Signing your full name?

[andyoxon]

If one's official signature is initials+surname (A.B.XXXXX), and a document states "sign full name - otherwise delays may be experienced", and the name on the top of the form is first name & surname  Aaaaaa XXXXX, what would you sign in the box?   A 'new' signature with first name in full, rather than initials A.B?  Form does not include middle name, so I guess that doesn't apply....

[trekker12]

I always thought a signature was a signature. I could put an X there if I wanted to and could prove it was my X. Not just someone's forgery of my X. A scribbly - difficult to copy signature (especially if you are famous and giving autographs) would be harder to forge than an X or a print of my full name.

I sign official documents with a shortened version of my name which is my signature and then put the full name in print in the box next to it where required.

Doesn't really answer your question and seems an odd thing to ask on an official form. A signature can be anything.

[clarion]

I saw this required on a form recently, and I thought it contradictory.  If the full name is required, why not have a box for it to be written in full?  Nobody would be able to decipher my scrawly sig anyway, so what is the point?  It means they would have a sig not comparable for verification purposes, and no good for registration purposes.

[T42]

Put in your scrawl, write your name out in full underneath & let 'em take their pick.

[Kim]

Put in your scrawl, write your name out in full underneath & let 'em take their pick.

Is my approach.  My signature is a meaningless squiggle that sort-of starts with a 'K'.  I've been thrown by forms asking for a print transliteration of the signature itself.


It's all tokenism anyway, it's not like a signature actually proves anything.

[Cudzoziemiec]

What's the form for? Or rather, what's the signature for? If it's to be compared with an existing copy of your signature or if it's to form an "authentic version" of your signature against which other squiggles will be compared in the future, then sign the way you normally do. If it's something else, then it's probably a name rather than a signature.

[Jaded]

I was informed by someone that if you are an elected representative your signature should be legible and identifiable as from you.

I carry on signing documents with my signature, for that is what it is, my mark.

[rogerzilla]

My signature used to be <first name> <middle initial> <surname> but, after a few years working on the checkouts at Sainsbury's and signing the back of every cheque paid in (this was pre-debit card), it had become <first name> <initial> and then C followed by a few meaningless loops.  It has been likened to a footballer's signature and doesn't fit very well into one of those "please keep your signature within the box" boxes because, having evolved on the plain reverse of a cheque, it is as tall as it is wide.

[Steph]

When I was on the dole, I had a wanktosser reject my signing on one fortnight, as "I can't read your signature".

I pointed out that if he could read it, it would not be my signature. He made me write my name as well as print it.

[DrMekon]

It's all tokenism anyway, it's not like a signature actually proves anything.

So many people can pull my electronic sig off forms now, I've just given the image to my PhD students and just said I trust you - just tell me when you use it.

[ian]

My wife, because she's awkward, simply draws a straight line with the teensiest squiggle at the beginning, like the dying heartbeat of a shrew. But as she points out, that his her signature. Mine is almost recognizable but then, as evidenced elsewhere, I carefully print each letter. Oddly, my signature is the only place I join up letters.

[Pickled Onion]

I've been emailed a document to sign via something called "DocuSign".

Once you've read it, you have to press a button that puts a "signature" in the right place. If you don't like the style, you get to choose from various handwriting fonts. Fuck knows what the point of that is, or even whether it has the slightest legal validity.

[ian]

All an 'electronic signature' needs is your acknowledgement, it doesn't really matter what the signature is per se. That's just the decoration and something of a comforting anachronism I suppose. DocuSign (and similar) services just make this auditable by tying this acknowledgement to other data.

[Kim]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Having had a quick google, it's a standards-based fudge that gives a signature in an electronic document the same legal standing as on one a fax.  The DocuSign website makes it clear as mud whether their process is cryptographically signing the document or just your acknowledgement, but it provides an audit trail for the fact that you've done it.  Because business is too important to do things properly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlktaXEACgkQIfdVwRWCkkQkRQCeJ5JzDsRyfjWpQW1QnSSNJ81R
FnoAn3Kie41r275pn/t6P73ijEH367nL
=Vpa7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ian]

It's not (or wasn't the last time I discussed it).

But then lawyers don't care about such matters and to be honest, things like PGP shoot themselves in the virtual foot by being unnecessarily yet ironically cryptic.

[Jurek]

At work, just recently, every employee has had an emailed request from HR to 'sign' an agreement relating to security measures within the company.
As one types in one's name into the 'sign here' field, just below  one's name appears in a 'handwritten' font.
Everyone has the same f*cking handwriting.
Hilarious 
Who thought that was a good idea?

ETA : For the record, when I've signed this, I immediately receive a confirmation email to say that I've done so.
FWIW to date, I've been asked to sign the same document three times.

[Kim]

But then lawyers don't care about such matters and to be honest, things like PGP shoot themselves in the virtual foot by being unnecessarily yet ironically cryptic.

I don't think PGP's worse than any other system, when it's properly integrated.  PGP/MIME means you just get a little "message signed by trusted key" icon if your email client supports it, and the PGP part is ignored (so you don't see the traditional guff like in my post above) if your client doesn't.  Decent email clients left as an exercise for the reader of course - I'd be interested to know if anyone finds one.

People don't complain about PGP being cryptic when they use apt-get (or a GUIified version thereof), for example.  It's just there working quietly in the background, until something untrustworthy happens.  Which is how a security product should be.

But realistically, nobody's going to standardise on a way to sign documents, or even emails.  They'll just use GoogleFuruityCloudLookDocs for everything, and rely on that to provide an audit train when necessary.  It's the future.

GPG and its ilk remain useful tools for closed environments that people generally don't have to care about.

[ian]

That's the thing with PGP, unless it's default it won't get used. And it isn't, so it doesn't. Once you expect people to do something, it won't happen. Same with disk encryption etc.

And when it comes to forms, well try explaining it to a lawyer. I have. Several of them. They're happy with a name written in Comic Sans (for the record, simply adding your name is legitimate, the font stuff is mere decoration, all that matters is that you've acknowledged the content of the form in a context that legal counsel is happy with).

[Cudzoziemiec]

"It gives a signature on an electronic document the same legal standing as one on a fax." Last time I heard anything about this (back in the days when people still used faxes) a faxed signature was not legally valid.

[ian]

Faxed signatures on agreements have been legal for my entire working career in publishing and I'm not getting any younger. As you can tell from the fact I remember faxes.