That was a great read. Some of the author's enthusiasm comes across a bit campy at points, but in general, they seem justified in casting themselves as pariahs.<p>The whole scenario is a collission of off-color concerns. On one hand, you have notaries and the notary establishment (yeah, I made that up) fighting to save their place in the market. Then you have lawmakers who see it, fail to understand it, and are then lobbied by the aforementioned establishment. Then you've got consumers like PG who are (rightfully) on edge about the legality and scam-factor associated with the idea. Everyone is watching this out of the corner of their eye, defaulting to the position that something is fishy.<p>Notarization is something business people are trained to treat with some reverence. The entire concept of a signature as an agent of identification is a bit bizzare when you think about it. Your signature is not a secret, but it remains a critical security element. Notarization is a hack. It's another layer of the same thing varnishing over the whole "signature means agreement" show. Yet it's so simple, and so engrained in our way of conducting business that any attempt to change it freaks everyone out. Fascinating.