If we get digitally signed documents, should we still get signed hard copies?

[LarryCFTB]

Some on our board of directors are skittish about digitally signed documents replacing signed hard copies and are asking that we get both.

I'm hoping for good documentation that can show that this is unnecessary, or even a potential problem.  Can anyone point me to good information on this topic?

Thank you for your help

L Cramer

[try67 · Accepted solution]

Beside having double records (and double the work) it's not a problem.

Digital signatures are much more trustworthy than "wet" ones, though: They can be verified. They apply to the entire file at once. They prevent the file from being edited without you knowing about it. Etcetera.

[LarryCFTB]

Thanks for that try67.  

That is exactly my feeling, and the point we are trying to get across to the board - some of them well along in years and understandably apprehensive about the digital future - I'm hoping to find some solid articles in business publications, blogs or legal cases that really back up our case.

If you or anyone knows of any I'd love to hear about them.

Thanks!

[Test Screen Name]

Be sure the board are fully aware of (a) key issuing authorities (so they don’t approve something of no value like self-sign certificates) (b) the absolute need to keep signing certificates secret (c) the need to share public keys securely (d) the role of validation (e) that documents are signed, not pages (f) that the marks made in the page by digital signatures are not only valueless they are a distraction from validation (g) the legal stays of digital signatures in your country. Once the board are aware of and approve it these key points can become part of company policy. Nothing worse than digital signatures implemented based on misunderstandings, we see terrible things.