Editing Graphology (section)

== Legal considerations ==

=== Hungary ===
A report by the Hungarian Parliamentary Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information says that handwriting analysis without informed consent is a privacy violation.<ref name="nagymaros">{{cite journal  | first = Attila  | last = Péterfalvi  | title = Overview of the Data Protection Commissioner's investigation into the tender for the notary position of the city of Nagymaros  | publisher = Hungarian Parliamentary Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information  | date = 16 March 2004  | url = http://abiweb.obh.hu/dpc/index.php?menu=reports/2004/III/4&dok=reports/2004/222&nyomtat=1  | access-date = 2008-06-21  | url-status = dead  | archive-url = https://archive.today/20100109171828/http://abiweb.obh.hu/dpc/index.php?menu=reports/2004/III/4&dok=reports/2004/222&nyomtat=1  | archive-date = 9 January 2010  }}</ref>

=== United States ===

==== Employment law====
A 2001 advisory opinion letter from the [[U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] responded to a question regarding "whether it is legal to use an analysis of an applicant's handwriting as an employment screening tool. You also ask whether it is legal to ask the applicant's age and use of medications to allow for variants in his/her handwriting."<ref name=EEOC>{{citation|last=Johnston|first=Dianna B.|title=Title&nbsp;VII: Disparate Impact, Handwriting Analysis|publisher=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission|date=28 February 2001|url=https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2001/titlevii_disparate_handwriting.html|access-date=4 March 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190122024344/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2001/titlevii_disparate_handwriting.html|archive-date=22 January 2019|url-status=dead}}</ref> The letter advised that in this circumstance, it was illegal under the [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]] (ADA) to ask a job applicant whether he or she is taking any medications, and also advised that asking an applicant for his or her age "allegedly to allow for variants in analyzing his/her handwriting" was not a ''per se'' violation of the [[Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967]] (ADEA), but could be significant evidence of age discrimination.<ref name=EEOC/> The letter also said that there was no judicial guidance on "whether a policy of excluding applicants based upon their handwriting has an adverse impact on a protected group" under the ADA, ADEA, or [[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]].<ref name=EEOC/>