Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!rutgers!bellcore-2!bellcore!dduck!duncan
From: duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Paperless office
Message-ID: <27791@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 11 Oct 90 19:37:04 GMT
References: <9010031156.AA26927@encore.encore.com> <152165@felix.UUCP>
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan)
Organization: Computer Technology Transfer Division
Lines: 61

In article <152165@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin E. Sylvain) writes:
>
>                                             Come on now, do you really
>know *exactly* where your auto registration is?  Or will take you some
>time to locate it?  Can you find 1988's 1040 filing in under 5 minutes?

Wel...since you asked:  yes and yes.  Which only goes to suggest that _some_
people will dislike paper disappearing but adjust while others won't while
others will like it disappearing and discover what an adjustment it is!

>A paperless office *can* exist, but you bring up certain security issues
>yet to be resolved.  I'm not sure if a "signature on paper" is such a
>great thing (unless notarized, of course).

There's a point that hasn't, as I recall, come up.  Notarization is a form of
confirmation or verification of the signature, suggesting that the existence
of a physical signature may really mean nothing unless you are willing to go
to a court and have "expert" handwriting specialists convince a judge or jury
that someone did or did not write it.

>Just as a test, try writing yourself a check for $100, and sign it
>"John Hancock".
>                                                       Who has time to
>check 50M checks against the sig's of 10K customers?

This has been mentioned as a "known" problem from the perspective of whether or
not signatures matter.  However, what I, again, do not remember reading is that
while this is true due to the volume and automated processing of checks, it is
not true for really "legal" documents.

(A sidebar to this is that when you deposit a check at the bank, the deposit
slip, as far as I know, is NOT a legal receipt.  For cash, yes, but if a bank
flubs your deposit, you have to get copies of the checks you claim you deposit-
ed from everyone who gave them to you.  We all keeps records on that, right.)

>                                  Occasionally one of these documents
>slips thru the cracks without signature.  You go on a business trip.
>Guess what?  Some agents will routinely forge your signature, rather
>than allow the deal to be delayed.)

And husbands and wives "forge" each other's names to get checks deposited under
similar circumstances.

>Therefore, a paperless office requiring some provable way of identifying
>signatures would probably be superior to the paper method.

>A sticky problem!

All interesting stuff from the security perspective.  I guess what I've been
trying to point out is that most people (individuals and representatives of
business) don't care about this stuff much until it becomes a "legal issue."
Eliminazting large amounts of paper where there is little or no "legal" impli-
cation seems to me to be well within our technological capacity IF we get the
people who will be involved to become more comfortable with it as a form of
informal communication.  (The legal stuff is formal anyway.  I am willing to
let it go on via paper if that makes folks happy.)

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))