Posted by Lee/AR on 1/15/11 5:22pm
Msg #368834
Regarding 'how to comment' on that VA Electronic Notary Bill
This is too important for all of us... along with the whole concept of notarization... please go to http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2011/hb2318/
and the second bill:
http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2011/sb827/
There is a place to vote on both of these on the right side of the screen AND below the bill is a place to add your comments. They do not ask for your state. Help kill the bills.
|
Reply by John Tennant on 1/15/11 6:06pm
Msg #368835
Two no's for the profession. Done n/m
|
Reply by oldhippie_IL on 1/15/11 6:08pm
Msg #368836
Also, two no's n/m
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 1/15/11 7:08pm
Msg #368840
Me too! n/m
|
Reply by JENNY/TX on 1/15/11 7:11pm
Msg #368843
Re: Ditto. Done n/m
|
Reply by anotaryinva on 1/15/11 6:36pm
Msg #368838
Thank you all n/m
|
Reply by Yvonne/NJ on 1/15/11 7:19pm
Msg #368844
Re:HB 2318
Submitted comments. This really needs to be addressed. Taker a moment to go to the site and vote and leave a comment please.
|
Reply by anotaryinva on 1/15/11 7:30pm
Msg #368845
thanks Yvonne,DW,Linda,Robert,Waldo,Shoshana,Ardel,Marilyn!
What is that saying, together we stand, divided we fall? Thanks for standing with the VA notaries.
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/15/11 7:39pm
Msg #368846
I just went and voted..."no" obviously
Remember, this isn't just for VA - this is for ALL of us...it only takes one to "give it a try" and the rest of the nation will follow suit...and I don't want it in Florida.
I see so many problems with this - so..no
|
Reply by anotaryinva on 1/15/11 7:42pm
Msg #368847
Thanks Linda/Fl there are now 17 n/m
|
Reply by anotaryinva on 1/15/11 7:44pm
Msg #368848
Want to Vote?
http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2011/hb2318/
|
Reply by LKT/CA on 1/15/11 7:51pm
Msg #368851
Two NO votes for me. n/m
|
Reply by anotaryinva on 1/15/11 8:06pm
Msg #368852
Thanks Lkt, if you want to add some tags ~add away!
just make sure you add " and " I started to add some without the " and " and the words
are separated, don't think it matters much though.
|
Reply by Donna McDaniel on 1/15/11 8:11pm
Msg #368853
2 NOs from me. n/m
|
Reply by Bobby/CA on 1/15/11 9:04pm
Msg #368858
Two No!s from me.
|
Reply by Linda Juenger on 1/15/11 9:32pm
Msg #368861
2 No's here n/m
|
Reply by Lavergne Manuel on 1/15/11 9:46pm
Msg #368862
Re: 2 No's here
2 No's here.
|
Reply by Lavergne Manuel on 1/15/11 10:14pm
Msg #368863
Re: 2 No's here
I have also sent an email to these two Senators. Please do the same.
1) Senator Henry L. Marsh III
Chairman of the Virginia Senate Courts of Justice Committee
Email: [e-mail address]
2) Senator John S. Edwards (Sponsor of SB 827)
Email: [e-mail address]
|
Reply by F2F/FL on 1/16/11 8:04am
Msg #368872
Re: 2 No's here
Thank you Laverqne for this info. I will be writing them.
2 NO'S FROM ME FOR SURE
|
Reply by JAM/CA on 1/15/11 10:49pm
Msg #368864
Ditto on two "no" votes n/m
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 1/15/11 11:27pm
Msg #368866
My husband voted 2 NOs.
I also sent it to all my notary friends!
|
Reply by ReneeK_MI on 1/16/11 6:54am
Msg #368868
I see another Orwellian level reached ...eventually.
I've tried to absorb as much as I'm capable of with this rather complicated shift in our paradigm. I've read the proposed Bill numerous times, and much of the items it references, and have come to some different conclusions than others have.
As always, I have to go back to 'what I know' - and extrapolate from there:
1. I know that there are places in the US that require extremes of security (nuclear plants, for example) where the risks are global.
2. I know that the identities of those given access are not approved simply by virtue of handing a D/L to a notary public at the door.
3. I know that such security measures (as referenced within the Bill) have been in existence & relied upon for many, many years.
4. I know that identification via live interface with a notary public is not infallible, nor would I WANT this method used solely as a means of protecting the global community from risk.
5. I know that a whole world revolves outside my immediate awareness, of billion dollar transactions )of such things as aircraft & security-software) via e-commerce using systems far beyond my imagination - and has been for 10-20 years.
To me, the logical extrapolations are that:
1. These security measures would, in time, migrate to a larger population (i.e. if it's good enough for global safety, why would it be harmful put to other uses?)
2. Technology never ceases, nor does it ever cease to amaze me (i.e. how many times have I wished something had been MY idea?). In a nation/world full of innovation and those with the money to back it, bringing these already proven identification systems into use with/for the general population seems (to me) to be inevitable, logical, and not necessarily 'bad'.
The meatier part of this Bill is:
In the case of an electronic notarization, "satisfactory evidence of identity" may be based on video and audio conference technology that permits the notary to communicate with and identify the principal at the time of the notarial act, provided that such identification is confirmed by (a) personal knowledge, (b) an antecedent in-person identity proofing process in accordance with the specifications of the Federal Bridge Certification Authority, or (c) a valid digital certificate accessed by biometric data or by use of an interoperable Personal Identity Verification card that is designed, issued, and managed in accordance with the specifications published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 201-1, "Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors," and supplements thereto or revisions thereof.
I read the referenced process of the Federal Bridge Cert Authority here: http://www.idmanagement.gov/fpkipa/documents/2010-03.pdf
and here: http://www.idmanagement.gov/fpkipa/documents/FBCA_Supplementary_Antecedent.pdf
I read (a lot of) the NIST reference here: http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/piv/index.html
In summary - I can add a 6th item to what I know, and that is that perhaps thousands of people far more intelligent than I am have built entire careers on these identification/security models and this is really a logical trickle-down rather than a whole new idea being born. If a person can be satisfactorily identified under one of these systems to be entrusted into a nuclear plant (for example), then why would that not suffice to identify a person for purposes of a notarial act?
It would SEEM that if this bill passes, it would have little immediate effect on the general population - who isn't likely to enter the cozy-zone with obtaining a PIV for quite some time. As for any immediate effect on performing RE transactions - that's STILL dealing with individuals in the general population, and again - we've seen how e-signings took off like wildfire (not). Still ....this is where the Orwellian effect looks most evident. Eventually.
I can see this being utilized in large corporations, and what those unintended consequences might be I don't dare to begin guessing.
|
Reply by Lee/AR on 1/16/11 7:26am
Msg #368870
Re: I see another Orwellian level reached ...eventually.
Exactly. However, as we've seen in an earlier thread about IDing via webcam, a couple of somebodies think that, by golly, they've done it.
For whatever this is worth to this discussion, my son is an IT guy for a large corporation and they have a palmprint scanner used with timecards. He said that these can be messed with because they tested and actually did change 'this' person into 'that' person and back again.
Maybe someday....but not during my just renewed commission term. 
|
Reply by ReneeK_MI on 1/16/11 8:06am
Msg #368873
from what I read, Lee
the protocols that are being used require 2 fingerprints. Like I said, from what I could absorb - this was some pretty chewy stuff to read.
|
Reply by ikando on 1/16/11 8:17am
Msg #368875
Re: I see another Orwellian level reached ...eventually.
Renee, you and I are on the same wave length. Technology is here and we're going to have to adjust to it. However, there are some things that still require human interaction. Even your example of identifying someone going into a nuclear plant involves a human interaction with a machine that is monitored by a human.
I put a comment on the Richmond Sunlight site with my main concern that allowing a "person," rather than a commissioned individual Notary Public, to perform an electronic notarization is overbroad. I copied the Virginia legislation definition of person:
§ 59.1-480. Definitions
(11) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, public body, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.
In effect, there could be one machine dealing with another machine conducting transactions which affect human beings. While this may speed things along, I prefer to have direct interaction and input for my business and personal activities.
|
Reply by ReneeK_MI on 1/16/11 8:58am
Msg #368878
I read that a little differently, ikando
I believe the Bills are clarifying that a person can be commissioned as a notary public, or a person can be commissioned as an electronic notary public, or a person can be commissioned as both. In other words - if you're not currently a notary public, and you'd like to obtain a commission as an electronic notary - you need not FIRST obtain a commission, in order to apply for the electronic commission.
How've I done in trying to illustrate that I think they're just avoiding redundancy? lol
|
Reply by ReneeK_MI on 1/16/11 8:10am
Msg #368874
After another cup of coffee & some further digesting
It occurs to me that one possible intention of this Bill is to attempt to stay one step ahead of fledgling attempts to utilize less secure methods than what the Bill wants to stipulate.
I really urge everyone to READ not just the entire proposals, but the security measures they're writing into the guidelines.
|
Reply by parkerc/ME on 1/16/11 8:52am
Msg #368876
Done - NO! n/m
|
Reply by DBFL on 1/16/11 10:47am
Msg #368880
Re: Ditto - 2 more NOs! n/m
|
Reply by WINotaryGal on 1/16/11 11:07am
Msg #368881
2 more no votes. Thanks for posting the links.
|
Reply by Sandra Clark on 1/16/11 1:04pm
Msg #368885
4 no votes here......me & hubby
|
Reply by Claudine Osborne on 1/16/11 8:12pm
Msg #368903
Re: Votes.. My votes NO/NO! n/m
|
Reply by LeeH/IN on 1/17/11 12:03am
Msg #368909
Add 2 "NO's" from IN
|
Reply by RJE/MI on 1/17/11 8:00am
Msg #368911
It couldn't be easier to vote NO
Just click on the links and click on NO. It will only take 10 seconds. Please don't just read this post and move on. Like a previous poster stated, it only takes one state to pass this to make the others follow suit. Thanks for your support and thanks for all who have brought this to our attention.
|
Reply by EHarp/MO on 1/17/11 10:22am
Msg #368926
100% No as of today! NM n/m
|
Reply by anotaryinva on 1/17/11 11:08am
Msg #368933
81 no votes hb2318 / 71 no votes sb827 Thanks! n/m
|
Reply by Lavergne Manuel on 1/17/11 11:45am
Msg #368936
Re: 81 no votes hb2318 / 71 no votes sb827 Thanks!
If you send an email to both of the Senators who introduced the bills, it might reinforce the no votes. Let them know why we would like for them to drop those bills.
1) Senator Henry L. Marsh III
Chairman of the Virginia Senate Courts of Justice Committee
Email: [e-mail address]
2) Senator John S. Edwards (Sponsor of SB 827)
Email: [e-mail address]
|
Reply by Lee/AR on 1/17/11 2:00pm
Msg #368942
ime, if you don't live in the state, they don't care
what you think. But, all you VA people...write!
|
Reply by anotaryinva on 1/17/11 2:10pm
Msg #368945
Re: ime, if you don't live in the state, they don't care
You might be correct but since things notarized in VA have a way of being presented in other states I think everyone's concerns are valid. Suppose a poa is signed in VA, would it be valid if the person moved to FL or CA or any other state?
|
Reply by Lavergne Manuel on 1/17/11 2:16pm
Msg #368946
Re: ime, if you don't live in the state, they don't care
How much effort does it take to go to a web-site and check NO and to send 2 emails.
|
Reply by MW/VA on 1/17/11 2:35pm
Msg #368950
Thanks to all for your support of this issue here in VA. I
don't think it will fly. There is too much opposition.
|
Reply by Retsing on 1/17/11 3:59pm
Msg #368963
I voted 2 nos too n/m
|
