall Comdex in 1992. My wife used a bezzier curve to smoooth the signature and many people marveled at how good the signature was.

    We later did a spinoff product for mass signature reproduction called Autosignature (no patent).

    Later I'll dig up some of the old brochures and scan them and put some of the picts at the link below.

    http://explorer/cyberstreet.com/telesignature

    1. Re:Did this in 1992 by pcjunky · · Score: 1
  21. secure by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    How can such an arm be secure?
    I mean: how is the data transmitted? Any details?

    1. Re:secure by pcjunky · · Score: 1

      Look at the above patient. Details on how the system was secured are included.

      Most of this is moot at this point as faxed signatures are deemed legal anyway.

  22. Re:The real question... by conureman · · Score: 1

    ...is can this (not) be hacked? Now where did that checkbook go?

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  23. Ancient "telautograph?" by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    How is this any different from the "telautograph" machines common in the 1950s? As a kid I was fascinated by one I saw in a New York hotel that was used to allow a manager in one location to remotely sign documents in another. Heaven only knows that technology it used, but my vague memory is that it looked like an X-Y version of an analog, galvanometer-type pen recorder.

    Click, click, Google: Wikipedia has an article on the Telautograph which mentions that "The telautograph was first publicly exhibited at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition held in Chicago."

    1. Re:Ancient "telautograph?" by pcjunky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The teleautograpgh does not seem to include any means of preventing it from being used for forgeries.

      No security measure means it could not be used for legal documents.

      It is simply a means of reproducing handwriting at a distance.

  24. Signatures aren't secure anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It doesn't matter, signatures aren't secure anyway. The variability between separate signatures of one person is often greater than the difference between any one of them and a reasonable forgery. In that respect the law is out of sync with reality, in the sense that a signature is supposed to guarantee that the document was signed by the undersigned while in reality it could be signed by anyone who had taken the trouble to exercise jotting down someone else's signature for half a day.
    In the Netherlands this recently caused a bit of a scandal, I'll recount it for your entertainment. If you're an official for a company or public charity or the like you have to register with the Chamber of Commerce. Because other people can have public dealings with such an entity all the books and other documents relating to it need to be public. However, that meant that the signatures of all officials of companies etc. could be obtained for a small fee filing a request with the Chamber of Commerce. Turned out crooks knew about that. They chose low-profile targets, and signed documents like "I, H. Victim, hereby donate my company to W. Crook.", milk the company, disappear and by the time anyone notices to money's gone and nothing can be done about it anymore. Apart from the attack vector these are very similar to the recent house selling scams in Britain.

    1. Re:Signatures aren't secure anyway by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      House selling scams in Britain. I live in that there Britain and hadn't (I think) heard of these scams. Could you enlighten me?

      Ps - Your prose might benefit from some paragraphs, your post was interesting but I had to read it three times to understand.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    2. Re:Signatures aren't secure anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, fraudsters find a mortgage free house and fake the necessary documents to register a change of address for the owner with the land registry. They then take out mortgages against the house or sell it, pocket the money and run. With all the correspondence going to an address they control, the actual owner doesn't notice and is none the wiser until the bailiffs turn up.

      Criminal gangs have actually done whole streets. It's made a lot easier by lax procedure at the Land Registry.

      One news item:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7971612.stm

  25. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The value of a signature is that it is a deliberate act, nothing more. It's like the flippy thing over the "weapons hot" switch. It's there so that you can't say, "I didn't mean to agree to those terms."

    A signature is NOT a security device. I don't think they ever were.

  26. This pen.is long. My long pen.is leaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else can this baby grip from a distance. Cyber handjobs will grip you if your pen.is leaky.

  27. Re:This is news? It isn't new. by nbauman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're right. I remember seeing a long-distance handwriting machine at an airport 50 years ago, where someone in a remote city was writing messages to our city -- I think about the weather and flight delays. (I assume they could also have used teletype.)

    And Harry Truman was the first president to use an Autopen to reply to constituent letters.

  28. Where do I get one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I couldn't find the LongPen at PenIsland. Can anyone tell me the URL of LongPenIsland?

  29. Re:Please explain the "criminal" comment to me by quitte · · Score: 1

    to quote the article: "In reality, as a LongPen press release delicately put it, "legal complications" made it impossible for Black to appear in person. Black isn't allowed to leave the U.S. because of bail restrictions following his conviction on fraud and obstruction of justice."

  30. Ronald Reagan by eples · · Score: 1

    Didn't Reagan use one of these? I seem to remember that.

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
  31. Re:This is news? It isn't new. by OctaviusIII · · Score: 1

    Oh, the autopen is used for so much more than just signing letters. When I worked for a certain elected official, we kept a stack of autopen-signed papers so we could do floor orders and the like. Nothing big, of course, like "move to add Member X as cosponsor to my Bill Y", but there's no reason why they couldn't have been used for more sinister ends. If I ever wanted to write a racist, pro-Nazi diatribe I could've gotten my boss's signature on it without any hassle. Needless to say, it requires a lot of trust to put one of those machines in the back room of the office.

    --
    What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
  32. Missing the point? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    I thought part of the reason a signature is important in the first place is to verify the signers presence at the time of signing.

  33. Waldo by Scarbo27 · · Score: 1

    Is no one going to mention Robert Heinlein and Waldo? They don't make nerds like they used to. http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=23

    1. Re:Waldo by Alan426 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant to mod up but my finger slipped. Damn these mechanical arms!

  34. Plain old signature is ... by Sepiraph · · Score: 1

    Plain old signature is getting obsolete, they need digital signature for authentication + something like TACACS/RSA for authorization.

  35. A robotic long-distance arm? by m0rphin3 · · Score: 1

    This should be used with hookers and blackjack instead.
    In fact, screw the blackjack!

    --
    for great justice
  36. Robo-penis penetrations are real... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's next?

  37. Wont work with me by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

    I have already got a system to prevent this.
    No two signatures are the same. That's how you know my signature is genuine - it doesn't match another signature of mine.

    Used to cause a bit of annoyance at the bank when they checked these things.

    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
    1. Re:Wont work with me by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      I don't intentionally vary my signatures, but they definately do vary. Unfortunately for me, they can very so much that the traditional check of "Are they very similar?" would be worthless. If you try to match two of my signatures, you there might be a 1/4 chance that they match as closely as signatures traditionally "should". Sigh.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    2. Re:Wont work with me by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Yeah I was just joking that it was intentional. My handwriting is simply just too poor to replicate it.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
  38. No major crap ups by whiledo · · Score: 1

    Reading about this, I just can't help but think of Nixon on Futurama. I'll be much more impressed when they get this technology working to the level where you can sign by rubbing your nose against the glass.

    --
    Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
  39. Re:This is news? It isn't new. by Steneub · · Score: 0

    IIRC didn't Thomas Jefferson have something similar?

    Like a duplicator of sorts. The device attached to the butt of the pen and simply followed along with another pen held aloft with pulleys and counterweights.

  40. almost there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh one step closer to being able to stab people in the face over the internet.

    * nmp3bot dances :D-<
    * nmp3bot dances :D|-<
    * nmp3bot dances :D/-<

  41. This has a quaint feel to it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't get rid of the feeling that I've seen this somewhere already...somewhere in a book about 19th/20th century telecommunications equipment, next to Pantelegraph and Bildfunk. :)

  42. Memory, Repeat Button, and {Check}Book by aoheno · · Score: 1

    Add memory. Add a repeat button. Add a {check}book for an account that nowadays actually has money in it.

    --
    Her lips were softer than a duck's bill, but her quacks ...
  43. Re:This is news? It isn't new. by pongo000 · · Score: 1

    Your memory is accurate. We used them in the air traffic control tower I worked at to send weather and flight data to the Flight Service Station that was across the field. Hardly nothing new here in terms of hardware. Just a new legal interpretation on an old idea.

  44. In related news .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the government is developing a modification of the arm allowing it to reach into your pocket.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  45. Atwood is both Lazy and Stupid by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

    Yes, the book tours are a lot of work, you get sore wrists, etc. But it's a part of the job that she chooses to do. There isn't anything that requires it. It's just a sales boosting event.

    But nobody is going to give a damn about a mechanically reproduced signature. Nobody, except the most hardcore fans, are going to care about that - they want to meet the author, not the author's mechanical stand-in. If she actually used it, it would defeat the entire purpose of the signing.

    Also, I have to think that it would make more sense for the government to just shell out for a scanner and a wacomm tablet.

  46. Or Servos + Zero Backlash Gears by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    Servo motors can easily resolve 1/2500 of a revolution, and if mated to a relatively inexpensive 60:1 zero-backlash worm gear, effectively can position to within 1/150,000 of a revolution. That is some pretty serious precision that can be assembled for just a few hundred dollars.

  47. Re:Off Topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stick it in your journal.

  48. Yes he did by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    You beat me to a (in my head) clever post. Jefferson created a mechanical device that as he wrote would move a secondary quill in a mirrored fashion. Sounds simple or obvious to many here today, but remember where technology was[n't] then. An absolutely brilliant mind.

  49. Re:This is news? It isn't new. by koick · · Score: 1

    Even in 1988 I was using these as an aviational weather forecaster for the USAF. It was used to communicate weather watches/warnings to the tower, Base Ops, and others, and they used it for base wide announcements. It was strange to watch someone's writing style being broadcast in real-time and you could, obviously, even see differences in styles and handwriting. I thought it was funny to have such a system in place when we also had "hotline" phones which rung to all those same places as well as teletype machines, and even a PC or two, since it was sometimes hard to read because there was a lot of noise in the legibility as well as an importance in that person's penmanship.