Posted by Matham on 4/12/11 3:39pm
Msg #379531
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
So there was a discussion a couple days ago about answering the request of some companies requiring background checks, especially for notaries in California, when in order to be a notary you have to pass a background check they conduct in conjunction with the DOJ and FBI; you'd think that would be good enough.
I contacted a company who required me to fax back some materials and I notice one of their documents states something about GLBA:
"The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was enacted by Congress to protect consumers' sensitive private information. To comply with this law and the FTC Safeguards Rule that have been set, the mortgage industry has begun to require compliance training and background screening for all persons involved in the lending process who have access to the private financial information of borrowers - including Notary Signing Agents."
It went on to state that for $35 I could go on to the lending company's website to access a link for a signing agent background check.
You know, I spent $90 for my livescan; I don't want to spend any more money on a background check when one has already been performed by the State and Federal governments, so it is worth exploring the idea/pssibility of getting a copy of that background check they performed.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 4/12/11 3:40pm
Msg #379533
https://personalreports.lexisnexis.com/access_your_personal_information.jsp
| Reply by BrendaTx on 4/12/11 4:51pm
Msg #379541
Lee, is that being accepted? n/m
| Reply by Lee/AR on 4/12/11 5:31pm
Msg #379551
Re: Lee, is that being accepted?
Honestly don't know. Just got it done 'because I could'....nobody has asked recently--and I volunteer nothing. But, frankly, I fail to see how they can 'accept' the one "done by LexisNexis under the auspices of XYZ" and reject one "done by LexisNexis" (without opening themselves to one heckuva lawsuit).
As to extensive! Yikes, very!! However, out of the 10 pages, some printed on both sides and an additional 4 pages received a few days later--along with the 9 pages on 'how to read these reports'....there really is only ONE page that <ought> to be of relevent interest to any hiring entities. That would be the SS verification and National Criminal BGC. Other than that, it's none of their business that I changed carriers for my Homeowners Insurance Policy...eh???
The very first bgc that I had to do was strictly a "pass/fail" one...and if that was 'acceptable', I surely believe this one will be.
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 4/12/11 5:06pm
Msg #379542
As Lee has already pointed out, you don't have to pay for a BGC - you're entitled to one for free from Lexis Nexis. Whether that will be acceptable or not is up to the company requesting it from you, but as Harry (NotRot's owner) has previously pointed out, all BGCs are essentially the same. That's an argument you may or may not win with the requesting company, especially if they happen to be in the pocket of a certain national association that shall remain nameless... The bottom line is that if the company insists on a BGC from a specific provider, you have a choice - either comply, or don't work for them.
As for the CA requirements, that's already been beaten half to death here. There is only one thing that becomes obsolete faster than a new computer, and that's a background check. It's a snapshot of your past, which doesn't necessarily predict future behavior. I'm sure even Jeffrey Dahmer had a clean BGC at some point in his life...
| Reply by Lee/AR on 4/12/11 5:33pm
Msg #379552
Agree, Mike. Still think the whole thing is hokey....'because THEY can'.
| Reply by Matham on 4/12/11 8:30pm
Msg #379562
It's not every day that I am compared to Jeffrey Dahmer...
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/12/11 10:39pm
Msg #379570
"As for the CA requirements, that's already been beaten half to death here. There is only one thing that becomes obsolete faster than a new computer, and that's a background check. It's a snapshot of your past, which doesn't necessarily predict future behavior."
Hmmmm... using this reasoning, it could be argued that there isn't a single BGC from any source that has any meaning because it's going to be obsolete before the requester even receives it. However, even though the past doesn't *necessarily* predict the future, it often *does* predict the future.
In fact, I think the increased background check requirements in CA over the last several years have had some impact on the decreasing numbers of notaries in my state. There are, of course, lots of other factors - like the increased cost that goes along with that - but I'm aware of at least one person who was unable to get a notary commission because of not passing a BGC. (This person is an employee at a certain store that offers notary services, among others.) Undoubtedly, there are many others.
I just got my free one from Lexis Nexis yesterday. At first, I thought maybe there was a page missing or something 'cause the only thing there was my previous address from more than 15 years ago. Guess I lead a very boring life! So I find it rather irritating to frequently be requested to prove - at my own expense - how mundane and routine my existence is... 
| Reply by nobhill on 4/12/11 11:38pm
Msg #379573
Just Call It The Overkill Bill n/m
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/13/11 3:49am
Msg #379581
Exactly, nobhill. Trying to dictate the "only acceptable"
BGC takes nerve, if you ask me. It was not meant to be a source of income for private industry - there is absolutely no distinction between a search of a person's past, criminal-wise - it's public information as to past records - not indications of present/future decisions.
I like local, so my - over and above Oregon's substantial record checks, as are other States' BGCs, - I paid for Notary Rotary's creds. Even though I question some elements of that interpretation of the Act in question.
I get such 'suprised' reaction when I answer questions from potential/current providers about its BGC demand to use/join the NNA for the BGC creds by saying:
"Fat chance. Your demand to enrich the NNA over other providers of BGCs of equal or greater value, in a word, sucks, and since lots of us totally comply with industry standards, you can take your NNA "requirement" and lose lots of business. Who'd want to work for you with such obvious bias for the enrichment of just *one* Business?"
The standard answer so far is, "No problem..."
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 4/13/11 4:52am
Msg #379583
BGC's & my redundant 2 cents
I'm hugely supportive of BGC's. I am NOT at all supportive of methods for obtaining them becoming monopolistic. The GLBA is apparently open to some interpretation (as some entities interpret their responsibility to include us, & others either don't or look the other way). IMO, both of our hats (notary & signing agent) would wear better under more stringent scrutiny.
While a copy of your own data can be obtained by you, from Lexis-Nexis - the security of that data is compromised the minute you touch the paper. I think those of us who are not of devious mind might not consider what a devious mind is capable of - it wouldn't be difficult to 'correct' a Lexis-Nexis report that contained pictures of dirty laundry.
The BGC available through NotRot is not 'touched' by anyone, and is readily verifiable on-line.
CA's and any other state that performs a complete BGC prior to commissioning - the assumption of passing can only be extended for the same period of time that another BGC would be considered current, and typically that's 2 years.
Considering the relatively low cash costs to running a signing agent business, compared to the relatively high risks of sending us the public's entire personal/financial biography ...again, I'm all for it.
| Reply by MW/VA on 4/13/11 8:48am
Msg #379590
Well said, Renee, as always. I recently did my BGC through
NR. It was complete in 3 days.
| Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 4/13/11 10:56am
Msg #379603
hmmm...sounds like BancServ... n/m
| Reply by Matham on 4/13/11 4:21pm
Msg #379661
Re: hmmm...sounds like BancServ...
Actually, someone else.
BancServ requested it from me but I did not provide one and they have not come back to request it either and have confirmed that I am in their database and that they will call me if someone comes up in my area.
|
|
