Background
So, our legal system is slow. Like, really slow. Even without taking into account appeals and the like, it can often take years for even legitimate cases to get from filing to trial. And even when we all agree that something we're doing is dumb to do or something we're not doing would be smart to do, consensus is slow to effect effects, wikiality be damned. Sometimes, this is tragic, as injustices persist despite widespread opposition. Other times, it's a good thing, putting the brakes on social change and protecting the public from its own fickleness (ironic that the inefficiency of the system makes it more efficient by avoiding the need for frequent revision). Most of the time, it just is what it is.
This is true also of the satellites and subsidiaries of the legal system, including all or most of its internal bureaucracy and infrastructure. An unfortunate consequence of this is that all bureaucracies take their cue from the legal one.
One of the clear and major downsides to highly viscous systems is that they quickly become unwilling or unable to accept inputs from outside the system; today, this is most obvious as new and powerful technologies are developed with increasing frequency while bureaucracies cling to how-we've-always-done-it. Which brings me to...
My Beef
Suppose for a minute that you're a landowner and you're looking to rent out one of your properties. A potential client comes to you and you negotiate terms until you both find them agreeable. You shake on it. You draft a contract outlining those terms in writing and present it to your soon-to-be tenant, who signs it, eager to move in.
"What's that?", you exclaim. "No, no, we'll have none of that scribbling. All you did was write your name! Anybody could do that, so there's no way to verify that you're the one authorizing this document. No, you run home and get your signet ring, and we'll drip some hot wax on the contract and then you can put your seal on it, and then we have a deal."
Does that sound insane to you? Presumably, there was a time when this sort of conversation might have seemed reasonable. That time is obviously past. But imagine this being said instead:
"What's that? No, no, we'll have none of that e-signing. All you did was type your name! Anybody could do that, so there's no way to verify that you're the one authorizing this document. No, you print this PDF out, sign it, scan it, then e-mail it back to me, and then we have a deal."
Still sound nuts to you? It does to me, but this is something I hear all the damn time. It's not at all clear to me why e-mail and fax are okay, while e-signatures are not. Some sectors (like e-commerce) have embraced e-signatures, while most businesses that operate primarily in meatspace drag their heels.
Most recently, I encountered this while submitting a transcript request form to a university through which I did a summer program. I filled out the form (digitally), added an e-signature, and e-mailed it off, receiving a prompt reply requesting that I supply an "actual" signature. Actuality is a dangerous thing to invoke when people with philosophy backgrounds are around, but I wasn't about to subject the relatively innocent people at the registrar's office to an overview of the history of philosophy.
Instead, I sent a reply explaining that e-signatures are no worse at identifying individuals than "actual" signatures (especially when those can be altered between scanning and sending, anyway) and that there are in fact already laws on the books making e-signatures binding and otherwise identical to "actual" signatures. and indeed that even telegraph signatures were valid at common law as early as the 1850s. I know that I'm not going to convince anybody who's in a position to actually make this call, but when it comes to people (or systems) being willfully irrational, I can't help myself.
Anyway, my point is that highly viscous systems, like bureaucracies, tend to give rise to bizarre situations in which objectively verifiable and quantifiable improvements aren't rejected so much as they are ignored. A major contributor to this is that the people who are senior enough to make the decisions are both the most entrenched and, in part by virtue of age, the least conversant in whatever underlies recent developments (today, this is usually technology). It's going to be interesting to watch what happens as our rate of technological progress continues to accelerate while the least dynamic of us continue to fail upwards; will our decision-makers be driven to keep pace with developments, or will our culture/infrastructure spaghettify into oblivion?
Suppose for a minute that you're a landowner and you're looking to rent out one of your properties. A potential client comes to you and you negotiate terms until you both find them agreeable. You shake on it. You draft a contract outlining those terms in writing and present it to your soon-to-be tenant, who signs it, eager to move in.
"What's that?", you exclaim. "No, no, we'll have none of that scribbling. All you did was write your name! Anybody could do that, so there's no way to verify that you're the one authorizing this document. No, you run home and get your signet ring, and we'll drip some hot wax on the contract and then you can put your seal on it, and then we have a deal."
Does that sound insane to you? Presumably, there was a time when this sort of conversation might have seemed reasonable. That time is obviously past. But imagine this being said instead:
"What's that? No, no, we'll have none of that e-signing. All you did was type your name! Anybody could do that, so there's no way to verify that you're the one authorizing this document. No, you print this PDF out, sign it, scan it, then e-mail it back to me, and then we have a deal."
Still sound nuts to you? It does to me, but this is something I hear all the damn time. It's not at all clear to me why e-mail and fax are okay, while e-signatures are not. Some sectors (like e-commerce) have embraced e-signatures, while most businesses that operate primarily in meatspace drag their heels.
Most recently, I encountered this while submitting a transcript request form to a university through which I did a summer program. I filled out the form (digitally), added an e-signature, and e-mailed it off, receiving a prompt reply requesting that I supply an "actual" signature. Actuality is a dangerous thing to invoke when people with philosophy backgrounds are around, but I wasn't about to subject the relatively innocent people at the registrar's office to an overview of the history of philosophy.
Instead, I sent a reply explaining that e-signatures are no worse at identifying individuals than "actual" signatures (especially when those can be altered between scanning and sending, anyway) and that there are in fact already laws on the books making e-signatures binding and otherwise identical to "actual" signatures. and indeed that even telegraph signatures were valid at common law as early as the 1850s. I know that I'm not going to convince anybody who's in a position to actually make this call, but when it comes to people (or systems) being willfully irrational, I can't help myself.
Anyway, my point is that highly viscous systems, like bureaucracies, tend to give rise to bizarre situations in which objectively verifiable and quantifiable improvements aren't rejected so much as they are ignored. A major contributor to this is that the people who are senior enough to make the decisions are both the most entrenched and, in part by virtue of age, the least conversant in whatever underlies recent developments (today, this is usually technology). It's going to be interesting to watch what happens as our rate of technological progress continues to accelerate while the least dynamic of us continue to fail upwards; will our decision-makers be driven to keep pace with developments, or will our culture/infrastructure spaghettify into oblivion?
No comments:
Post a Comment