Maybe the real problem is that there is (at least to a degree) a trilemma between effective, safe from research misconduct, and respectful of individual privacy.
Maybe the real problem is that there is (at least to a degree) a trilemma between effective, safe from research misconduct, and respectful of individual privacy.
If a signature is meant to represent both intent and identity, what is it about the physical medium which makes it more ideal than a digital signature where you're prompted to enter in your login password or something similar?
Is it the belief that its less forgable, that electronic audit trails are more easily duped and spoofed while signature blocks and paper/pen is somehow immutable (despite the decades of forged signatures easily traced from other sources)?
Never understood this idea whatsoever, it just strikes me as a form of pearl-clutching over some nebulous hackers that could easily destroy our well-oiled pen/paper/document machines.
Electronic signatures are an entirely different (and interesting) thing to consider.