Good point. My counter is: not only might that make the documents signed fail to fulfil the intended function, e.g. convincing a govt agency that you have income, but more fundamentally, lawyers would know better than I that a signed statement that happens to have small print that says "lol, jk, maybe this isn't true" might not hold up in a court of law. I have a vague feeling there's precedent for that kind of thing.
Discussion
Don't they have liability with any report they make to the gov, regardless of digital sig? And I would think they include wording like that already to protect themselves.
Really good point. I remember checking that - they do, indeed, in many cases, have absolutely outrageous legal wording obviating themselves of *any* responsibility with respect to statements of account; and about my "lol, jk" comment on fineprint - *maybe* these cover-our-ass clauses don't hold up, or maybe they do - this is the IANAL part. On your first Q I think we're looking at it from slightly different frames: what I'm saying is that *if* they did it differently (actually non-repudiable signed statements) a lot of processes would be far more efficient/effective. Currently, they don't, so the kinds of things I'm imagined are not "reported to the govt.", just instead people take screenshots, printouts and send them to the govt. agency, which for me is much worse.