Social Welfare Electronic Signature Law Question!

Electronic Writer

Would the Department of Social Protection have the legal right to enforce compulsory compliance with the provision of an electronic pad signature for the purpose of monthly signing and the continuance of a claim?

Would the Department of Social Protection have the right to refuse the request of acceptance of conventional paper signing either with or without notice?

Thanks to the mod who told me the proper forum to put a thread!:)

Tom Young

The answer to both is maybe, tending towards yes for Q. 2.

The legislative framework exists for both, forcing is a problem. If you're given no option, then you'd have to comply to get paid, wouldn't you?

If you think you need a loop hole, think again.

Electronic Writer

Would the absence of any prior discussion nullify any announced new arrangement as it can not be made unilaterally?

If someone is actually reliant on social welfare payments then I can't see how it could be in their interest to have a long legal case to test it but after the messy integration of government departments and services it would be interesting to see a case being brought regarding the changes in practices over the last few years.

Electronic Writer

Electronic Writer wrote: »

Would the absence of any prior discussion nullify any announced new arrangement as it can not be made unilaterally?

If there was no prior discussion at all then why would they have to give you money?

Electronic Writer

Deleted User wrote: »

If someone is actually reliant on social welfare payments then I can't see how it could be in their interest to have a long legal case to test it but after the messy integration of government departments and services it would be interesting to see a case being brought regarding the changes in practices over the last few years.

The way the system works is that if I was not to give my signature electronically I would then be able to appeal any decision made as a penalty. The time taken could be years depending on whether a person can push the system with letters, phone calls, face to face discussions, court cases on points of law, etc, all the while a penalty, no payment, being imposed. Guilt before innocence comes to mind.

Deleted User wrote: »

If there was no prior discussion at all then why would they have to give you money?

The payment from the Department of Social Protection is a payment called,'Jobseeker's Allowance', this term being introduced a few years ago to supersede the term,'Unemployment Assistance'. When the conditions are met a payment is made.

The point is that the provision of an electronic pad signature is an unannounced precondition for payment while the person who is there to sign on paper, as agreed previously, is complying with all rules, being present with hindsight under false pretences. There is an imposition of the new rule unilaterally, no discussion has taken place previously while new signs on the walls announce new arrangements. Rest assured, the Department of Social Protection did not arrange anything with me.

ResearchWill

Electronic Writer wrote: »

The way the system works is that if I was not to give my signature electronically I would then be able to appeal any decision made as a penalty. The time taken could be years depending on whether a person can push the system with letters, phone calls, face to face discussions, court cases on points of law, etc, all the while a penalty, no payment, being imposed. Guilt before innocence comes to mind.




The payment from the Department of Social Protection is a payment called,'Jobseeker's Allowance', this term being introduced a few years ago to supersede the term,'Unemployment Assistance'. When the conditions are met a payment is made.

The point is that the provision of an electronic pad signature is an unannounced precondition for payment while the person who is there to sign on paper, as agreed previously, is complying with all rules, being present with hindsight under false pretences. There is an imposition of the new rule unilaterally, no discussion has taken place previously while new signs on the walls announce new arrangements. Rest assured, the Department of Social Protection did not arrange anything with me.

It's not a contract it's a social payment. This was introduced by regulations made under the Social Welfare Acts.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2012/en.si.2012.0250.pdf

As long as the acts delegate such power to the Minister via SI then it's the law.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Beano

why would you object to signing electronically?

Cody Pomeray

Usual objection to electronic signature is that an IT system is corruptible and open to fraud.

(Cos, yknow, handwritten sigs are forge-proof).

I think it's a semi interesting question on its own merit, regardless of the reason for the OP's objection, or whether he's a freeman.

If the OP had demonstrated that he has a contract with the Department of Social Protection, a part of that agreement would be the requirement to produce his signature from time to time.

The problem as I see it is on what basis the OP thinks a signature, as demanded by this hypothetical contract, is only a signature if it is written in ink and paper.

That is to say, the DSP only ever demanded a signature. How that signature is made seems totally irrelevant to any hypothetical contract. We know that signatures can be made in a number of ways (rubber stamps, thumb prints, engravings, initials, X, and indeed electronic computing) and it appears within the DSP's remit to request the most secure ways only.

Beano

but does any contract actually exist? What would the social welfare claimant be providing in the way of consideration?

Cody Pomeray

In fairness the OP didn't mention a contract, we did.

He might be talking about estoppel of the DSP in not paying his claim.

But the point still to be overcome is that the 'promise' has not changed. The DSP are still only requesting a signature from time to time. They just want a more secure form of signature.

SB2013

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i think the word Freeman has just become synonymous with bull**** these days.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Usual objection to electronic signature is that an IT system is corruptible and open to fraud.

(Cos, yknow, handwritten sigs are forge-proof).

I think it's a semi interesting question on its own merit, regardless of the reason for the OP's objection, or whether he's a freeman.

If the OP had demonstrated that he has a contract with the Department of Social Protection, a part of that agreement would be the requirement to produce his signature from time to time.

The problem as I see it is on what basis the OP thinks a signature, as demanded by this hypothetical contract, is only a signature if it is written in ink and paper.

That is to say, the DSP only ever demanded a signature. How that signature is made seems totally irrelevant to any hypothetical contract. We know that signatures can be made in a number of ways (rubber stamps, thumb prints, engravings, initials, X, and indeed electronic computing) and it appears within the DSP's remit to request the most secure ways only.

I don't see the point in it to be honest. My signature is never the same. If they wanted to bring in electronic ID they should go straight for thumb print.

Cody Pomeray

SB2013 wrote: »

I don't see the point in it to be honest.

Me neither but there's a question, nobody's forcing you to look at it, with respect. I'm just thinking about the question in its own merits, who cares if the OP is a freeman or a man u supporter or any other type of nutter.

timmywex

SB2013 wrote: »

I don't see the point in it to be honest. My signature is never the same. If they wanted to bring in electronic ID they should go straight for thumb print.

Contrary to popular belief, thumb prints are horrendously insecure!

SB2013

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Me neither but there's a question, nobody's forcing you to look at it, with respect. I'm just thinking about the question in its own merits, who cares if the OP is a freeman or a man u supporter or any other type of nutter.

Forcing me to look at what?

timmywex wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief, thumb prints are horrendously insecure!

But which is easier to fake? A signature or a thumb.

Electronic Writer

ResearchWill wrote: »

It's not a contract it's a social payment. This was introduced by regulations made under the Social Welfare Acts.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2012/en.si.2012.0250.pdf

As long as the acts delegate such power to the Minister via SI then it's the law.

This is what I'm looking for, thanks! Thanks for all other possibilities and ideas. This is possibly the needle in the ' Law haystack '.