Posted by LisaWI on 10/17/06 9:56am
Msg #152973

BGC's and My Opinion

For what it is worth, I am not opposed to a BGC. That is, if it is handled by an entity I know I can trust. Fact: The more people that have access to your personal information, the more space there is for your financial identity to be compromised. When a entity requests a BGC, they obtain personal information from you to do this, correct?? I have yet to read how the NNA is doing these and what information they are giving when an entity requests a BGC on a particular notary, but I will.
For California and other states Im not aware of, as some of you have stated, the BGC has already been done thru your state. It should be considered a done deal for you. But then there are other states that it is only done for that particular state and I think this is where the problem lies. And I could be wrong, but shouldnt this be an issue with your states sos??
In addition to this I would trust my sos to hold that BGC and distribute to requesting intities(sp?)
But another question I have is what information is on a BGC that is given to a requesting company? Something else I would like to explore which probably means just having one done.
Im not sure who said it, but I agree, with how about the comps and their employees who are requesting these, have they had their BGC's?
In conclusion, I am all about protecting someones identity. That is my job and I take it pretty seriously as you all do. But I will not put my identity at risk. I deserve protection also and I would want that to be proved to me without a doubt.

Reply by Pierces Notary Services on 10/17/06 10:49am
Msg #152995

If you have had a BGC recently done like I did through FASS does this count or do I need to get another one done? Do attorneys have to get theirs done as well? Do they have to be certified?

Reply by MelissaCT on 10/17/06 11:05am
Msg #152999

According to the FTC site regarding GLBA, attorneys tried to obtain an exemption & were denied by the FTC. So, yes attorneys are subject to this also.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/17/06 11:06am
Msg #153000

Re: Then that raises the ugly question..why not notaries?.. n/m

Reply by Stamper_WI on 10/17/06 11:21am
Msg #153007

Gleaning

I fully intend to ask my State and US Sentors and Representatives to look into this. The language on the requirements that is being submitted to us from various sources, both organizations and tc's/ss's is alarming to me.
Your SOS is only one avenue and may be a source for forwarding inquiry to the lawmakers. In Wi to make an inquiry to the Attorney General on this matter seems to have to be through a lawmaker.
I understand the need for the BGC, absolutely. But this has to apply to all those with access to the information. Including those who take the information from the consumer and enter the data. Those cannot be an outsource enity that hires out of country or high school graduates fresh from working at The GAP.
Its a no brainer that each State needs to tighten their notary requirements and laws. That would make this a moot issue.

Reply by MelissaCT on 10/17/06 11:28am
Msg #153008

Re: I don't think the issue is so much

ABOUT the bgc as it is about WHO is performing it or requiring it to be performed. I don't have issue with a bgc being performed. I'm sure NOT going to pay for it and I will not be coerced into joining a single organization in order to comply. IF a company wishes to perform a bgc, and they pay for it to be performed, I have little issue with that.

They WOULD, however, need to comply with the GBLA regarding privacy of that information supplied to them in order to request the check. They would need to provide a privacy policy and annual update on how they share info, who they share it with and provide an opt-out clause.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 10/17/06 11:59am
Msg #153024

I have no issue with a BGC at all, after all I got one

from the State and I have one for each of my licenses and commissions. The problem I have is that we are being told that we need a BGC for each individual company or that we must buy it from the NNA. That concept is strictly a marketing ploy which was, I suspect, brokered by the NNA. I am hoping that at least in California the State steps in and stops this foolishness. Unfortunately we have a do-nothing Attorney General but I believe that is about to change. We need to press our elected officials to do something about this mess. The problem as I see it is that there is no universally accepted process. There are glaring gaps in the chain of document handling and it seem that the NNA pursued the channel that gives them the most return on investment: the notary. If security of private information was really at the basis of this then everyone who ever touches a document with private information should have the same level of security!

Reply by John_NorCal on 10/17/06 1:33pm
Msg #153054

Re: I have no issue with a BGC at all, after all I got one

For those states, such as California, that have state mandated background checks for professional licenses, that should more than meet any requirements for GBLA, etc. I've had BGC for my notary commission, real estate license and the IRS as an electronic return filer, I don't think I need a BGC from the NNA. I don't need to put any more money in their pocket than what they already clean up from unsuspecting members.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 10/17/06 2:34pm
Msg #153068

Exactly John, I see no reason to line the coffers of the

NNA with completely superfluous background checks.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/18/06 12:46am
Msg #153243

Plus the requirement to have the NNA certification!

The number of times I've been told by knowledgeable clients that the certification doesn't mean anything to them greatly outnumbers the number of times I have been told that certification is of interest -- by a wide margin. I suspect that to be true of most of the rest of the more experienced SAs. But the NNA's statement seems to imply that the certification gives the client some additional assurance. If this board is any indication, it appears that there are more new, inexperienced SAs who have a current NNA certification than there are experienced SAs who have been doing loan signings for a long time.

I suppose then, that it could be inferred from this that if the more experienced SAs aren't intimidated by this request to affiliate with an organization that many of us choose not to support, the companies in question will end up having to pull from a less qualified data base.

Would the FTC be the right department to write to to try to investigate this on an anti-trust basis? And what if the CEOs of these five companies found themselves suddenly bombarded by copies of letters to the FTC - or even directly to them - detailing our concerns and desire for a choice? Anyone have some contact names and addresses they'd be willing to share?

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 10/18/06 12:55am
Msg #153245

FTC

In response to your question for FTC contact, here is their information.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm#file

Reply by MelissaCT on 10/19/06 11:00am
Msg #153627

Actually, on second thought...

the GBLA doesn't mention BGC anywhere. What was given as opinion on interpretation of the requirements for attorneys was that yes, they do have to provide a privacy policy and updated statement annually, not that they have to comply with a BGC.

So, upon further reflection, my original answer was incorrect.

It strikes me that notaries wouldn't be notaries if they were criminal prior to becoming a notary. AND, if criminal acts were performed DURING their commission, the commission would be revoked by the SOS or notary oversight organization for the state. So, what does a BGC ensure??

Reply by jba/fl on 10/19/06 8:51pm
Msg #153779

Re: Actually, on second thought...

If it were an AIDS test, that you don't have AIDS today (only)