Posted by Rick_NY on 7/30/08 4:30pm
Msg #257786

Here we go again with criminal background checks

To make a long story short, does anyone have any links or reference to the text of the GLB Act and/or Sarbanes-Oxley as it may pertain to the people handling the private information of consumers (good folks like us) needing to undergo ANNUAL criminal background checks?

That is what I was told by one of the major settllement companies ("it's a federal law". I suspect no such language exists and that the frequncy of the checks is left to the discretion of the financial institutions.

Anybody have any info? (I tried Googling around and came up with too many hits that were dead ends.)

Thanks!

Reply by Charles_Ca on 7/30/08 4:35pm
Msg #257789

Unless you are a Corp, Sarbanes-Oxley will not apply

You can use the search feature here this topic has been discussed, dissected and drawn and quartered. If you can't find it here go to the FTC site, you'll find a lot of infomration there.

Reply by Rick_NY on 7/30/08 5:05pm
Msg #257797

Re: Unless you are a Corp, Sarbanes-Oxley will not apply

> You can use the search feature here this topic has been discussed, dissected and drawn
> and quartered.

Thanks, Charles, I was more concerned about the GLB Act.

I used the not rot search tool with terms like "background check expire" and "background check renew" and a few more similar terms and got "We couldn't find anything matching your search criteria."

I also had already gone to the FTC web site and they make no reference to the issue that I could find.

Tell me, is it really necessary for a member of this community to outline everything they did under the sun to find information before reaching out for help here? Is this the community of "last resort?"

It's not like I asked, what's a "jurat?"

Reply by Lee/AR on 7/30/08 5:29pm
Msg #257808

Re: Unless you are a Corp, Sarbanes-Oxley will not apply

This BGC stuff just burns me. ALL that is 'required' is a simple agreement that you will not do naughty stuff with the info. That's ALL the GLB Act actually requires of 'third party providers'. I will grant that some Lenders may want to go further and get a BGC to make them feel like they've done something wonderful and positive (like cover their butts). IMHO, if they want their butts covered, they can pay for the diapers.
2nd rant: When does a BGC expire? The minute the ink is dry. Should we get one annually? Monthly? Daily? With each order?
3rd rant: IMHO, it's just a way to dip into our pockets...period.
4th rant: They, so far, have been unable to stop 'all pertinent info' from being accessed on the web by somebody not even living on this continent. Start there, then worry about law-abiding notaries.
End of rant.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 7/30/08 5:36pm
Msg #257813

Re: Unless you are a Corp, Sarbanes-Oxley will not apply

You will have to make your own decision as to whether its necessary or not, I don't have a regular background check but I have a 3rd party audit of my facilities and am compliant wiht Gramm Leach Bliley as well as Oxley-Sarbanes and a few more arcane ones but then I do a lot more than a notary. If you check the acronyms GLB and BGC in the search area you will find a lot. The FTC website is really the definitive source since they are the agency charged with implementing Gramm Leach Bliley. There are a lot of good professional notaries on this site whom I respect who have taken both approaches: background checked and non-checked and they all service their clients equally. It has been my experience that the more singing services requre you to jump through hoops the less they pay kind of a perverse Moore's law.

Some people come across as harsh, actually I do to and we all have our pet peeves, develop a thick skin: try asking what is a jurat for comparison

Reply by Rick_NY on 7/30/08 7:44pm
Msg #257844

Charles, I know you are a very capable and

knowledgeable notary public, as well as a good businessman, so part of me was happy when I saw you replied to my inquiry. At the same time, I also knew you had to take the opportunity to make your little dig, Charles being Charles and all.

Please know now that I first performed searches under the terms "BGC" and "GLB" and as you might imagine, the results were too wide-ranging to be of any use. Would you want to pore over hundreds of messages, the majority of which could be summarized with the words, "Why am I doing this?" Didn't think so. That is why one enters an extra key word or two, to filter out unwanted results. I didn't have to go to Stanford with Larry Page and Sergey Brin to learn this. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this may be the first time someone inquired, "Is there any regulation stipulating how often a CBC must be done?

Yes, it is a "CBC." "BGC," as much as it is widely used and accepted in this Forum, is an entirely incorrect abbreviation, because "background" is one word, not two. The process in question is commonly and accurately abbreviated in the employee screening industry as a "CBC" for "Criminal Background Check." And yes, both "CBC" and "GLB" are abbreviations, or alternatively "initialisms," NOT acronyms. An acronym is a pronounceable word, such as "Radar" or "NATO."

It's not that I'm thin-skinned, far from it, but I guess MY pet peeve is people acting all G.d. (figure it out) superior when they're really not all that.

Love,

Rick

Reply by MikeC/NY on 7/30/08 5:27pm
Msg #257805

As far as I know, there's nothing in either GLB or the FTC guidelines for implementing it that even mention background checks, much less require them. Financial companies are required to come up with a policy; if they choose to make yearly background checks part of their policy, you would have to comply in order to do business with that company. BGCs are not required by federal law.

You can get more info here:

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/glbact.html

Check the links to the Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 7/30/08 5:38pm
Msg #257814

Thanks Mike, I was too lazy to look it upbut that's the site n/m

Reply by Rick_NY on 7/30/08 6:53pm
Msg #257834

Thanks, Mike. I appreciate the straight-forward reply.

I have seen that website, and as you are suggesting, there's nothing in there to suggest any guidelines on the topic. A vendor coordinator for one of the firms I get work from insisted it was in the "federal law." I challenged her to point out the paragraph and took a stab at trying to locate it myself.

Stay safe on those Long Island highways and byways!

Reply by Doris_CO on 7/30/08 9:45pm
Msg #257860

Re: Thanks, Mike. I appreciate the straight-forward reply.

If you do end up needing or wanting a background check, you can go to the Welcome page of NotaryRotary and order one without having to "join" this organization.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/30/08 11:07pm
Msg #257877

Re: Thanks, Mike. I appreciate the straight-forward reply.

It appears that a lot of people have been led to believe that background checks are federal law perhaps because the NNA spent a lot of time, money and effort trying to convince major companies that it WAS a federal requirement under GLB or "a new law" that wasn't new. Imho, that was simply an effort to promote some of the various programs they offer, as they seemed to all be prerequisite to getting their BGC. (Yes, I know this may be the incorrect acronym, but it's what has been used most often here.) It's even gotten to the point where apparently some companies say they are requiring an NNA BGC for all notaries they hire. I don't know for sure, because I'm not working for any of those. [Ooops. Wait, I think there is still one that calls me regularly, even though I've not been an NNA member for several years.]