[SWLUG] Re: cheap laser printers ??

[Bryn Reeves]

On 12:55 Wed 21 Apr     , Carter N. wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I understand that for legal purposes, it is important that tampering is
> apparent, so lawyers prefer ink prints over laser prints.
> 
> Toner does not necessarily 'alter' the paper since it forms a layer on top
> of it, in contrast to pigment/dye based inks which do modify the physical
> properties of the 'fabric'. There are special 'permanent' inks available in
> art shops, but I've not seen inkjet cartridges labelled in such a way.
> 
> I'm no lawyer, so I can't verify the accuracy of this legal stuff, but I
> hope it helps.
> 
> Neil

I'm not so sure about this - my sister's a solicitor in London, and 
she uses laser for all her printing, legal contracts included. Her
firm also accept a signed & scanned PDF of a document as legally 
binding - I'm not sure what the courts opinion of this is, but it 
does seem a common practice now (IANAL!).

Although as you say, toner doesn't permeate the paper as ink does, 
I understand the fusing process is hard to reverse without it being
clearly evident.

Also, I noticed my car insurer's issue my certificate of insurance 
laser printed. It has a 'watermark' pattern printed into it which 
interacts with what is printed - I presume to make scanning & 
modifying it more difficult.

Just my observations...

Cheers,

Bryn.