Is a faxed document any different to a scanned one?

N

NealB

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Feb 2006
Messages
7,674
Location
Burnham on Crouch
Visit site
I've sent a scanned copy of a Land Registry file to a company that does local searches.

They say I've sent them a 'photo', and could I send them a fax instead.

I don't own a fax machine (indeed, the very notion seems rather quaint).

Now, I know nothing of the technology, but wouldn't a fax copy look just like the scanned copy anyway?
 
In the day job (at a bank) we put more reliance on faxes than scanned images via email (and always get a hardcopy too eventually). A fax is that much more neanderthal and therefore harder to forge.

That said a hardcopy is essential wherever we take any action of substance.
 
Sorry cant help with the question, but could suggest a solution. Most computers have a fax wizard on Windows, no idea how it differs from a scan, but worth a try ?
 
landlockedpirate said:
Sorry cant help with the question, but could suggest a solution. Most computers have a fax wizard on Windows, no idea how it differs from a scan, but worth a try ?
Click to expand...

Thanks....yeah...I had a look at that, but it still uses exactly the same scanned copy.

It might keep them quiet, though, so I'll give it a go!
 
NealB said:
Thanks....yeah...I had a look at that, but it still uses exactly the same scanned copy.

It might keep them quiet, though, so I'll give it a go!
Click to expand...

Since it will arrive on their fax machine they won't notice the difference, so go ahead.

I'm pretty sure this isn't just a case of the receiver being awkward: faxes have a sounder status in law than jpg files and the like. Absurd, but as Clouseau might have said, that's the leau ;)
 
macd said:
I'm pretty sure this isn't just a case of the receiver being awkward: faxes have a sounder status in law than jpg files and the like. Absurd, but as Clouseau might have said, that's the leau ;)
Click to expand...

I thought the law had kept up with emails and so on (admittedly it took a few years for them to get there).

I'll check with my Mrs....as a solicitor, it's clearly all her fault, personally, if this is, indeed, some stupid legal nicety!
 
I remember some years ago that a telex was considered legitimate but a fax wasn't - even though any forgery can be perpetrated before transmission! It made me laugh last time I went to replace my passport and they won't accept the old passport as proof of identity (so what's the point?) but demand a recent utility bill - now there's something that's easy to forge!

Rob.
 
Gnjoutside said:
A fax is that much more neanderthal and therefore harder to forge.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Just because you received it on a paper fax machine doesn't mean I had to send it using one. If someone insisted I send them a fax, I would probably use an email->fax gateway, or there's probably Web equivalents these days, with the image either originating in my computer or being scanned into it.

In any case, what if I print out my forged document, instead of emailing it, and fax the printout?

Pete
 
NealB said:
I thought the law had kept up with emails and so on (admittedly it took a few years for them to get there).
Click to expand...

Yes, but what do you expect when the poor old leau is obviously run by the spouses of these dear people?: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?358587-Piracy-blunder

I'm often amused (unless it causes hassle, of course) by requirements that documents should be "originals"...when the "original" of almost every document you'll see these days is a bunch of zeroes and ones on someone's computer.
 
A fax was thought to be more secure as the sender and receiver telephone numbers were on each sheet and a faxed receipt was sent back to the originator from the receiver. Of course, there are ways around that.
 
A scanned document in the form of a .jpg is compressed in a "lossy" form. so isn't regarded as a legally acceptable copy. Fax is not compressed in a lossy format so is deemed acceptable.
 
elton said:
A scanned document in the form of a .jpg is compressed in a "lossy" form. so isn't regarded as a legally acceptable copy. Fax is not compressed in a lossy format so is deemed acceptable.
Click to expand...

A fax scan is a digitisation process so therefore must be lossy. Look at it another way, is the received image as good as the original? There are compressive processes at work, prove it by sending a blank sheet and then a sheet with some stuff on it, the one with stuff on takes far longer.
 
nigelmercier said:
It might even be the presence of colour that is confusing them, they don't seem very bright.
Click to expand...

I think you could be right - they're used to seeing jpg files with photos in, so to the nice middle-aged lady in the office who doesn't really understand computers, a jpg is "a photo". Perhaps sending a PDF would look to them like "a document"?

Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top