[Air-l] electronic signatures

[elijah wright]

> Thanks for sharing this document, which raises some good issues. 
> However, it represents a pretty narrow interpretation of the law, 
> especially in view of the fact that the government itself uses 
> electronic signatures quite extensively these days. You can even sign 
> your tax return electronically! This document assumes a rather high 
> degree of risk to the human subjects, and in reality, there is (or ought 
> to be) a lot more room for negotiation of these matters with the IRB 
> depending on the nature of the study.

there are multiple meanings of "signature" being used here, by various 
folks.

first, we have signature as in "the signature i use to sign the bottom of 
an informed consent form".  handwritten, et cetera.

second, we have signature as in a certification that you have read, do 
wish to submit, etcetera - typically implemented as you typing in a 
password, clicking a checkbox, or typing in a captcha-style string of 
characters.  this is different (in a lot of ways) than the first meaning 
of signature.

first of all, method 2 is trivially forgeable, and doesn't share many of 
the properties of method 1 - relatively unique handwriting styles, 
evidence of coercion or nervousness in people's responses, et cetera.

second, we have to consider whether there are good reasons for the 
utexas.edu-style 'you must get a real signature either f2f or by fax' rule 
to be as it is.  perhaps they have simply not seen anyone present a method 
of implementing signature-style-number-2 that can pass muster as a unique 
identifier that certifies a person's intentions.


--elijah