Some years ago, I read of an author -- I think it was Isaac Asimov, but I'm not sure -- who commented that he'd just spent a couple of hours signing several hundred sheets of paper. The papers would be bound into special copies of one of his books as 'autographed editions'. I happen to think that autographs are silly, but in a way I understand it -- it's a direct connection from you to an author you like. I have a copy of one book (Thinking in Time) that I liked, and in it there's a brief thank-you note from the author for something I wrote to him. The damn thing is at least twenty years old, and I still keep it. So I do understand the idea. But am I wrong in thinking that this -- signing blank pieces of paper, not associated with a book until its made -- is a fraud at worst, and tacky at best? What about this concept, from the people who put out the Freakonomics blog? At least its clear that they didn't physically hold the book in question, but doesn't it also contravene the concept?
And -- should there be a digital version of autographs? How would that work? Would it be a time-specific digital signature, somehow keyed to specific manual actions of the person in question (else, anyone could just run the program that makes the digital signature)?
Do I have too much spare time? If so, why haven't my Christmas cards been sent out yet?
2 comments:
Oh, jeeze louise. I wish you hadn't started the questions about digital signatures and how they could work. I'm gonna be stuck on that all day, I just know it! Because it would require some kind of individualized authentication, right? Otherwise, you're right. Anyone could run the program. Hmmmmm. There must be a way.
Its got to be fast enough to just do, no advance prep; personal enough so that you can be pleased that its from (whomever); not hardware platform dependent.
Piece of cake.
Post a Comment