Are Signature Pads Dangerous to Privacy? 85
WildHunter asks: "While making a foray into a local retailer today I paid using a credit card and was asked to sign a paper receipt on top of a digital pad. Being cautious I asked what it was for and I was assured that it was 'fully secure and safe to use'. Being a typical paranoid Slashdotter I offered to sign off of the pad but refused to sign on the pad. Was I over reacting or can someone back up my paranoia with some facts?" Think about it, some deceitful vendor has one of these, sells you something, gets your signature, and can then ring up loads of charges on your card using a digital copy of said signature over, and over, and over... you get the idea. Do the current crop of signature pads prevent against this and other similar kind of deceit?
Regular vs digital (Score:1)
With a normal signature experts are able to verify the signature by looking at the pressure used on the pen in different parts of the signature. A feature that is very much lost with this "digital signature"
Re:Regular vs digital (Score:1, Informative)
A feature that is very much lost with this "digital signature"
Good tablets record the pressure. They also record other information (pen orientation) that may be used to verify identity. Once you have the dynamic record of the signature you can do more (think pen velocity along the strokes, quite individual, those little loops you do on the "e's and 'a's, lots of identifying data there).
The simple answer is Don't use your real signature on the pads. They could record enough data to reproduce things. Use an 'X' for the couriers.
Re:Regular vs digital (Score:1)
Not true (Score:2)
I have worked in the field of Biometrics, and this statement is just not true. In many implementations of signature pads, the pressure is also measured (and even displays thicker lines because of it). Most signature recognition algorithms also use the varying pressure as a factor in the matching algorithm.
A traced signature will _not_ match on any matching software I used.
T
I doubt there's more of an opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. All the retailer gets is a digital copy of your signature. Now, they could conceivably sign your name to contracts with them and such. But in order to actually sign your name, the person with the copy of your signature would have to actually write it out with a pen. Now, even the most braindead clerk would get suspicious if you had to use a stencil to sign the credit card receipt.
Yes, they could learn your signature from digitial printout, and if they're adept enough at forging, could do it that way. But they could do exactly the smae thing with old fashioned receipts (making copies of the receipt if necessary).
In addition the credit card companies do maintain large anti-fraud departments to investigate this sort of thing (as under US law, you'd only be liable for up to $50 of the purchases the retailer would make without your actual signature; it he buys a brand new rig from AlienWare with your signature, several grand will be eaten by AlienWare (which doesn't help their relationship with the CC) or it gets eaten by the CC. Either way, they see a pattern of people who have transactions disallowed, all of whom made purchases at the same store, and the retailer gets in big trouble.
There are more important risks with CC's.
Re:I doubt there's more of an opportunity (Score:3, Insightful)
Many cards now have $0 liability (such as my Citibank card). Anyone with the standard $50 liability may want to consider getting a new credit card.
Re:I doubt there's more of an opportunity (Score:2)
as under US law, you'd only be liable for up to $50 of the purchases the retailer would make without your actual signature
Bull. I've never agreed to that. To quote the discover card agreement, "You agree to pay us in U.S. Dollars for all purchases, cash advances, and balance transfers including applicable Finance Charges and other charges or fees, incurred by you or anyone you authorize or permit to use your Account or a Card, even if you do not notify us that others are using your Account or a Card."
If they can't convince a judge that I authorized or permitted the purchase, I'm liable for $0, not $50.
Let me add (Score:2)
Re:I doubt there's more of an opportunity (Score:2)
actually, i've found they don't care if they catch anyone or not. a friend of mine had his credit card number stolen. a bunch of home office equipment was charged to it. when he got his bill in the mail he found the company that sold the equipment, and called them. they gave him the address where the equipment had been delivered. he checked it out (it was a house), and was able to easily see some of the larger items from the yard in front of the house. he called the credit card company and they didn't care. they just reveresed the charges. they weren't even interested in the address of the person who had defrauded them. they just apparently wrote off the expense.
Re:I doubt there's more of an opportunity (Score:2)
Re:I doubt there's more of an opportunity (Score:2)
Re:I doubt there's more of an opportunity (Score:2)
-a
Amen (Score:1)
Re:Amen (Score:2, Insightful)
Registered Mail (Score:1)
Re:Registered Mail (Score:2)
Yep, where I used to work, the delivery guy would turn up with sometimes hundreds of pounds' worth of IT kit, and expect us to sign something saying it had been received in good condition/working order/etc. without even opening the (frequently badly dented) cardboard packaging. And of course, the signature was digital, so how that's supposed to be bound to any meaningful statement about what condition things were in is beyond me.
Standard unofficial office policy involved signing yourself Mickey Mouse, or X|ZYY or some such. No-one ever noticed or complained.
Spoof 'em. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't trust them because I don't know if they're recording a bitmap or vector/spline data. The former is okay, but the latter, if intercepted, can be used to make an infinite number of unique-looking but valid signatures. So, I usually make swirls with a fingernail while I sign, making a valid paper signature and a cloud of noise on the screen, since the pad can't tell which of four moving coordinates is the real active one when two different points are pressed at once.
I've only ever had one merchant actually look at the screen and ask me to sign again. (He thought it was the unit's fault.) The rest seem to believe that the pad is checking my signature, not just recording it.
Re:Spoof 'em. (Score:2)
They usually get something looking like a bunch of up and down scribbles. The paper is signed.
Why both? (Score:1)
Re:Why both? (Score:2)
And these guys are paranoid about signing digitally?
Re:Why both? (Score:1)
Re:Why both? (Score:1)
I have had stores err in reconciling charges and the charge never shows up. Lose the signatures and you have nothing (the bank may or may not help you process the charges anyway in the hopes 95% won't know you screwed up and will pay anyway).
Usual paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Digital signatures can be used by less-than-ethical sods just like your credit card number by the same people. Make sure your credit card company has fraud protection and be done with it....
This is similar to the people who will willing give their credit card to a person behind the counter but refuse to shop online because 'it isn't secure enough'..... Get over the paranoia and get on with your life... it is too damn short to take up your time with menial crap like this....Re:Usual paranoia (Score:2)
Re:Usual paranoia (Score:2)
Re:what? (Score:1)
They offer no fraud protection, and absolutely NO protection whatsoever. I was in dispute once with an ISP that kept putting 40 dollars charges every week on my card. (setup fee... every week!) and I talked to my bank. They said, "we cannot do anything about it, you will have to talk to the company performing the transactions." (Bank of America, for those who want to know)
Now, I did speak with a customer service rep a couple of times (got it resolved a couple times also...) and when it brought my account down to negative and I had a 20 dollar service charge luckily the ISP paid that fee for me and refunded the money they took out. (course then I cancelled, harshly)
End result? I now wonder what would happen if some business wasn't exactly in the right side of the law and used my card continuously to charge the same item once a week. Bank of America obviously wouldn't be doing anything about it (at least you can do a stop payment with a check!) and the company could easily wipe my account out without a thought... leaving me to scrounge enough money together for legal assistance while they do that.
It is scarey. Unfortunately, I seem stuck using the checkcards, but I use primarily debit now because it's a one time fee and it's *immediate*. (doesn't wait a couple days to show on the ledger)
My real-life ranting here.
Re:Usual paranoia (Score:1)
but what are you going to do
Demand a paper receipt to sign. If the sales clerk can't provide one then demand to see their supervisor. If their supervisor can't figure it out then exercise one of the benefits of living in a capitalist economy and take your money someplace else.
I left a couple hundered dollars worth of clothes sitting on a counter once because the sales clerk couldn't figure out how to complete the transaction without that silly little machine. This rarely happens anymore. Most businesses that use those things seem to have caught on that some people just don't like them and have trained their employees to know how to make a paper receipt in those cases.
Re:Usual paranoia (Score:1)
Paranoid - You KNOW they're out to get you! (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong about being paranoid about such things - but they are SO easy to fool! When I encounter one of these things I merely alter my signature! Not just a little bit - alot!
So - they may have a copy of my signature, but not one that would standup under examination, which beg's the question of what good is the signature system if the vendor doesn't LOOK at the signature on the card in the first place!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Paranoid - You KNOW they're out to get you! (Score:1)
Not that it really matters (nobody ever looks), but its generally a bad idea not to sign your card. Someone could steal it, sign it, and then be able to fool anyone who didn't check their ID. You can write 'See ID' on the back of the card, then you'll know how many people even bother to look.
On a side note. I usually mangle my signature (not on purpose, just sloppy) and I have only been asked for my ID once.
Re:Paranoid - You KNOW they're out to get you! (Score:2)
Re:Paranoid - You KNOW they're out to get you! (Score:1)
You are doing better than I. Only 1 out of 10 (at the most) ask to see mine, even though the signature line says "DEMAND PHOTO ID".
But, it's not a big deal. I put it on there mainly to discourage someone from trying to use it if my wallet is stolen.
"See ID" isn't valid (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not going to do your research for you but I've seen statement mailers, various web pages, and other consumer info from each of them over the years that all said "See ID" or similar is not valid to put on the card. More importantly, unless that card is signed with your signature rather than some bogus phrase, you technically haven't followed your terms of the contract. Arguably they could claim that because you didn't sign the card, they aren't liable, because you didn't take the reasonable (and required under the contract) action of signing the card.
"See ID" is a nice idea, but it's kind of like that wacky MS EULA-bypass stuff we always see here. People get some idea that by finding a way not to take a specific physical action like clicking a button or signing a card, they've changed the contract. I doubt that would hold up. There may even be unintended consequences like claiming the cardholder didn't take the necessary and reasonable steps to protect the card.
(And in the case of the EULA-bypasser, MS might claim use of a "circumvention device" under the DMCA.)
Re:Paranoid - You KNOW they're out to get you! (Score:1)
Re:Paranoid - You KNOW they're out to get you! (Score:1)
Ahhh the law, wonderful catchall, don't you think?
Re:Paranoid - You KNOW they're out to get you! (Score:1)
Re:Paranoid - You KNOW they're out to get you! (Score:1)
So if my card is ever lost or stolen, and someone signs receipts using the name printed on the card -- those will be obvious frauds, easy to spot.
Most credit card companies now recommend that you do NOT sign the back of the card (after all, if it's signed and the card is stolen, the miscreant has a valid signature all too handy to copy!!)
Way paranoid (Score:4, Interesting)
I would be more concerned with the fact that these stores store our credit card NUMBERS, or when you order something over the phone (who knows if they aren't writing it down while typing it in?), or the clueless SSL "secure" websites that email you a confirmation with your CC number. Oops. I probably just gave you some more reasons to add a 3rd lock to your windowless house.
Re:Way paranoid (Score:1)
I can't speak for the poster but I won't sign those machines because an electronic copy of my signature is one more piece of information they don't need. I also don't give out my zip code or phone number and, if I feel they really do need it, I'll make them jump through flaming hopes before I give them my SSN.
To me this is just another example of a technological gadget that contributes nothing to the transaction but allows the company to store yet another piece of personal information that they don't really need.
You asked who ?? (Score:1)
You asked the person working at the cash register a nd got that answer ?? At least the answer sounds good, but how true is it ?? I can see an employee meeting and this is brought up... The manager responds, "In case anyone asks, tell them "It's fully secure and safe to use.".
some experience with this (Score:5, Interesting)
I was one of those paranoid customers whenever I bought something from the store, and I disliked having to allow customers to use the pads, for several reasons:
You can guess a lot by how someone signs their card, and having the card in hand allows you to verify the pattern of hand movements for the signature, as well as check expiration date, holograms, etc. With the self-swiper, the customer retains the card at all times. Sure, you can watch the hand movements and compare to the signature if you get a glance at it, but regardless, most people put their card away quickly and furtively, triggering mental red flags, and then get pissy if you ask "Sir, may I see the card and a photo ID please?". So you lose either way.
Secondly, the company would have a perfect digital record of the signature. Note that I said "company", not "store". While it's true that signatures could easily be forged from paper receipts, having a single giant database of signatures presents a much more tempting target, and a much greater reward should it be compromised. Keep in mind that Office Depot is the same company that has all their "locked-down" in-store kiosks brag about the need to enable unsigned ActiveX controls, so I'm not the most confident in their data security.
This annoys me as a customer of other stores, too. "See ID" means nothing if the retailer never gets a chance to see it written on my card.
The world of credit cards is rife with fraud and incompetence anyway. Gas stations and convenience stores are the worst. (I was recently in a gas station where the clerk told me, "Well, your signature matches, so I won't ask for your ID." Gee, thanks, lady.) And they're as obsolete as cheques -- we won't be remotely secure until we have smart chips in every card and deprecate all legacy swipers -- but I'm not sure if being secure in my identity can make me feel more secure overall. There are good reasons to keep the anonymity of cash around.
Note that I wanted to use em dashes (— HTML character entity) in my penultimate sentence, but I guess Taco has decided to disallow the ampersand escape and further muddy the waters of HTML. Way to go, guy. Is it too complicated to equate with the space character in your joke of a "lameness filter", instead of restricting those of us with US keyboards to ASCII-7? I notice you've already made an exception for &.
Re:some experience with this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:some experience with this (Score:1)
You can't turn down a credit card purchase just because they won't show you ID. I guarantee after a few people fill out this form [mastercard.com] you will change your tune.
Also, I find it funny that "no ID required" is one of the big selling points banks are using to try and get people to switch to debit cards. There is no ID required for a credit card purchase either!
Re:some experience with this (Score:1)
Re:some experience with this (Score:1)
Well. Cheques and card-swipes are practically identical any more. Merchant cheque verification ensures that funds are in the account, and until CVV2 and smart-cards become more prevalent, the credit card interface provides no more proof of identity, and is more convenient to use for fraud.
I can't blame someone for wanting to see ID on a self-certifying document. If it's a card-present transaction, I guess it's the bank's loss, but I would expect them to request the most stringent checking possible.
As far as legality goes, I'm now puzzled about the legality of requiring IDs for cheques. Considering that just scribbling down your name, bank, and account number is more than required for a legal document, where do they get off? Is it just contractual obligations with the credit card issuers?
I never had anyone protest about me requiring ID, either. Guess we've all been brainwashed...
Re:some experience with this (Score:1)
Interesting. I did not know this, but it does appear that if MasterCard is calling it a "violation" that you are at least partly correct. Sigh. All I know is that I was ordered to require ID on any purchase over $100. Everything else was at my discretion.
Aren't you allowed to require ID if the signature doesn't match, though? (And yes, I know that the signature is authorization, not identification. I seem to be the only one who does.)
Re:some experience with this (Score:2)
And yet another reason I won't get a debit card. Banks love them because the money instantly disappears from your account. Tough luck if it wasn't you using it. But I'd rather take advantage of the float on checks or credit cards myself, thanks.
Re:some experience with this (Score:1)
Re:some experience with this (Score:2)
Not signing your credit card indicates that you have not agreed to adhere to the credit agreement with the issuer. A merchant is in violation of the merchant agreement for accepting such a card as payment.
Matching signatures between receipt and card is also not crucial -- you are simply re-affirming your agreement to ahere to the terms & conditions of the credit agreement. Other than being a (poor) indicator of whether a card is legitimate or not, checking the signature is a useless exercise.
What i do when presented with those pads (Score:1)
paranoia (Score:4, Interesting)
Being a typical paranoid Slashdotter I offered to sign off of the pad but refused to sign on the pad.
What's the point? Now all they need is a half-decent scanner and they get the same result - a digital copy of your signature.
Was I over reacting or can someone back up my paranoia with some facts?"
You were overreacting.
Think about it, some deceitful vendor has one of these, sells you something, gets your signature, and can then ring up loads of charges on your card using a digital copy of said signature over, and over, and over...
How is this something which can't be done with a photocopying machine and some scissors? And why would the person "ringing up loads of charges" care if the signature matches or not? It's not like vendors have a central database of signatures that they check against. At best they check against the signature on the back of your card, which they can only do if you're in person, in which case you can't use a digital signature anyway.
Do the current crop of signature pads prevent against this and other similar kind of deceit?
Maybe your misconception is what the signature pad does? Signature pads merely record your signature. They don't check it against a central database or anything. Even if they did, this wouldn't be subject to defeat as long as you witnessed the person making the signature.
Or maybe your misconception is over who is responsible for fraudulent charges? A credit card purchase is simply a contractual agreement to pay. If the purchase is fraudulent, the merchant loses. Not the credit card company, and not the owner of the credit card (except for up to about $50 in some cases where the credit card was stolen). If your credit card wasn't stolen and the charge wasn't made with your permission, you're not responsible for the charges. Period.
So what does a signature do to protect the merchant? It does two things. One, it allows the merchant to check the signature against the back of the card. Two, it gives the merchant a record of the contractual agreement.
Will a judge render a judgement for the merchant in the case of the merchant forging a signature? It's possible, but there are a number of things against it. One major reason is that when a merchant gets too many chargebacks, they are generally dropped by the merchant bank. So the amount of money you can steal before you get caught is relatively low. Then, on top of that, a judge would generally take a digitally scanned signature as lesser weight than a regular one. Finally, if you can subpeona the original signature from which the copy is made and show that they are identical, then you have a slam dunk case, and the merchant will probably wind up in jail. Besides, a signature can be forged just as easily with a handy dandy photocopying machine.
So, if anyone loses from digital signature pads, it's the merchant.
Re:wrong (Score:2)
This is completely wrong. Those pads don't record an image of your signature, they recorde the movements you make with the pen when signing.
I'll assume you're correct, but still, how does this facilitate fraud?
This way, algorithms checking the validity of a signature will detect counterfeits, because even someone who learned to produce a signature which looks exatly the same visually can't reproduce the original.
I don't buy that these devices check any such algorithms. I'd like you to back that one up.
An exact (digital) copy of a previously stored signature would also fail the test.
How so? If you store the motions, rather than the signature, it seems that a replay attack would work perfectly well.
In other words, while a single line of what I said may have been technically incorrect, what are you getting at? My main thesis (that using these devices does not facilitate fraud any more than a regular pen and paper signature) seems to still hold up.
Re:wrong (Score:2)
Your signature is never even identical. On the other hand, a signature which looks identical but was entered substantially different could be challenege in the future and you would probably not get stuck with the charge. Even if it looked identical to your signature.
My problem with this, is the credit card companies should be given a copy of the digital signature, the vendor should not retain it. Why? Because only the credit card company can verify it isn't a duplicate...
There are other problems with digital signatures, but thats for another day..
Re:wrong (Score:2)
My problem with this, is the credit card companies should be given a copy of the digital signature, the vendor should not retain it. Why? Because only the credit card company can verify it isn't a duplicate...
The signature isn't for verification, it's for non-repudiation. Since the person who has to lose from repudiation is the merchant, that's who should keep the signature.
Re:wrong (Score:2)
shrug
/. == weekly world news & national enquierer (Score:2)
sheesh... you make it sound like slashdot readers are as bad as the elderly who sit reading weekly world news and national enquierer and believing all of it...
lost/stolen or legit? (Score:2)
I regularly refuse.. (Score:1)
There's no law on the books that says one has to give a signature that allows for digital capture.
I have yet to run into a situation where I'm informed that they don't offer it. Besides, by that point they've already billed my credit card. If they can't put the money back without a (digital) signature, they're going to have to give me cash, or I'm leaving without signing.
What annoys me is why the fsck Fry's insists on photocopying your driver's license whenever you attempt to write a check. Isn't that illegal?
Re:I regularly refuse.. (Score:1)
Try picking up a "signature required" package or registerd mail at a Canada Post Office.
photocopying your driver's license whenever you attempt to write a check. Isn't that illegal?
I don't know about photocopying, but I've always seen clerks writing your drivers license NUMBER down on the back of cheques.
Re:I regularly refuse.. (Score:2)
Re:I regularly refuse.. (Score:1)
Re:I regularly refuse.. (Score:2)
A photocopied license cannot be used for identification purposes, so they can't use it to apply for any services, etc.
Re:I regularly refuse.. (Score:2)
I know california has a _lot_ of privacy laws, and their laws are online. I seem to recall hearing about one that prevents merchants from writing your license number on checks you write to them, if you request they do not, or something.
It doesn't even matter... (Score:2)
Signature Required (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, they record your signature for their protection, and put it in a database that record what you bought when you used your credit card. They do this because if you dispute the charges, the Credit Card company always falls on the side of their customer, unless they have a great reason why they should not believe them. So the first thing the credit card company is going to ask for is proof that the customer made the purchase they claim they did not make. If the merchant can provide the signature, credit card number, and an invoice of what they bought, they are half way towards winning their side of the dispute.
All that the signature pad does is give them a digital carbon copy that they can more easily manage. No more paper receits, and it is easier to keep them all in one centralized repository that they can access if a dispute arrises.
However, this does not mean that you or the merchant can be lax in their duties. You must still watch out for the fraudulent merchant who may charge you for more than the purchase is worth. The waiter who will slip extra items on your bill. We may not have to worry if merchants shred their carbons anymore, but worry about how those who have access to the new storage medium use that access. Always review your credit card statement, and compare it with receits you saved from your purchases. Double check everyone's work, because it is your money they are playing around with.
At first I thought paranoid... (Score:2)
I actually ran into this issue at work once. My boss wanted his signature scanned so that he could have it on his letterhead and never have to pull out his pen again. That is until I asked him how secure he thought his computer was. Yes, security was my responsibility but they didn't give me much time to spend on it and virtually no budget. Plus I think his password was "porsche" and he wasn't about to change it.
Anyway that was 10 years ago. It does bring up the reason to be paranoid, however. A database of signatures is a worthy target for any cracker and it's likely worth something to the holding company. So what do they do with it anyway? I can't imagine that the benefits of being able to produce the signature from anywhere is all that great. Plus you can't prove that the signature didn't come from a different purchase or a different databse anyway. So why go through all this trouble? I would be interested to hear the stats on the fraud that this kind of system prevents. I'm guessing it's minimal. So what is the worst case here? Likely nothing but then again a cracker could use the data for purchases or identity theft and a malicious company could use the database for something like spam only much worse. "He said we could handle his long distance. See, we even have his signature"
BTW, I like the earlier post about dragging your fingernail across the paper. Yea, some systems might require extra passes of the pen but it's simple and effective.
Re:At first I thought paranoid... (Score:1)
Just say NO. (Score:2)
Its unfortunate that companies are deciding they need us to prove ourselves to them, but they don't take basic security into account for us. More and more people who have no right to are demanding my social security number, signature electronically or thumbprint. And I refuse.
First off its illegal to demand a SSN unless they are your employer, bank, stock broker or the army and you're enlisted. Every credit card that demands it is breaking the law.
The solution to that is to give them a bogus one-- unless you're applying for credit. Then if you give them a bogus one its fraud, even though its illegal for them to ask in teh first place-- unless you give them a patently bogus one.
Anyway, I have learned that the idiots that work for these companies don't understand security and think you're being stubborn for protecting your rights, so I stopped arguing with them-- I just blow them off. The UPS guy asks me to sign for packages and I do-- but the signature bears no relation to my name.
Same thing when asked to electronically sign for a credit card- I give them a bunch of squiggles... so far nobodies actually compared.
Thumbprints are the worst-- bank tellers are the most obnoxious about saying its for my protection-- which is the most blatant lie I've ever heard. They don't take to well to being asked "Exactly how does this protect me?" Usually I refuse. So far they haven't escalated the issue-- I think they sense the eagerness with which I approach the opportunity to dress down a bank manager on how lax their security is, and how ironic it is that a BANK has such bad security, in front of all their customers. The thing is - these people KNOW that they are not providing adequate security, but they don't have the power to change it either.
It is your duty, whenever someone demands of you something that is not their right to demand, to give them a bogus biometric. Its the only way to protest and its the only way to protect yourself.
So far, writing to companies and pointing out that using SSN as a "password" is stupid (every bank I know of does this) has gotten nowhere. But office Depot, UPS, et al, have a lot of useless signatures on file.
Re:Banks and SSNs (Score:2)
I suspect that they're also required to collect SSNs for regular checking accounts. It helps the Fed catch those nasty money-laundering drug-dealing kid-porno-peddling terrorists. :-)
Re:Banks and SSNs (Score:2)
Of course. Which actually is really just yet another reason the IRS is a bad idea. That they use it for passwords however is unacceptable.
This is yet another reason we should get rid of the current system and implement a Fair TAx: www.fairtax.org
Re:Banks and SSNs (Score:1)
How easy is it to steal? That's the question. (Score:1)
With a paper recipt, any pimple-faced cashier can palm your carbons and have your signature. With a digital signature, it would take a few geeks in collusion to get access to the files and a suitable output device. Making a "loopback device" that would allow them to charge things using that signature directly would be even harder, unless the system was written by M$FT. Granted they could steal as many as they wanted, but it would be all so much harder and obvious than pocketing carbon copies of paper signatures.
But as others had said, hardly anyone verifies signatures anymore. Most of the time I have my credit card back befure I even get the paper to sign.
Privacy vs. technology (Score:1)
So I pose to the
Option #1: Do we embrace technology for the sake of speeding along advancement, thereby being retro-active when security flaws or privcay issues come to bare?
Option #2: Or do we be pro-active and addresses all concerns prior to public consumption, thereby possibly slowing down technological advancement considerably?
Hmmmmm......