I do agree that there are difficulties in matching handwritten signatures. I also agree that some times signatures of the same person may differ at different points of time. It is also true that handwritten signatures can be forged some times with expertise which make it difficult to identify the forgery. It is also true that there may be some dumb bankers who may be paranoid with the signature “Tallying” with the specimen. (But they are ill informed persons who may not understand the science of handwriting analysis).

However, concluding that passwords are equal to or better than handwritten signatures looks funny.

The science of handwriting analysis indicates that handwriting is directly influenced by the person’s mental state at a point of time. However signature is a concious attempt to follow a known pattern of writing and under ordinary circumstances there are several aspects of the signature which are unique to the person. Many times these are also the giveaways in forgery.

In India we do trust the thumb impression more than the handwritten signature but certainly we donot reject the signature altogether as the author seems to suggest.

The author makes an interesting statement “..Wikipedia does not even have an entry for it (Ed: Meaning handwriting analysis)..”. This indicates that the author considers Wikipedia as an authority and values an entry there as much more than the practice which has prevailed over a long time and also stood the test of time admirably well.

Just because a Wikipedia editor does not understand a concept, and therefore rejects an entry as “Vandalism”, it does not mean that the rejected comment is actually incorrect. Wikipedia can only support concepts which are already popular and accepted by a number of people. It cannot recognize new and innovative concepts. (Still I don’t understand the reasons if handwriting analysis does not have an entry. May be the author is wrong on this fact. I need to check.. since handwriting analysis is too old a concept to be rejected as new, untested etc.)

I feel that the author suffers from a specific syndrome which makes him distrust signatures for some reason. If his own signature is not consistent, it may also indicate his state of mind which may be inconsistent over different points of time. I donot know what is this “Syndrome”? ..

We need to analyse it.

It could be a “Signature phobia” arising from some childhood incident where the author might have suffered adversely from a signature. It may be a “Technology Intoxication” where the author thinks that electronic authentication through passwords must be great may be because “Wikipedia.. says so” (!)and Wikipedia is a technology creation.

Let’s now simply call it a “Signature Phobia” if it is convenient. I would like the author to think deeply why he feels so strongly against handwriting analysts. If required he can take the assistance of a psycho analyst to dive into his sub-conscious mind and determine the cause of this strange opposition to the use of hand written signatures for authentication.