Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore-2!bellcore!dduck!duncan From: duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Paperless office Message-ID: <27575@bellcore.bellcore.com> Date: 5 Oct 90 11:48:49 GMT References: <9010031156.AA26927@encore.encore.com> <542181945DN5.35B@testsys.uucp> Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com Reply-To: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Organization: Computer Technology Transfer Division Lines: 149 In article <542181945DN5.35B@testsys.uucp> writes: > >Think about banking machines, and bank cards. The combination of a >bit of data on the black strip on your card and a 'secret' number >works for banks as a means of verification of the user's >authorization. And that is what a signature is, generally. Something >to prove that a certain person did in fact see and or authorize a >certain thing. I agree that electronic IDs can be (and are) more secure than a signature. It is pretty well known (I hope) that banks, for example, routinely do not verify signatures and do not even check that a signature is for a person authorized to use an account IF IT IS NOT PRESENTED IN-PERSON. That last point is part of the issue: because of volume, electronic transactions or paper documents in bulk are accepted with much less review than a transaction in person. If I get your card and "key" numbers/code, I can take out a good bit of money before anyone can stop it. Thus, if I "forge" the electronic signature, no one will be able to tell -- a disguise can take care of any photo of the event. It's like making a copy of your car/house key -- the lock will think it is perfectly okay to open because the key works, copy or not. However, in actual reality, it is more likely to get a forged check through the system than to ber able to forge the electronic ID in the first place. Yet people know that verification of the presented check is better than that of the ATM machine, i.e., they can see a person go to verify an account or signature when a check is presented and they know all that is being verified in the electronic format is that "someone" presents a card and keys in a number/code. >Public key encryption (about which I have a fair bit of info if you >are interested) and document encryption can create harder-to-forge >verification than a paper signature. > >A paper signature is actually fairly easy to forge for an expert, and >the public post-office is not really all that secure (at least >sometimes) if someone really wants to read your paper mail. > >In other words, the technology is there, if we care to spend some >time implementing it, to create a verification system for documents >which is AT LEAST as secure and reliable (probably a lot more so) than >current paper signatures. But I think the problem is not that we have the technology to do things but that we can make people feel comfortable in using the technology. This seems to be the problem with almost any technology. Right now, we have different models of verification standards for electronic vs manual IDs. The electronic standard seems to be, if you have the card and key, then you are okay; the manual standard seems to be a two-part one: if the document comes as part of bulk documents of the same kind (for electronic processing) then you can get away with a lot, i.e., the mere existence of the document is enough to trigger the system; but if you appear in person, then you will be checked up on. Thus, the least likely situation for large-scale "forging" is the most likely to be verified in a way that makes people feel comfortable that a check is being made! People have come to accept (but I do not think really "trust") the ATM model of identification and verification MORE than the person present- ing themselves with their own check and signature. However, if one were to suggest that we eliminate manual signatures, I'm sure you'd get a real furor started. >General acceptance, however, will probably have to wait for more general >propagation of computers, since a large proportion of the population >currently has no adequate access to computers. Everyone (except that >rather substantial proportion who are illiterate) has access to >paper, and even the illiterate only need a literate friend to read and >explain documents, and put their X. Literate friends are probably >still more generally accessible than computers :-). You raise another good point. People did fear that computer literacy would widen the gap between economic classes since it was something that upper economic groups would likely more of than others. I'm not sure this has real- ly happened to the degree that people feared. However, moving away from the manual system would require that everyone be given access for some of the rea- sons you cite. Literacy becomes even more significant when there is less paper to be "literate" about, it seems! > I think my office is about as close to paperless as >they come. Well over 90% of all text material processed and utilized >is in electronic form, but as long as we interact with parts of the >world that are not computerized to the same standards as ourselves, >paper is needed. Even in an environment where people DO have access to electronic forms, the display technology we use (no what might be possible) is usually not good enough for people compared to their ability to scan (and mark-up) paper ver- sions. Every time this seems to be studied, paper still comes out a winner or at least a required alternative. >You can hand out paper copies of a proposal or a brochure at a >meeting. Handing out floppy disks (though sometimes it's a useful >adjunct) doesn't have the same effect. Even if everyone in the room >has access to a computer, those computers may use incompatible disk or >data formats and the computer may not be immediately handy. Compatibility aside, it is the "effect" that matters. We are not used to an electronic form, which is unintelligible to a person without an interpreter (the computer), as having any meaning for us. So you can hand out floppies and they will be "cute" or "neat" but not useful in making an impact if not accompanied by the interpreter. I think this makes many people feel illiter- ate and they do not like that feeling. They could even feel you are deliber- ately humiliating them since you and they should both know they cannot make any immediate use of what you have given them. >If the day arrives when most people are using some common standard of >text data interchange between computers, I think you will see >invoicing and bill-paying done by computer. I think a good bit of this goes on now at corporate levels. It is getting individual people to accept this model of interaction between one another that is the key -- even those who work in the computing field or for corporations where such transaction go on routinely. >One further issue arises. Regardless of the reliability factor of any >electronic invention for verification, the courts will still have to >learn to accept it. I think they will. But will they do it intelligently. I think the legal system has a long way to go in understanding issues of hardware and software and computing. Current confusions over software copyrights and patents as well as just what kind of a product software is are evidence of that. >I think the biggest spur to the paperless office (or minimization of >paper) is e-mail. It is usually easier and cheaper, if you have a good >e-mail system available and your correspondent does too, to send text >data by e-mail than by FAX, regular mail, or courier. Because it's >cheaper and quicker, both in transmission time (often) and labour >required to generate the message (usually), business will have a >strong interest in using e-mail wherever it can, simply from the point >of view of communication costs. Again, the problem is people. I have a good deal of local experience with peo- ple who have e-mail access and feel that you have to be very careful what kind of communication you send this way. Perhaps formal communications can be un- derstood better than informal ones; however, e-mail is most often used for the latter. In these cases, what you say in e-mail does NOT come out sounding the same as if you said it in person. I guess, I am arguing that what you suggest is a more reasonable use of e-mail compared to how it is currently used. However, the model of use is different at this point in time. The technology is unquestionably there, but are people prepared to use it and accept its use in these ways? Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (908-699-3910 (w) 609-737-2945 (h))