I've never really used chip & pin -- like I say, the system doesn't
exist in the U.S. (which causes some confusion when I'm back in the
U.K. trying to use U.S. credit cards and the sales assistant is
wondering why the card reader can't read my non-existent chip!). But
it HAS to be better than relying on underpaid cashiers and bank
clerks doing signature recognition!
Sure, microfilm/fiche IS awful to use, and I wouldn't normally
recommend it to anyone -- but presumably the whole point of the hard
copy accession register mandated by SPECTRUM is to use it as a
tamper-proof backup in the event of some severe computer-related
disaster; if you have a decent off-site back-up procedure in place
for you CIS database, you should never need to use the hard copy
accession register anyway, so why worry if it's in annoying microfilm
format? It's an archival-quality hard copy of last resort, and also
pretty much tamper-proof. Plus it takes up much less space in your
fire-proof safe.
T.
At 10:42 AM 2007-01-19, you wrote:
> > Am I the only person on this list that considers signatures to be a
> > quaint but effectively meaningless anachronism?
> >
> > To illustrate my point, try this experiment: Next time you're in a
> > restaurant paying for a meal by credit card*, ask one of your dining
> > companions to sign the bill with an unintelligible squiggly line, and
> > see if either the waiter or the credit card company queries
> > the transaction.
>
>Isn't that just down to incompetence? Do you have any more faith in
>chip and pin?
>
>Actually, my point was that if a register is to be the definitive
>record of acquisitions then it needs to be as fake-proof as
>possible. Our 19th C hand-written registers have a certain quality
>that would be difficult to forge if one was so minded to replace all
>the records for gold coins with ones for copper for example to hide
>the nice little side-line in bullion dealing you've had going for
>years. With a computer printout things are a little different: I can
>easily make another just the same (with the necessary amendments to
>cover my tracks), bind it up nicely and who would know?
>
> > Has anyone considered Computer-Output Microfilm (COM) an alternative
> > approach to producing an archival-quality hard-copy accession
> > register?
>
>Am I the only person on this list that hates, loathes and despises
>microfilm/fiche? It might be archival, but it is absolutely
>appalling to use! (I say this from bitter experience...)
>
>Mick
>
>Michael P. Cooper
>Nottingham Museums Registrar
>tel.: +44 (0)115 915 3671
>fax : +44 (0)115 915 3601
>
>If you'd like to receive online news alerts from Nottingham City
>Council, visit www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/noticenottingham/news_feeds.htm
>
>This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content
>and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal.
>
>This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
>views which are not the views of Nottingham City Council unless specifically
>stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system,
>do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance
>on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that Nottingham City
>Council monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
>signify your consent to this.
>
>**************************************************
>For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list,
>visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
>**************************************************
Cheers,
T.
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
|