DAVISM@ATSUVAX1.BITNET ("Michael N. Davis") (10/03/90)
There was an interesting article in our local paper, recently, about the failures so far to bring about that long promised paperless office. I just glanced at the article, but one statement that stood out was that paper is a very inexpensive portable display device. Until other technology can match its price and ease of use, paper will never be replaced. The article also mentioned that paper is a storage device and that other technologies can compete with it in that area, but the display advantages of paper are still quite formidable. I don't know if the article mentioned this, but it seems to be an ongoing hindrance as well. Anything that must be signed must be on paper. Electronic copies of contracts, etc, are not binding because it is so easy to copy a signature onto another document electronically. How will this problem ever be resolved? Will a paperless office ever exist? _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Michael N. Davis, System Manager, NC A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411 BITNET: DAVISM@ATSUVAX1
duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (10/03/90)
In article <9010031156.AA26927@encore.encore.com> DAVISM@ATSUVAX1.BITNET ("Michael N. Davis") writes: > >There was an interesting article in our local paper, recently, about the >failures so far to bring about that long promised paperless office. I >just glanced at the article, but one statement that stood out was >that paper is a very inexpensive portable display device. Until other >technology can match its price and ease of use, paper will never be >replaced. I also think that inexpensive character recognition/scanning would have a great effect -- but I'm not sure which way, i.e., more or less paper. Scanners make it easier to get things on paper into electronic form, of course, but would more available (and cheaper) technology of this kind incline people to be just as willing to use paper knowing that they could get it into electromnic form when they needed it that way? > Anything that must be signed must be on >paper. Electronic copies of contracts, etc, are not binding because >it is so easy to copy a signature onto another document electronically. >How will this problem ever be resolved? Current questions about computer-enhanced imaging (still and video) are also an issue for this reason. I'm not sure what the legal stance is about the use of photos, etc. anymore as evidence. Presumably the negative could be manufactur- ed to match what the manipulated picture shows, too. >Will a paperless office ever exist? Doesn't look like it since folks've been saying this almost as long as compu- ters for business purposes have existed. I forget who said it many years ago, but their claim was that computers came along just in time to save bureaucracy from itself, i.e., computers allowed old bureaucractic methods to remain valid otherwise the paperwork would have overwhelmed everyone. So the computer has led, not to a paperLESS office, but, perhaps, a LESS paperFULL one. 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))
doug (Doug Thompson) (10/04/90)
In article <9010031156.AA26927@encore.encore.com> ("Michael N. Davis") writes: > I don't know if the article mentioned this, but it seems to be an > ongoing hindrance as well. Anything that must be signed must be on > paper. Electronic copies of contracts, etc, are not binding because > it is so easy to copy a signature onto another document electronically. > How will this problem ever be resolved? 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. There are technologies which permit the equivalent of an electronic signature on a document. In the case of the banking machine, and a few other electronic signatures, part of the security lies in the hardware. I.E. you type your secret code at the bank's terminal. They know that the data (your code) cannot have been diddled en route. This would not work with a public transmission system like e-mail. 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. Within some organizations, such means are already in use for internal communications. 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 :-). > Will a paperless office ever exist? I don't think so. 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. 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. 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. Public-key encryption and today's e-mail could do it. Likewise contracts could be signed with e-mail using those techniques. 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. 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. FAX has been around since the 70s but only became really popular in the late 80s. =Doug --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- {...} watmath!isishq!doug doug@isishq.fidonet.org
cdh@praxis.co.uk (Chris Hayward) (10/04/90)
In article <9010031156.AA26927@encore.encore.com> DAVISM@ATSUVAX1.BITNET ("Michael N. Davis") writes: [..] > Anything that must be signed must be on >paper. Electronic copies of contracts, etc, are not binding because >it is so easy to copy a signature onto another document electronically. >How will this problem ever be resolved? Surely we must go back to what preceded the signature for an answer. What we must develop is some form of electronic signet ring - some form of data marker which can be added to a document as a sign that it has been read and approved by the appropriate authority. To be valid, this device must: - encode some feature of the document itself (eg a checksum or CRC) to avoid the possibility of tampering; - encode the timestamp or date of the document. The encoding itself should be based on some encryption system using a key carried (eg as a smart-card) by the person. The mark carried by the document will be undecipherable, but able to be checked back against the smart-card in case of dispute. Such a system would prove at least as flexible and secure as the signed/sealed combo is. In fact, it's such a good idea I think I'll patent it. The following marker proves that I certified this document on 4th October 1990: Seal of authority: 354GIE560. Chris
mark@parc.xerox.com (Mark Weiser) (10/05/90)
Digital signatures are a bit of an old idea, although there are new twists all the time. Many patents already. -mark -- Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: weiser@xerox.com Phone: +1-415-494-4406
duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (10/05/90)
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))
bzs@WORLD.STD.COM (Barry Shein) (10/06/90)
I may have asked this once before here, but I've never gotten an
answer.
I remember being told (this could be an urban legend) that an early
use of telegraph lines was a device which would allow you to sign a
document on one end and a pen on the other end would
electro-mechanically duplicate the movements. This would be 19th
century.
Has anyone heard of this? If it's true it's an amusing predecessor to
some issues we are facing today. I'd love to have one of those boxes.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDs900657@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au (Felicity Jones [Ice]) (10/06/90)
In article <27575@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: > In article <542181945DN5.35B@testsys.uucp> writes: > > [lots of stuff deleted to save repetition] > > 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. Actually, I was told by our bank that they only verify cheques that are over a certain amount (in this bank's case - $1000) for signature verification and in our case - for the presence of two signatories. Guess that means I could write a cheque for under $1000 and present it unsigned...... like you say, the volume is just too great. > 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. > Well, it didn't take that long for people to feel comfortable with using ATMs..... just watch the furore when your teller-machine is closed! People have certainly gotten used to that electronic convenience with a vengeance! However, in the main I agree - there are still a lot of "technophobics" out there, and some who are just plain cautious and who can blame them at times..... > > 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. > EDI constitutes more than a "bit" as far as I've read. And it's accepted and even forced upon companies. Take the example of Levi's. They gave their suppliers a deadline - get onto EDI or you no longer deal with us... Large supermarket chains, the automotive industry, I could go on and on - a lot of these corporations will not deal any other way than through EDI and the list is growing bigger and bigger. E-mail was just the beginning. Millions of business transactions every day are being conducted electronically - invoices, purchase orders, payments, you name it, it's being done electronically. In Australia, EDI is seen as a way to bring us closer to markets that have been too far away for practicality and economy to deal with. Our largest retail chain has just signed a contract for what will be one of the biggest EDI projects in the world (or so the hype goes) - certainly it's the biggest this country has ever seen. Many will follow their lead and their suppliers will have no choice, it will become an economic necessity. > > 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? > Let's hope for the sake of the trees that soon they will have no choice :-) -- ___________________________________________________________________________ Felicity Jones Department of BIS The opinion/s expressed [IceBreaker] Faculty of Business above are my own, so s900657@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au RMIT/VUT don't blame them!
doug (Doug Thompson) (10/07/90)
In article <27575@bellcore.bellcore.com> (Scott Duncan) writes: > 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. Right you are. I think it is not very useful to compare any written medium, regardless of mode of transmission, with a spoken medium. What you write and what you say *are* quite different, and writing can never replace speaking. But when e-mail is compared with other forms of writing, on paper, transmitted by other technologies, post, courier, FAX, I think e-mail comes out quite well. The paper is often not an essential element of the written message, though I fully concede that *sometimes* the fact of it being "on paper" has considerable psychological impact. > 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? I agree with your argument. I guess my 'argument' is that the technical capacity is there and there are forces at work in society which encourage changes in public attitudes. Remember, automobiles took quite a while to become 'acceptable'. In the end, the technical and economic advantages eroded public resistence. People (especially people as populations) usually resist change. But when a new technology, or a new use of an old technology has real practical and economic advantages, it tends to advance in popular acceptance until a kind of threshold is reached, after which opponents usually accept that regardless of the fact they don't like (autos for instance) it. I hate autos. I *loathe* autos. Every time I drive my car I curse it, and curse the seven sisters . . . but I still use it. There are many applications for which it is simply the 'best' or 'only' technology available. I really do prefer horses . . . So the question I guess is: are e-mail and other forms of electronic text sufficiently better than paper to do to paper, in the end, what the auto did to the horse? My hunch is that they are. =Doug --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- {...} watmath!isishq!doug doug@isishq.fidonet.org
doug (Doug Thompson) (10/09/90)
In article <5971@minyos.xx.rmit.oz> (Felicity Jones [Ice]) writes: > Actually, I was told by our bank that they only verify cheques that are > over a certain amount (in this bank's case - $1000) for signature verification > and in our case - for the presence of two signatories. Guess that means I could > write a cheque for under $1000 and present it unsigned...... like you say, > the volume is just too great. That's right. In fact, if you think about the effort involved in verifying a signature on a cheque - and the fact that cheque clearing houses do not *have* the signature records - you realize that the bank has no practical choice except to clear cheques unless something looks fishy or a customer complains about an unauthorized withdrawal. In contrast, the electronic verification can and does check its records on each transaction. > EDI constitutes more than a "bit" as far as I've read. And it's accepted > and even forced upon companies. Take the example of Levi's. They gave > their suppliers a deadline - get onto EDI or you no longer deal with us... > Large supermarket chains, the automotive industry, I could go on and on - > a lot of these corporations will not deal any other way than through EDI and > the list is growing bigger and bigger. E-mail was just the beginning. > Millions of business transactions every day are being conducted electronically - > invoices, purchase orders, payments, you name it, it's being done > electronically. Right you are. EDI *is* e-mail, with standard forms and verification for the purpose of invoicing and making payments. Didn't know it was doing so well down-under. > In Australia, EDI is seen as a way to bring us closer to markets that have > been too far away for practicality and economy to deal with. Our largest > retail chain has just signed a contract for what will be one of the biggest > EDI projects in the world (or so the hype goes) - certainly it's the biggest > this country has ever seen. Many will follow their lead and their suppliers > will have no choice, it will become an economic necessity. Yep. Just as the telephone and the typewriter became economic necessities for businesses, so computer communication will in due course. > > 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? > > > Let's hope for the sake of the trees that soon they will have no choice :-) That introduces a couple of interesting perspectives. The pulp and paper industry is very important in this province. A lot of rural areas will lose a big chunk of their livlihood if the demand for paper goes down. Of course, newspapers still represent the largest consumer of trees for paper. One can think about a consumer computer communication system which could be an effective alternative to printed newspapers, but that is almost certainly further in the future than the replacement of paper business forms. And both EDI and this hypothetical consumer computer communication system are immensely beneficial to remote areas where the cost of transportation is very high. Electronic links tend to be relatively cheap, and certainly fast, regardless of where in the world you are. Think about Third World development issues for a moment, where isolation and the cost of transportation and communication are major impediments to economic development. Electronic communication offers possibilities for participation in distant markets, especially for the trade in information which can be transmitted electronically, which would not really be there without it. Distance really does cease to be a major issue for the exchange of data. The fact that you are sitting in Melbourne and I am sitting in Ottawa - communicating easily and economically - is evidence of this. Best, =Doug --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- {...} watmath!isishq!doug doug@isishq.fidonet.org
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin E. Sylvain) (10/09/90)
In article <9010031156.AA26927@encore.encore.com> DAVISM@ATSUVAX1.BITNET ("Michael N. Davis") writes: > >There was an interesting article in our local paper, recently, about the >failures so far to bring about that long promised paperless office. I >just glanced at the article, but one statement that stood out was >that paper is a very inexpensive portable display device. Until other >technology can match its price and ease of use, paper will never be >replaced. The article also mentioned that paper is a storage device >and that other technologies can compete with it in that area, but the >display advantages of paper are still quite formidable. This is probably it's biggest drawback, easily overcome with nearly any implementation of a DBMS in the office. That is, that "portable" paper will portable itself into being lost! 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? >I don't know if the article mentioned this, but it seems to be an >ongoing hindrance as well. Anything that must be signed must be on >paper. Electronic copies of contracts, etc, are not binding because >it is so easy to copy a signature onto another document electronically. >How will this problem ever be resolved? > >Will a paperless office ever exist? > >_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ >Michael N. Davis, System Manager, NC A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411 >BITNET: DAVISM@ATSUVAX1 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). Just as a test, try writing yourself a check for $100, and sign it "John Hancock". I'm not seriously suggesting you try this, as I'm sure it's against the law, and I don't want anyone going to jail. But maybe some of those checks *do* say John Hancock? Who has time to check 50M checks against the sig's of 10K customers? (I've heard a little something about the Real Estate business. Here, you typically sign dozens of documents, including documents where you swear you read some other document you signed, and didn't just sign it without reading it. 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.) Therefore, a paperless office requiring some provable way of identifying signatures would probably be superior to the paper method. Clearly an "image" of a signature is not enough, unless there is a notarized piece of paper backing it up. Then you'd need a way to prove that *this* signature from *this* person applies to *this* document, but *not* to that *other* document that just *happened* to be in the same file! (E.g., you sign the auto-rental form, then initial the collision insurance waiver, but don't initial that other insurance waiver.) A sticky problem! -- =======================Standard Disclaimers Apply======================= "We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no | Alvin longer in service. Please check the value of pi, | "the Chipmunk" or pray to your local diety for assistance." | Sylvain == == == == == == =I have no idea what my address is!= == == == == == ==
duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (10/10/90)
In article <137629973DN5.35B@testsys.uucp> writes: > >What you write and what you say *are* quite different, and writing can >never replace speaking. > >But when e-mail is compared with other forms of writing, on paper, >transmitted by other technologies, post, courier, FAX, I think e-mail >comes out quite well. I agree, but I think email is used as a replacement for spoken communication more than for written. That is, I believe people send most email with a more conversational attitude than they would for a (formal) written document. In this sense, the model of what it should 'sound' like on the other end can end up causing problems because of the lack of other verbal/in-person cues. >technical capacity is there and there are forces at work in society >which encourage changes in public attitudes. > But when a new >technology, or a new use of an old technology has real practical and >economic advantages, it tends to advance in popular acceptance until a >kind of threshold is reached, after which opponents usually accept >There are many applications for which it is simply the 'best' or >'only' technology available. >So the question I guess is: are e-mail and other forms of electronic >text sufficiently better than paper to do to paper, in the end, what >the auto did to the horse? My hunch is that they are. I think your point about "suficiently better" is key. However, there are some great industrial and commercial pressures favoring paper that seem to me to be greater than people's love of horses at the time autos appeared. If there had been a serious business pressure to keep horses, then I think autos would have had a tougher time. Cars did a job demonstrably bette than horses after a while and they also did things horses did not do -- despite other flaws. Speed and immediacy are something email has over paper distribution. But this is something we associate with less formal communication, so I think we get back to what kinds of (written) communication we would expect email to replace. People suggest email over telephones as well as paper. So I think the wider issue is email as "the" means of communication, not just a paper replacement. However, especially in an office setting, much paper is for "announcements" and newsy kinds of things, not official documents. Email could easily replace this sort of "communication" as most of this paper gets trashed immediately after it is read. (Indeed a good electronic form could be directed into a calendar tool to record times/dates since what many people do is transcribe the notice on one piece of paper into another paper form: datebooks.) 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))
duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (10/12/90)
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))
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (10/23/90)
In article <27791@bellcore.bellcore.com> duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: > 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! Gimme a minute! Unless you're the exception to the rule, and are *very* organized, I'll think up an important piece of paper you've lost (I can find my taxes, but my auto-registration remains a mystery). Seriously, I'm not really worried about people adjusting to it. My father is 84 years old, and has adjusted rather nicely to automobiles, telephones, jet airplanes ... none of which existed in his father's time. (Haven't tried introducing him to computers ... and he won't carry an ATM card! Oh well ...) [...] > (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.) Guess what! Unless things have changed, it ain't legal for cash, either! Someone told me a horror story of when he deposited $1000 cash, and began writing checks against it. Well, they "lost" the cash, and his checks bounced. They eventually "found" the cash, but he still had to pay all kinds of fees for rubber checks. You see, the rubber checks were still "his" responsibility. He changed banks. (Fat lot of good it'll do, the rules are the same all over.) [...] > 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.) I think my friend's horror story speaks for itself. Certainly, no one cares about it until it becomes "legal". Unfortunately, *everything* you sign is a *legal document* (even your timecard). And, as a legal document, there is potential to bite you when you least expect it. You're not *very* worried about your signature on your credit card until someone steals it. Even then, you're only responsible for the first $50 if you report it in time... but the thief can ransact a mall with $49 purchases before you discover it's missing, and the bank will happily pass the costs on to you indirectly. What I'm hoping for is something that will *improve* paper security, if for no other reason that the technology can potentially allow so many more abuses and at a much larger scale. The C-card thief must *walk or drive* from store to store ... The thief who manages to forge your electronic signature can potentially ransact the *entire electronic planet* before he's detected! Therefore, until there is some progress in the security area, *full* implementation of "paperless-ness" must remain suspect. === Warning: potential subject drift impending === But, lest one think I'm being too nit-pickety, there is still room for "paperless-ness" in areas less prone to security-legal problems using current technology. E.g., information retrieval (such as USENET, Compuserve, etc.) certainly fall into that category. Why not "paperless-ize" the Public Library? Many authors produce their work using word-processors, and quite a few submit the work on floppies. Even for authors who can't bear to throw away their rusty ol' typewriter, many publishers have the work transcribed into computers anyway. So it should be relatively easy for publishers to make both paper and electronic versions available to purchasers, including and especially the PL. Of course, the authors and publishers produce copyrighted work, and they won't want you printing more than one paper copy without payment! *Sigh*, back to security again! -- =============Opinions are Mine, typos belong to /bin/ucb/vi============= "We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no | Alvin longer in service. Please check the value of pi, | "the Chipmunk" or pray to your local deity for assistance." | Sylvain =============================================UUCP: hplabs!felix!asylvain