Comments on: The End Of Paper http://securitymusings.com/article/1711/the-end-of-paper Rants and raves from information security professionals Sat, 19 May 2012 23:32:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David http://securitymusings.com/article/1711/the-end-of-paper/comment-page-1#comment-29175 David Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:08:11 +0000 http://securitymusings.com/article/1711/the-end-of-paper#comment-29175 Well, I'd presume will #1 was judged to be valid, if not the latest. We certainly accept signatures, and have for ages. But some niggling points: * Was it witnessed? * Can those signatures be attested to today? * Can the decedant's signature, or those of any witnesses, be compared against other documents? (especially if any of those are witnessed / notarized themselves) Will 2: Technically, that one sucks. Not sure I'd trust it, since there are no controls and nobody else has attested to it. OTOH, how likely is it that Stanford (the new beneficiary) has forged this? What does "everything seems to be in order with this signature" mean? (the hash was valid?) Will 3: I'd reject that right out, as the sole beneficiary is also the sole controller of the signature process. Simply can't be trusted. So, as a juror, I'd vote for #1, and against #2 and #3. None of them is really trustable, but if you start to question wet-ink signatures, then everything collapses like a house of cards. But I agree, simply having three conflicting wills, of questionable authenticity, probably guarantees probate. Well, I’d presume will #1 was judged to be valid, if not the latest. We certainly accept signatures, and have for ages. But some niggling points:
* Was it witnessed?
* Can those signatures be attested to today?
* Can the decedant’s signature, or those of any witnesses, be compared against other documents? (especially if any of those are witnessed / notarized themselves)

Will 2: Technically, that one sucks. Not sure I’d trust it, since there are no controls and nobody else has attested to it. OTOH, how likely is it that Stanford (the new beneficiary) has forged this? What does “everything seems to be in order with this signature” mean? (the hash was valid?)

Will 3: I’d reject that right out, as the sole beneficiary is also the sole controller of the signature process. Simply can’t be trusted.

So, as a juror, I’d vote for #1, and against #2 and #3. None of them is really trustable, but if you start to question wet-ink signatures, then everything collapses like a house of cards. But I agree, simply having three conflicting wills, of questionable authenticity, probably guarantees probate.

]]>