Posted by Belinda/CA on 11/27/13 2:23pm
Msg #494284

Just noticed at bottom of DocPros background request email

that they are requesting an authorization be signed to work for them that is cut and paste of the FNF release. I had not noticed it down there because it comes after their signature.



NOTICE, AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE REGARDING EXISTING CERTIFICATES AND/OR INVESTIGATIVE CONSUMER REPORTS
________________________________________________________________________
I have provided or will provide to DocPros Nationwide Notaries, Inc. and/or its family of title companies (collectively referred to as DocPros) a copy of my Background Screening Certificate from the GLBA-Compliant National Notary Association ("NNA") or other approved vendor (Sterling Information Services).

I HEREBY AUTHORIZE DocPros to release, disclose and/or provide a copy of any and all certificates, forms, questionnaires, investigative reports, background checks, evaluations, analysis or any other information that I have provided or caused to be provided to DocPros, or which DocPros has prepared, to any customer, client, lender or other financial institution for whom DocPros provides services, so as to evidence that I meet the requirements, qualifications and standards imposed by such customer, client, lender or financial institution on persons who receive or have access to consumer financial information or other confidential information.

I hereby agree and understand that this Notice, Authorization and Release will remain valid as long as I provide any services for or to DocPros and throughout my affiliation with DocPros. The matters and information which are covered by this Notice, Authorization and Release include, but are not limited to, information concerning my criminal history, motor vehicle history, social security number, character, or any other information requested by any customer, client, lender or other financial institution.

I hereby release DocPros, to the full extent permitted by law, from any liability or claims arising from releasing, disclosing, providing and/or reporting information concerning me to any party pursuant to this Notice, Authorization and Release.

I agree that a copy or fax of this document shall be as valid as the original.
Signature Date


Haven't seen an SS request this before.

Reply by HSH/WA on 11/27/13 3:01pm
Msg #494292

Re: What ever one gets eventually they will all want. n/m

Reply by Linda Juenger on 11/27/13 3:33pm
Msg #494298

>I hereby release DocPros, to the full extent permitted by law, from any liability or claims arising from releasing, disclosing, providing and/or reporting information concerning me to any party pursuant to this Notice, Authorization and Release.>

Not on my life. Not only NO, but H*** NO.

The gall of ALL of this makes me sick.

Reply by MW/VA on 11/27/13 3:34pm
Msg #494299

DocPros has always been on board with NNA. When I was

starting up, they were one of the cos. that required NNA cert/bgc. Sort of a joke really, because this is one of those cos. that offers lower fees & are slow to pay these days, too. I stopped taking any work from them a while back.
Only you can decide whether to comply with this or not.

Reply by John Tennant on 11/27/13 3:38pm
Msg #494301

Only a fool would sign that. Essentially you are indemnifying them from all liability for any, and all, information that they release, whether they are careful or irresponsible. I will never sign that no matter who wants it. As I said, ONLY A FOOL, would sign that. JMHO

Reply by 101livescan on 11/27/13 3:43pm
Msg #494302

DO NOT FORGET THEY HIRED AMANDA KIRKISH IN 2012

and she got all her basic training from DOCPROS...scary thought.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 11/27/13 4:05pm
Msg #494305

I have no intentions of sign this! I just had never

seen an SS request it.

Reply by John/CT on 11/27/13 4:09pm
Msg #494307

Re: NOTICE, AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE REGARDING EXISTING CER

What if ALL services, title companies, etc. adopt this form, and every professional/knowlegible NSA (like the majority on the board) refuses to signs it in its present format? I guess that would mean we all would just close up shop and leave the business to the dregs left over?

Reply by John Tennant on 11/27/13 4:16pm
Msg #494308

Re: NOTICE, AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE REGARDING EXISTING CER

You really believe that John? I believe that a boycott of that magnitude would really have a positive effect for the majority of this board. JMHO.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/27/13 9:05pm
Msg #494325

I completely agree, John. DON'T SIGN THESE!!!

It's time to nip in the bud this type of request, regardless of what others decide to do. It's not just about a boycott, but about too much personal risk. Not only do these authorization and release forms not follow the intent of the privacy guidelines that all lenders (and presumably title companies) are required to follow, it goes 180° against it! There is absolutely no reasonable justification for it, imo. Anymore, most of us are probably among the most background screened individuals around.

I guess some might think that because it's a good idea for one big company to request this authorization, that it might be a good idea for them, as well. That doesn't mean there's any good reason for it - or that we should comply with that request! They probably haven't really thought it through - unless they already have some nefarious intent to begin with...

Of all the stuff going on with the SPW, etc., I believe this is the most important one to push back on. Even as amended (deleting reference to customers), I cannot imagine signing any of those releases. Has anyone been given a good reason for needing that form signed that makes any sense? I'd be interested in hearing more than just that it was reviewed by their attorneys.

On the same note, has anyone seen any justification for needing the BGC details vs. the certificate? If so, I'd like to hear that, too! In fact, that might be a good response: ask them to send you an explanation of why the passing certificate isn't good enough. Also ask them to provide their written Privacy Policy for use of that information. (The lenders and title co's have to provide that to borrowers when they collect their info, so why shouldn't we get the same thing, if they're getting OUR info???)

Of course, the obvious problem with that, is that with free reign to give out our info to any of the parties included in the release form, we have no way of knowing to whom our info would even be provided, let alone be able to get a copy of *their* Privacy Policy - if they even have one...

Reply by Belinda/CA on 11/27/13 5:05pm
Msg #494310

This is not a concern I have. If they all require

it they will all do without me and anyone else with any sense.

As an individual and an independent contractor I do not provide my personal information to anyone outside of giving it to obtain a background check. Why would I then give some company permission to hand out my identification details to whomever they see fit? Would you provide me your personal detailed data and then give me permission to hand it out to a requesting party who you have no idea who will be getting it or how they in turn protect your information? That is what I am being asked to sign.

FNF wants my permission to provide my personal information to anyone they like, including individual “customers.” “Customers” could include borrowers and signing services among others (one signing service is known to be run by a convicted identity thief!). None of these people or businesses should have access to my detailed data. My private information does not need to go out to those listed upon request. It should be enough for FNF to say I meet the requirements and not give out my details. They can pass on to others the fact that I passed the background investigation but cannot pass on my very personal information which can include my social security number (SS#), full name, address, birthdate, etc. An identity thief’s dream come true. And, what does my vehicle history have to do with anything?

By agreeing to the statement on the authorization and release form I would never have any idea who in the world has my personal information and it would be with my permission. Can an organization require an individual sign away their privacy in order to work for them? Hum. I can fully see a request for a background check, resume, etc. But, to have to give cart blanche concerning my private information in order to work for someone is at the very least distasteful and at the most a potential financial disaster for myself and my family should the information be given to an opportunist.

I should respectfully request the Personal Identifiable Information (PII) of FNF employees to verify their credibility and trustworthiness to manage my PII. Likewise, I should request the PII of any and all entities or individuals FNF will possibly send my information to, in advance of releasing my information, so I can verify their credibility and trustworthiness. Are you seeing the error of this authorization and release form? People should be standing up for the rights of notaries and having a dialog with FNF concerning the far-reaching effects of this document. We can see how concerned they are by their lack of response so far. They will get the job done without us because so many desperate and/or non-reading notaries will sign their document.

I realize this means my services for some companies will be limited to signings not associated with FNF.

The shame is the fact that I am an exceptional Loan Signing Agent. I am sure my life will continue just fine without working for FNF. They can say everything is safe, however, this form has giant loopholes to my potential detriment.

Reply by MW/VA on 11/27/13 7:52pm
Msg #494318

This may seem unrelated, but I heard the other day that the

employees at the SS office won't even give you their last name (security issues for them, I'm sure). I seriously doubt that they or many federal employees are background screened. This is so ludicrous to give notaries the 3rd degree like this. Many of us have & have had bgc's which we have done voluntarily & no one had to force it on us.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 11/27/13 11:09pm
Msg #494328

Re: This may seem unrelated, but I heard the other day that the

The federal employees I know were all background screened and they do not have jobs where you would think it matters.

But, I get your point.

I don't mind the background screening but I am not going to let them share anything and everything about me with who knows who. It is tough enough to keep your personal information private with out giving them permission to broadcast our SS#, birthdate, etc to anyone they run into that asks for it. My gosh, are they crazy?

Reply by John Tennant on 11/27/13 11:24pm
Msg #494329

Re: I know many, many government employees that have never

been background screened. My daughter is one of them and she is a social security processor. In addition there have been thousands of Income Tax processors across this country that have never been background screened and they have access to everything that they need to steal your identity. Liberty Tax, HR Block, Jackson-Hewitt, to name a few.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 11/28/13 1:02am
Msg #494332

Scary stuff.

I guess the ones I know with background checks don't handle things they can steal. Ha

Just look at all the Obamacare registration individuals who can even be felons and have your info if you sign up.

Reply by MW/VA on 11/28/13 9:22am
Msg #494343

I worked for one of the tax prep firms about 8 yrs. ago.

They were hiring anybody & everybody, including homeless people. No bgc's or checks of any kind. It was so scarey that I chose not to do that kind of work anymore.

Reply by EileenHI on 11/28/13 11:26am
Msg #494348

Re: I worked for one of the tax prep firms about 8 yrs. ago.

I have worked for a tax prep firm and yes, we have to have a background check every year before we are hired.

Reply by John Tennant on 11/28/13 11:43am
Msg #494351

Re: I worked for one of the tax prep firms about 8 yrs. ago.

Eileen, your BGC was probably required by your state. Many states do not require any training of any kind, let alone a BGC. In many states you can go purchase a tax software program, advertise, prepare the return, and have the taxpayer send it in. Yes, that is really scary because the taxpayer is totally responsible for the accuracy of the return.

Reply by apsnltch on 11/29/13 9:23am
Msg #494364

Re: I worked for one of the tax prep firms about 8 yrs. ago.

States may not have all the requirements but the IRS does. If you go to a tax preparer that charges you a fee and does not sign your return, tells you to just sign and mail they are not a
legitimate tax preparer. If you go to a tax preparer that charges you a fee based on your tax refund - Run.
The IRS requires any tax preparer that prepares more then 10 tax returns per year to file them by E-filing.
They have a PTIN # and An Efile# and are required to be background checked, fingerprinted etc.
There are forms as of the last year or two....that the preparer must complete if there is some reason that they cannot efile the return.....

BEWARE...If a return preparer doesn't want to sign your return - - - RUN!!!!!

Reply by John Tennant on 11/29/13 10:03am
Msg #494369

Re: I worked for one of the tax prep firms about 8 yrs. ago.

You are absolutely correct Karon. The IRS has only recently begun cracking down on the preparers that are illegal. Unfortunately there are a lot of them and most of the public are not aware.

Reply by apsnltch on 11/29/13 10:12am
Msg #494372

Clarification

When I say (as in my previous post) Tax Preparer, legitimate tax preparer, preparer or return preparer, I mean any tax preparer that holds him or herself to the public as a legitimate tax preparer that expects PAYMENT for preparing tax returns as a full or part-time business.

As most any other industry, the tax preparation business has its share of unscrupulous, scamming, and dishonesty. Both individuals and companies. Just because they have software does not make them a professional, legitimate tax preparer.