The challenge of comparing digitally captured signatures registered with different software and hardware.

Along with the growing popularity of electronic documents authorised with digitally captured signatures, such evidence has appeared in the work of forensic practitioners. Many different vendors offer signature pads with varying specifications. It is therefore expected that forensic handwriting experts will be called upon to compare questioned and known samples captured with completely or partially different hardware and software combinations. Such cases may be challenging as numerical handwriting data produced by various equipment may differ not only in the type of information captured and its quality, but also in its structure and coding. In this research, numerical data of handwriting - i.e. spatial coordinates, force, and time values - were acquired with 26 different combinations of hardware and software to study characteristics of their coding. The analysis of samples revealed that scaling of numerical data is not only hardware but also software dependent. Therefore, their compliance with the ISO/IEC 19794-7 standard is recommended to improve the data interoperability. This standard emphasizes the importance of supplementing numerical signature data with scaling ratios of the used signing solution. The paper also includes descriptions of several phenomena observed in the acquired data to highlight possible pitfalls in performing inter-solution comparisons in casework.

Features of digitally captured signatures vs. pen and paper signatures: Similar or completely different?

The question of whether digitally captured signatures and conventional signatures executed with a pen on paper differ in their characteristics is of practical relevance for forensic handwriting examiners. Due to gaps in the current literature, the present research is dedicated to this issue. Eighty persons signed in three conditions: a) with a stylus on a pad, b) with an inking pen on a sticky note attached to a signature pad allowing to obtain a digital and an analogue version on paper of one and the same writing simultaneously, and c) with a pen on paper. The first step was to investigate to what extent the character shape and number of pen lifts differ between the digital and analogue representation of one and the same signature. This revealed minor differences which are due to technical characteristics of the devices used. The observed distortions are of minor practical relevance according to ratings by eight participating forensic handwriting examiners. Subsequently, signature characteristics were compared between the three different writing conditions in a casework-oriented way. Statistical multi-level models indicate significant differences between the three signature types, but minor effect sizes in most of the examined characteristics. From the point of view of the participating handwriting examiners, these factors do not fundamentally restrict the comparability between digitally captured and conventional signatures in practice. However, caution should be exercised when generalising the results, as several factors, such as the usage of different signature pads as well as signatures made with the finger instead of a stylus, could result in more important differences compared to pen and paper signatures.

Examining Authenticity: An Initial Exploration of the Suitability of Handwritten Electronic Signatures.

Considering the increasing relevance of handwritten electronically captured signatures, we evaluated the ability of forensic handwriting examiners (FHEs) to distinguish between authentic and simulated electronic signatures. Sixty-six professional FHEs examined the authenticity of electronic signatures captured with software by signotec on a smartphone Galaxy Note 4 by Samsung and signatures made with a ballpoint pen on paper (conventional signatures). In addition, we experimentally varied the name ("J. König" vs. "A. Zaiser") and the status (authentic vs. simulated) of the signatures in question. FHEs' conclusions about the authenticity did not show a statistically significant general difference between electronic and conventional signatures. Furthermore, no significant discrepancies between electronic and conventional signatures were found with regard to other important aspects of the authenticity examination such as questioned signatures' graphic information content, the suitability of the provided sample signatures, the necessity of further examinations and the levels of difficulty of the cases under examination. Thus, this study did not reveal any indications that electronic signatures captured with software by signotec on a Galaxy Note 4 are less well suited than conventional signatures for the examination of authenticity, precluding potential technical problems concerning the integrity of electronic signatures.