Posted by Estelle--MA on 7/30/05 6:17pm
Msg #55981

Notaries may be federally regulated.... good or bad?

I posted earlier the same question. I figured that since my subject was "Massachusetts Notaries.... Important Information.." no one will view the message, except for MA notaries.

What do you guys think about becoming federally regulated?

I'm not saying we (notaries) are, I'm just saying what if?

TIA

Reply by Glenn on 7/30/05 6:25pm
Msg #55983

The more government is involved, the more things are messed up.

Reply by Charles_CA on 7/30/05 6:54pm
Msg #55991

Hi Estelle:

I don't believe that notaries should be federally regulated. You live in one of 5 commonwealths in the US. Do you know why Massachusetts is called a commonwealth? If you don't you really should research it so that you will know because there are differences between States in the US: some subtle and some not so subtle. Are you aware that the US is a conglomeration of independant States, originaly, loosely gathered as a federation. Some States like Texas and California were republics before they became States and some States like Texas, California and Florida have peculiraities to their laws because they once were parts of other countries whose laws were actually based diferently. Most of our laws are based on English common law but some states' laws are partially based on Roman law or what we now call Napoleonic: there are huge differences philosophically. Our laws are different state to state and I personally am very much in favor of states retaining states' rights in spite of the federal government trying to conslidate power to itself. By keeping states' rights superior to federal rights we retain more personal rights.

Anyway notaries are already regulated by the States they are comissioned in and I believe that is the way it should be, notaries should be specifically sensitive to the needs of their people and the laws of their respective states.

Reply by Estelle--MA on 7/31/05 10:52am
Msg #56090

I agree and good history given......

I never really took the time to research the difference between Commonwealth vs. State. I guess I'll go do that this afternoon.... Actually, I'll send my paralegal on it!!

Thanks for all of your inputs. I do agree that we should keep our state's appointment rather then the federal governments.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 7/30/05 7:11pm
Msg #55995

Never happen!
each state has their own rules, and in each state notaries are commissioned differently. In Florida, for instance, they are appointed by the Governor. In some states the wannabe notary just goes to the county clerk's office and pays a couple or so bucks, and Walla - they are a notary.

You cannot regulate notaries federally, it is up to the individual states, and I doubt any state would let the federal government take over their notary divisions.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/30/05 7:13pm
Msg #55996

Agree....I can't see that happening ever ~n/m

Reply by Lee/AR on 7/30/05 8:53pm
Msg #56006

Agree! can't see that happening ever. Not good if it did. nm

Reply by Mike/NJ on 7/31/05 10:56am
Msg #56092

Once the Federal DL and ID take effect in 2008(internal passpaort of sorts) Only then will the Fed's even think about taking over notary regulations.

Reply by JanetK/CA on 7/31/05 4:31pm
Msg #56110

Did that bill actually get signed into law yet??

Reply by PAW_Fl on 7/31/05 6:54pm
Msg #56118

No and yes. As far as I know, there is not proposal for a federally issued driver's license. The states will maintain control over the issuance of driver's licenses but, with many federally mandated modifications and controls.

A piece of the new National Intelligence Reform Act signed into law this past January, requires national standards for state licenses. The standards, to be hammered out over the following 18 months by state and federal officials along with technology specialists and "interested parties," are raising concerns among privacy experts who see the move as the first step down the road to a national ID or centralized information on individuals.

The law is vague, however, in defining what shape the new standards should take. It only specifies a digital photo "or other unique identifier" and means to make the card resistant to "tampering, alteration, or counterfeiting."

On May 11, 2005. President Bush signed into law P.L. 109-13, an emergency appropriations act for military operations and homeland security matters, but contained within it is the hotly debated REAL ID Act. While most attention during the debates was focused on provisions requiring demonstration of citizenship or legal residency in order to obtain a driver's license, the legislation also significantly change U.S. asylum policy among other key changes.

Read the Act (Real ID Act starts on page 72):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h1268enr.txt.pdf


Stories about electronic chips, and biometrics, and centralized databases are swirling on the web. But Jason King, spokesman for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), says they are a lot of red herrings. "There is no call for biometrics in this legislation; there is no call for smart chips; there is no call for a central database." [Source: Susan Llewelyn Leach | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor]

In fact, his organization won't be recommending a biometric, even though a handful of states already use them. After conducting a study of the latest technologies through the International Biometric Group, Mr. King says AAMVA wants to see the technology become more foolproof first.

You can also read a related story at http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67498,00.html

Reply by JanetK/CA on 8/2/05 12:54am
Msg #56331

Thanks, PAW!!

And the part about driver's licenses starts at bottom of page 81... Kinda lost in the shuffle, alright! Sounds like this could have wide-ranging impact on all of us. The part about them permanently storing electronic records of documentation used makes me more than a bit nervous. That would sure make DMVs, or whatever state agencies are responsible, prime targets for hacking.

Also, there may not be a mention of electronic chips, but there is a requirement for the IDs to have "a common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements", which I didn't see further clarified. I wonder if that means that when unspecified authorized parties (notaries? and ???) ask for ID, they'll be required to/able to pass it through a data reader to capture whatever personal information is stored there........ Having that data accessible in electronic form, I would think would make it even easier for someone to rip off someone's identity. It will be interesting to see what kind of safeguards they are able to come up with!

Geez.... I guess George Orwell was just about 20-25 years off. How sad that it seems to be coming to this. In a way, it makes me feel like the terrorists are gaining a foothold in their quest to change our way of life.