Posted by Poppy on 9/26/06 8:58pm
Msg #148659

FYI: Incase anyone is interested. GLB info on BG checks...

I think the background checks are only a small part of the guidelines/suggestions for compliance with the GLB ACT and that a BG check by itself has very little meaning. Aside from the fact that many of us have already gone through a background check and nothing in the information I've read leads me to believe that anything more is needed (AS FAR AS BACKGROUND CHECKS GO)
Although, I would argue that if we are covered by the Privacy Rule that we must make a concerted effort to comply with all the guidelines and not just a BG check.

Anyway here's some fuel to help you form your own opinion.

This info was obtained from the FTC website. I have not included all the information given on each topic so as not to take up to much space. I would suggest if you're interested go to the website and take a look for yourself....

I. WHO IS COVERED BY THE PRIVACY RULE

There are two ways that the Privacy Rule might cover you. First, if you are a "financial institution," you are covered. Parts I and II of this guide describe your obligations if you collect "nonpublic personal information" from your "customers" or "consumers" and define these terms. Second, if you receive "nonpublic personal information" from a financial institution with which you are not affiliated, you may be limited in your use of that information. Part III of this guide discusses your obligations as a recipient of such protected information.

Are you a "financial institution"?

The Privacy Rule applies to businesses that are "significantly engaged" in "financial activities" as described in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act. Your activities determine whether you are a "financial institution" under the Privacy Rule. According to the Bank Holding Company Act provision and regulations established by the Federal Reserve Board, "financial activities" include:

lending, exchanging, transferring, investing for others, or safeguarding money or securities. These activities cover services offered by lenders, check cashers, wire transfer services, and sellers of money orders.
providing financial, investment or economic advisory services. These activities cover services offered by credit counselors, financial planners, tax preparers, accountants, and investment advisors.
brokering loans.
servicing loans.
debt collecting.
providing real estate settlement services.
career counseling (of individuals seeking employment in the financial services industry).
These examples are taken from the section 4(k) provisions and regulations on financial activities which you can access at the FTC's website, www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/index.html.

I'D LOVE INPUT BUT TO ME IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE ARE COVERED BY THE GBL ACT

Next:

Okay if you agree that we are covered and need to comply what does it take. This is where I feel it gets sticky. Since GLB offers guidlines not hardfast rules and the background check is a suggestion as are the rest of the guidelines.

The rest of the guidelines are also just that guidelines. I think the problem comes into play when and if there is a breach you better be able to show that you have taken reasonable measures to protect the sensitive information of your customers. Clearly this is very subjective but at the very least we better be able to show effort....

Here's a link to the guidlines/suggestions from the FTC on how to comply with the safeguard rule in the GLB act.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/safeguards.htm

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 9:11pm
Msg #148661

So which category do you think we fall under specifically???

Do you think you are a settlement service?? I don't agree that we're covered!

Reply by John_NorCal on 9/26/06 9:15pm
Msg #148663

Re: So which category do you think we fall under specifically???

****In addition to developing their own safeguards, companies covered by the Rule are responsible for taking steps to ensure that their affiliates and service providers safeguard customer information in their care.***

I think a case can be made that we are service providers to financial institutions.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 9:26pm
Msg #148667

Re: So which category do you think we fall under specifically???

California Financial code 4051.5 makes some interesting definitions of which financial institutions qualify under the federal guidelines. We service financial institutions in a minor role. I suspect that the individual who dumps the office trash has more access to financial information than most notaries.

Reply by Poppy on 9/26/06 9:36pm
Msg #148671

Charles from what very little I know of Financial Code

4051.5....
I believe it deals more with the sharing of npi versus safeguarding it. That being said I've not read through it and it looks like you have so can you please post a link if you have one?

Thank you!

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 9:45pm
Msg #148673

I posted some relevant sections below! n/m

Reply by Poppy on 9/26/06 9:52pm
Msg #148676

Okay, Thanks! n/m

Reply by Poppy on 9/26/06 10:02pm
Msg #148682

Here's a link to the entire code for those who are like me

and would like to to browse the entire code.
Charles was kind enough to post the relavant sections for us...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/fin.html

I hope this is the complete code, if anyone has a better link, please post it....

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 10:06pm
Msg #148685

Here is the link to the complete code and all of CA's codes

and othere Codes and laws.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3246301153+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Reply by John_NorCal on 9/26/06 9:13pm
Msg #148662

Thanks Poppy, I agree with you in that I too believe that we are covered by the privacy rules. Looking through the link, I don 't see where back ground checks are called for, unless I'm missing something there. All the guidelines I see are recommendations to companies for ensuring privacy rights are protected. So this leads me back to NNA, it appears they have formulated another method of lightening a persons wallet.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 9:20pm
Msg #148665

I agree with you basically John but...

I think it takes a bit of extrapolation to fit notaries into the categories. If notaries are in the categories how are the SS going to get certified? If we can extrapolate this to mean that everyone who handles private information must have a background check, does this include the FedEx guy and the UPS guy? How about the guy at Kinko's who copies the packages when the notaries' printer is down or the notary is trying to sae some time? I am not sure that I agree that :

1. Notaries need to have a background check any more than some of the others not on the list

and

2. That a background check above and beyond what, at least we in California get, is necessary

Reply by Poppy on 9/26/06 9:23pm
Msg #148666

John, I was hoping to show that BG checks are

not a requirement they are included in the suggestions of steps to take to comply with the GLB act.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/safeguards.htm

Look at securing information the first bullet point offers this suggestion...

SECURING INFORMATION
The Safeguards Rule requires companies to assess and address the risks to customer information in all areas of their operation, including three areas that are particularly important to information security: Employee Management and Training; Information Systems; and Detecting and Managing System Failures. One of the early steps companies should take is to determine what information they are collecting and storing, and whether they have a business need to do so. You can reduce the risks to customer information if you know what you have and keep only what you need.

Depending on the nature of their business operations, firms should consider implementing the following practices:
Employee Management and Training. The success of your information security plan depends largely on the employees who implement it. Consider:

Checking references or doing background checks before hiring employees who will have access to customer information.

You're very welcome... I think when we are being fed BS by the NNA or anyone else we need to feed ourselves with solid information so that we can form our own opinion, and not be swayed by someone who may or may not have another motive.

Reply by John_NorCal on 9/26/06 9:31pm
Msg #148668

Charles and Poppy

I agree, I don't think back ground checks are a requirement, and with the back ground check that we have to have here in CA, I believe we have fulfilled any "requirement" for a background check if there were a requirement. Having said that, we as signing agents are privy to personal information, and therefore we do need to comply with privacy rights. And after reading many posts on this board, I believe that we all, by and large, do show due care in safeguarding clients information by shredding documents, destroying files, etc. Again, I think we agree that this is a ploy by the NNA to line their pockets even more.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 9:33pm
Msg #148670

I guess in our own ways we are all saying the same thing! n/m

Reply by Poppy on 9/26/06 9:18pm
Msg #148664

Obviously I think we are part of the real estate settlement

services.
However I posted the information so you could form your own opinion of whether or not we are covered under the rule and if so what is and isn't required to comply...
I'm sure what's clear to me is cleary wrong to others.

Reply by NCLisa on 9/27/06 10:27am
Msg #148779

Re: Obviously I think we are part of the real estate settlement

A real estate settlement service provider prepares the hud and orders payoffs and puts the package together along with the lender. We are NSA's and do nothing but take the already finished package to the borrower to sign. Nothing else.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 9:33pm
Msg #148669

I think that our legislature has already pre-empted the

Federal Governent and I submit that our Notary Background check performed by the STate of California satisfies and in fact exceeds all reqirements. I don't see that I need the NNA or anyone else to check my background further for any reason.

The following is the beginning of California Financial Codes Section 4051.5
Federal banking legislation, known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act, which breaks down restrictions on affiliation among different
types of financial institutions, increases the likelihood that the
personal financial information of California residents will be widely
shared among, between, and within companies.
(3) The policies intended to protect financial privacy imposed by
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act are inadequate to meet the privacy
concerns of California residents.
(4) Because of the limitations of these federal policies, the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act explicitly permits states to enact privacy
protections that are stronger than those provided in federal law.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this division:

(1) To ensure that Californians have the ability to control the
disclosure of what the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act calls nonpublic
personal information.
(2) To achieve that control for California consumers by requiring
that financial institutions that want to share information with third
parties and unrelated companies seek and acquire the affirmative
consent of California consumers prior to sharing the information.
(3) To further achieve that control for California consumers by
providing consumers with the ability to prevent the sharing of
financial information among affiliated companies through a simple
opt-out mechanism via a clear and understandable notice provided to
the consumer.
(4) To provide, to the maximum extent possible, consistent with
the purposes cited above, a level playing field among types and sizes
of businesses consistent with the objective of providing consumers
control over their nonpublic personal information, including
providing that those financial institutions with limited affiliate
relationships may enter into agreements with other financial
institutions as provided in this division, and providing that the
different business models of differing financial institutions are
treated in ways that provide consistent consumer control over
information-sharing practices.
(5) To adopt to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the
purposes cited above, definitions consistent with federal law, so
that in particular there is no change in the ability of businesses to
carry out normal processes of commerce for transactions voluntarily
entered into by consumers.

Reply by Poppy on 9/26/06 9:40pm
Msg #148672

Yes, I guess we are saying the same thing. John I couldn't

agree with you more. We need to due our utmost to protect the private information we come in contact with.
I think that coming up with industry wide standards of conduct when dealing with sensitive information should be the top of everyone's list.

If we don't step up and self govern our own industry, you can bet the government will....

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 9:46pm
Msg #148675

As you can see from the quote above California doesn't think

much of the Federal act.

Reply by Poppy on 9/26/06 10:00pm
Msg #148679

CA can only pre-empt federal law if it is stricter.... n/m

Reply by John_NorCal on 9/26/06 10:02pm
Msg #148680

And I think we are stricter. Looks like we all agree....

in our own words.

Reply by Poppy on 9/26/06 10:10pm
Msg #148686

You're right John... Thanks for stepping in and reminding me

Perhaps I took offense at Charles's original reply to me...
Sometimes words on paper seem other than they are meant too.....

Night all! "smiles" Poppy

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 10:16pm
Msg #148690

Sorry you took offense, but if you notice all three of us

believed that the GLB statute covered us under different definitions. It is not clear, that is why I wanted to know what definition you found yourself under. Lawyers think differently than most people. Their thinking is very specific. Most people read more into things than are actually there. I have several friends who are attorneys and I gurantee you their thought processes are different. Most people have baggage attached to words and interpret everything in the context of that baggage. I wind up in a lot of grouble because people don't listen to what I am saying in the specific definition but interpret what I say in the contest of their experiences. As a non-native speaker of English I tend to be very literal. Have a great evening!

Reply by Poppy on 9/26/06 10:37pm
Msg #148697

I'm sorry too Charles... I'm not usually so easily offended.

Believe me it was more me than you... Thanks for the info and your input... I really do appreciate it...

You have a GREAT EVENING as well!

Reply by Charles_Ca on 9/26/06 10:02pm
Msg #148683

That is exactly what they are saying! n/m