I guess it's been a matter of time before the impressive propaganda war in support of RON made it to Congress, but I've yet to see any good explanation of how RON notarizations are supposed to be more secure. Proponents just throw out vague claims about how secure it's supposed to be and few question it.
We're in trouble if that's as accurate as the statement that it will save consumers time, since they won't have to deal with the "hassle to find and schedule an appointment with a notary, print out and bring the documents in need of notarization...", etc., when, as we all know, it's been the norm in most places for more than two decades for us to bring the documents, drive to their homes and meet at their convenience (at least for loan docs).
One of the articles, however, did cover some of the perspective of detractors:
"Security and Validation Remain Primary Concern
"Despite these benefits, widespread adoption of RON is not without concerns. Detractors point to the fact that the ultimate goal of notarization is not convenience or efficiency, but security and ensuring the validity of the documents notarized. Much like how the traditional notarization process requires the notary to maintain a meticulous journal to support their notarizations, many states which permit RON require the digital collection and retention of supporting information, such as personally identifying documents, or even an audio-video recording of the notarial act. What is the result if such supporting documentation is corrupted, stolen, or lost? Would such an event render the notarized document open to challenge?
"Further, there have already been high-profile examples of attempted RON fraud. In 2021, a homeowner in Washington State reported that another person had attempted to fraudulently pose as her and sell her Seattle-area home via a remote notary. The homeowner accused the notary of negligence for failing to take proper steps to verify the seller’s identity."
|
