You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||WHERE ARE THE DAMNED HANDCUFFS?; entered at 2017-09-08 10:32:00|
Registered: 2017-06-27 New York City
A lot of state DMV's including NYS started requiring the social security number around 15 years ago for all and it was earlier for CDL's. Essentially it has become a national ID number which is not all bad except that if this is to be codified, then strict usage laws and rules need to be in place such as secure use discussed here and parameters of use.|
One thing that the consumer should have a right to do is publicly reject certain forms of contract acceptance. Why is it not possible for a person to elect to not sign up for any credit or loan or other obligation unless it involves wet-ink signatures, originals archived and available for inspection until the contract is completed or the account closed. Even things that are applied for digitally would not be in force or active until the paperwork is delivered. This would mean that identity theft would be an act of forgery against consumers opting out in this fashion which brings in a better form of investigation, federal, FBI.
Related the consumer should not have to pay for credit monitoring or insurance because the credit reporting agencies should be required to notify anytime an account is submitted to them and the consumer is given a statutory time frame to reject the obligation without consequence. This could be further enhanced by legislation requiring all credit bureaus to be notified of any new application. This prevents the hidden issues when some only report to one or two.
The Electronic Signatures Act and all of the new options have an insidious nature as they eventually force people to accept them and the consequences of such. Personally, I do not want my signature delivered by fax to be binding, yet the system does not allow me to publicly state that I will never do this and anyone that relies upon such is doing so at his own risk, not mine.
This does not mean that the advances that we have need to be quenched, but they should not be vehicles to eventually force people into something where they carry all of the risks and expense for errors and prevention.
Working with the financial industry for over two decades has taught me one thing. There is a lot of slop in their systems. They make a big deal over counting things to the percentage of the penny and this form and that, but under the surface reveals that this is just window dressing. The sloppy record keeping is the avenue for hiding the true nature of their financial fundamentals. They are very used to be accepted at their word even in legal settings. When you are in a dispute with any financial entity, just try to get even digital copies of documents let alone a data dump of account history. In many cases they truly do not have it which I know from insiders. In this era of cheap storage, there is never an excuse for this now or even forty years ago.
Whenever you see slop in any organization, scandal always follows because it reveals a dropping of standards and is a sign to predatory interests that this is fertile ground for their scams. In all of my business years, whenever I see sloppiness in person, especially paperwork and documents and operations, it becomes apparent that the risk of corruption is there if not already present.
It is still recent memory that a check would not clear if not endorsed or written properly or if your signature was off a bit. While not perfect, a reduction in this standard does not go good places. Selling more public stocks that one actually has is easier than when paper certificates existed. People think that data on a computer is more accurate when electronic records allow for so much shadow work. I actually know dirtbags who go into disordered organizations such as non-profits to take advantage of the situation, same in business. Flies do not attract garbage, garbage attracts flies.