After the thread below about the so-called "SECURE" Act, I got to wondering what exactly is this "tamper-evident" technology that seems to be referenced as the primary tool for RON security. I couldn't recall ever hearing it referenced in any other context, so I did a little checking.
From what I've been able to find, it doesn't do anything to prevent fraud, it just makes it more visible once it happens. One of the few places I found a definition was here: http://www.cnwintech.com/blog/types-of-tamper-evident-technology/. It lists some physical methods of protecting packages and bottles, but the only digital-related comment, under the heading of "Electronic Signatures", is the following:
"Digital security increasingly incorporates tamper-evident technology, primarily in the form of electronic signatures. While these protection layers don’t necessarily work to contain security breaches or to stop them, they do utilize cryptography and encryption algorithms to prove to the end-user whether his or her documents were altered by an unapproved party. If tampering occurred, the e-signature is shown to be invalid."
Using two different browsers, a significant majority of entries under "tamper-evident technology" include a reference to "notary" in some way or another. It almost looks like this was a phrase adapted specifically for RON. It may sound good on the surface for folks who don't give it any thought, but when it comes to real security, it sounds to me like smoke and mirrors. Isn't this kinda like closing the door after the horse is out of the barn for consumers?
Many of you know a lot more about RON (and other) technology than I do, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing any standards included in this bill (directly or indirectly) about device security for RON notaries or data storage standards for video recordings, etc., etc. (Or did I just miss it?) Is all this just being left up to the states? Somehow that doesn't give me much of a feeling of confidence, either.
But hey, the bill says "SECURE" right in it's title... So it must be OK, right?!  [insert 'eye-roll' emoji here...]
|
