On 8/27/2011 12:52 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:
On 8/27/2011 11:44 AM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
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.
It isn't about forgery. It's about what is and is not legally binding.
Today, if a person other than the signatory or his authorized agent is
involved directly in the reproduction of a document then the legal
validity of the reproduction is questionable. In circumstances where it
matters, such as court and medical and financial documents, documents of
questionable validity are unacceptable.
For example, the Apple Board of Directors recently elected Steve Jobs to
the position of Chairman. If the documents are of questionable validity
then someone could legitimately claim that The Steve is not legally the
Chairman. The required procedures have not been followed.
So, it isn't so much as the law failing to keep up as it is that legal
proceedings don't change quickly.
And my point is that a faxed signature is, if anything, of even more
dubious legitimacy than a scanned and emailed one. Given the ease of
forgery of faxed signatures I find it amazing that they are considered
legal signatures for any purpose whatsoever.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
