You could just as easily edit it, print it, then scan it again. This tech doesn't enable you to do anything you couldn't already do.

The real problem is that written signatures are a poor form of authentication.

▲

SoftTalker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Everyone is overlooking the reality that multiple parties have a copy of the documents, and a judge is not going to believe that the seller agreed to 10% of market value when they claim otherwise and they have a document backing it up and so does their lawyer and so does their real estate agent. And you are going to be charged with a crime if you attempt something like this.

▲

digitaltrees 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

There are plenty of examples of a single set of documents with no corroborating documents. In fact, when I was a lawyer for Lehman in 2008 most mortgage transfers were a line in a spreadsheet not a legal document. Many wills have only a single copy that was kept in a safe deposit box. I could go on and on.

	▲	SoftTalker 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The fact remains that altering a photocopied or faxed copy of a document has been trivially easy for decades and yet it's not really a problem in real life, because it's a criminal act to do so and present it as authentic.

▲

digitaltrees 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just because there is an alternative path doesn’t mean this path won’t equally facilitate fraudulent acts.

That is an example of a flawed argument named false equivalence. And it ignores that the this library eliminates the friction of printing, and enables the ability to scale the process.