Question

Without the reassurance of a handwritten ink signature, there is no obvious way to verify the authorship. Alternatively, imagine that a bank receives an e-mail from a client, which instructs that all the client's funds should be transferred to a private numbered bank account in the Cayman Islands. Once again, without a handwritten signature, how does the bank know that the e-mail is really from the client? The e-mail could have been written by a criminal attempting to divert the money to his own Cayman Islands bank account. In order to develop trust on the Internet, it is essential that there is some form of reliable digital signature. –The Code Book, Simon Singh

Write three to five sentences evaluating the author’s argument. In your response, identify and evaluate the claim and whether the evidence supports the reason and the claim.

Answer 1

Answer:

According to what the author expresses in this excerpt, in order to confirm the authorship of a document, handwritten ink signatures should be present. Otherwise, there would be no reliable way of verifying the source of that document.

Explanation:

The main reason for Simon Singh to believe that is that, if we don't have a handwritten signature, we could be easily fooled by criminals who take other people's names to make us do things for their own benefit, like in the example given by the author of the bank account. I think his claim is pretty accurate and that the example given by the author supports the claim in a very logical way. I, in fact, agree with him in believing that handwritten signatures or any other way of pursuing reliability is worth the time and intention. Nothing is too much when trying to avoid fraud, and I also think it is a good practice to update the protection system every now and then to maintain our information private and secure.

Answer 2

The indication by which the writer communicates in this extract, to affirm the origin of a report, written by hand ink marks ought to be available. In any case, there would be no solid method of checking the wellspring of that report.  

 

The principle justification for Simon Singh to accept that will be that, assuming we don't have a manually written mark, we could be effectively tricked by hoodlums who take others' names to cause us to get things done for their own advantage, as in the model given by the writer of the ledger.

In his case is really precise and that the model given by the creator upholds the case in an exceptionally consistent manner. I, indeed, concur with him in accepting that transcribed marks or some other method of seeking after unwavering quality merits the time and aim.

Nothing is a lot of when attempting to stay away from extortion, and I additionally think it is a decent practice to refresh the assurance framework once in a while to keep up with our data private and secure.

For more information, refer the following link:

https://brainly.com/question/13762753