Let's start from the beginning

Post #333,050 by drook 9/24/10 1:31:16 PM Reply	Let's start from the beginning There is an existing system. There has been a rash of recent problems with the existing system. We would like to prevent these types of problems. Can a system be designed that would have prevented the recent problems? What would it take (time and money) to build it? Would it need to be back-populated with historical data? How far back? Time and cost? How would you handle documents that don't have the now-required data? How would you normalize the data requirements across the thousands of local jurisdictions that currently have their own documentation requirements? By what authority would you dictate to those local agencies that they change their systems? What would it cost to change existing public and private systems to meet the new requirements? Who would pay for that? How would you balance ease of use with the needed flexibility to accommodate future changes in legislation? Are there provisions in the existing system that could alleviate the recent problems? Who would need to exercise those provisions? What would it take (time and cost)? Would it require any changes to existing systems, or it it purely a procedural change? The first option -- a new system -- gets uglier the harder you look at it, for all the reasons you've been studiously ignoring. The second option -- a procedural change -- is relatively trivial, in systems terms. And I already suggested it long ago: Fine the companies that file inaccurate paperwork, and ban any attorneys or agencies that pursue cases based on inaccurate paperwork. The current system depends on everyone involved being honest and accurate, which depends on the courts being able to straighten things out when they're not. And when the dishonesty or inaccuracy is flagrant and repeated, judges need to be able to apply sanctions sufficient to discourage it in the future. I would have thought you would like a system that assumes people are doing business honestly, and the state only gets involved to settle disputes. -- Drew
Post #333,053 by beepster 9/24/10 2:09:19 PM Reply	Lets. >Can a system be designed that would have prevented the recent problems? detailed several times already. >What would it take (time and money) to build it? Infrastructure costs/per office less than 50k. (one clerk, fully loaded cost/one year equivalent) With technology, full upgrade every 3 years. So its 1/3rd the cost of a clerk. Would it need to be back-populated with historical data? Possible to do so, but also possibly impractical. Imaging and or referencing to back material also possible. Not a roadblock to progress. The devil in details is establish validity of current baseline data and giving a timeline for this to become "official". >How far back? Statue of limitations? Beginning of time? You pick. >Time and cost? Asked and answered. >How would you handle documents that don't have the now-required data? Are you telling me that current docs don't have date, owner, lender, lienholder? or did you just pass over the 185 standardized HUD forms? >How would you normalize the data requirements across the thousands of local jurisdictions that currently have their own documentation requirements? Are you telling me the HUD 1 is not required? Law will tell you differently in most cases. In limited cases where is not currently required, change that...fed level..just like they did to get HUD1 standard in the fisrt place (RESPA) >By what authority would you dictate to those local agencies that they change their systems? Answered. >What would it cost to change existing public and private systems to meet the new requirements? What do I pay my taxes for? Cost of these systems would actually be negative, given the efficiencies created. >Who would pay for that? What do I pay my taxes for plus asked and answered. >How would you balance ease of use with the needed flexibility to accommodate future changes in legislation? How is this accomplished now? Future legislation would need to be mindful of the possible. >Are there provisions in the existing system that could alleviate the recent problems? Obviously not. >Who would need to exercise those provisions? If I listen to you two, its not their job. >What would it take (time and cost)? What do I pay my taxes for? >Would it require any changes to existing systems, or it it purely a procedural change? Its called automation. You might have heard of it. Its designed to compliment and speed current systems. If you wish to redesign said systems to enhance efficiency of automation, that's your call. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,056 by drook 9/24/10 2:17:29 PM Reply	Got a question Do you actually mean any of this? You're a smart guy, but you also like tweaking people for fun. And I wouldn't put it past you to go through all this just to make some point about what government can and can't be trusted with. I've worked in the industry. I built the automation. I designed the interface for working with HUD data. It's not simple. There are more exceptions than rules, and there are thousands of pages of rules. If you really mean this: The devil in details is establish validity of current baseline data and giving a timeline for this to become "official". ... then you don't know how much you don't know. And you refuse to listen to people who do. -- Drew
Post #333,058 by beepster 9/24/10 2:36:28 PM Reply	Its about effecting change. What you are telling me, by default, is that there is no official establishment of ownership. Ever. You built automation to access a dataset to access HUD data? Then you validate my proposal as possible. And since it obviously doesn't exist and can't possibly be built...I may have just stumbled upon something to make me filthy rich at the expense of taxpayers. Cool. Nowhere in my posts have I advocated destroying any single document, invalidating any possible claims, reducing availability of the courts and/or official records to dispute and or change. Are you telling me that making HUD1 standard is impossible? Are you telling me it is impossible to make a standard notice for mortgage satisfaction? These guys think differently. http://www.law.upenn.../2004finalact.pdf So, we can define standards for sale. We can define standards for notification of liens/ownership. But we can't standardize what exactly? I'm talking about bringing to bear 20 year old technology to improve a government function...and would have thought better than to get a "we should never expect accuracy from our government" response for you. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,062 by drook 9/24/10 3:20:44 PM Reply	You like that Act? It's good to see that someone is trying to address this issue, but I notice a few things: First, that's 59 pages about ensuring that notice of satisfaction of a mortgage lien is properly prepared and recorded. Policies, penalties, standards. Very little about technology. But there is a little bit about technology: (a) A person gives a notification by: (1) depositing it with the United States Postal Service with first-class postage paid or with a commercially reasonable delivery service with cost of delivery provided, properly addressed to the recipientÂs address for giving a notification; (2) sending it by facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic transmission to the recipientÂs address for giving a notification, but only if the recipient agreed to receive notification in that manner; or (3) causing it to be received at the address for giving a notification within the time that it would have been received if given pursuant to paragraph (1). I think physical mail and faxes are going to wreak havoc with your super-system. Second, that entire proposed Act is designed to address the problem of slow provision of satisfaction documents. It doesn't do anything to address accuracy or fraud, except for accuracy of payoff amount. Rather than go section-by-section pointing out why it doesn't address the problem at issue (mortgagees submitting false documents), can you point to where and how it does address that? I'm guessing you'll point to the phrase, "the Act provides a form of satisfaction document that contains only the minimal information necessary for a satisfaction to be appropriately indexed". This will be your magic bullet to standardized automated recording and reporting. Is that it, or something else? -- Drew
Post #333,066 by beepster 9/24/10 3:33:11 PM Reply	You are the one telling me that nothing can be automated because it isn't standardized. HUD 1 is a standard. Is it not? This would be a standard for bank notice, would it not? The "super system" has nothing to do with the banks at all. Its about maintenance of records accurate enough to be deemed "official" to which a claim that doesn't match would require a higher standard of proof to be acted upon uncontested. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,069 by drook 9/24/10 3:48:14 PM Reply	Standard format != data validation -- Drew
Post #333,072 by beepster 9/24/10 4:01:06 PM Reply	so what? standard format means automation of records. No keying. Those keying validate. (less of them, mind you). Key data fields managed, definition of those key data fields can vary if needed, but a standard subset already exists (as min standards exist because of HUD1) In the case given, hud filed. zero delay in system entry (no backlog) would show that there was no lender on property. Lender had no claim. Clerk enters prop number, no lenders/liens listed, not met burden of proof of ownership claim. Next. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,075 by drook 9/24/10 4:25:02 PM Reply	Punt Steve Yegge handled this already -- http://steve-yegge.b...ed-marijuana.html VPs have what my brother Mike refers to as "Shit's Easy Syndrome". You know. As in, shit's easy. If it's easy to imagine, then it's easy to implement. ... Shit is NOT easy. Remember that. Shit is NOT easy. If you think it's easy, then you are being naïve. You are being a future VP. Don't be that way. Read that whole essay. When you're done, say to yourself (in my voice): "What he said." -- Drew
Post #333,081 by beepster 9/24/10 4:50:50 PM Reply	Except I've seen these systems built and I've seen them operate. They take non-standard formats with standard fields and map this, correctly, to a data template with high 90s accuracy across tens of thousands of documents per day. Those documents, in addition to being mapped to the system are then digitally stored, for as long as you like. (in addition to being keyword indexed and searchable, btw) The originally documents are referenced, boxed and archived for, also, as long as you like. For us its 15 yrs past end of engagement, since we are required to be accurate by the government that you aren't requiring to be accurate...and must have originals to be reviewed if asked (sort of like, public records, eh?). I'm not imagining anything. These systems exist and are in use today. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,086 by drook 9/24/10 5:55:18 PM Reply	data entry != data validation -- Drew
Post #333,088 by boxley 9/24/10 6:55:24 PM Reply	hi 90's accuracy for legally binding docs? watchu smoking? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,091 by crazy 9/24/10 11:13:33 PM Reply	He's corporate The VP in charge of that project declared victory and moved on. Probably got a raise, while the next guy caught hell for years. No legal consequences. Different. Beep don't get it.
Post #333,102 by beepster 9/25/10 10:55:35 AM Reply	Excuse me thats first pass. There is a validation following. So instead of elimination 100% of the keying (which is also not 100% accurate) it only eliminated 97% That's alot of free time for clerks to make sure things are correct. And no one else here seems to think its their job to make sure they are correct either, so why are you both acting surprised? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,105 by crazy 9/25/10 11:43:10 AM 9/25/10 11:43:42 AM Reply	I don't think you know what that word means Clerk. And I don't mean one of those high paying elected positions, or those right-hand of mayor positions. I mean the type of person who you think will be able to decide what is right and wrong when it goes in, and I mean free form text. Because you are going county by county for a LONG time dealing with these records. http://en.wikipedia..../Data_entry_clerk So now, either tell me this is the type of person, with associated pay and lack of responsibility, or something else? And if something else, and they really do what you think they are supposed to so, please tell me how many more you need in the total country. Since you will be slowing down the paperflow dramatically. Every decision these people make will have legal consequences. They don't (and won't) be paid enough if they care, and if they don't care (since the gov can't get sued if they screw up), we don't want them in that position. Edited by crazy Sept. 25, 2010, 11:43:42 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,108 by beepster 9/25/10 1:47:48 PM Reply	for a guy who worked in mass mail, I would expect you to know more about doc management that anyone here. I, apparently, was incorrect. Same time of clerks that I deal with every day. Like I don't know. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,112 by drook 9/25/10 2:10:01 PM Reply	So now ... The content of the argument doesn't matter, it's all about who says it. So every discussion for you is a "my credentials are bigger than yours" dick-measuring contest? -- Drew
Post #333,114 by beepster 9/25/10 2:17:46 PM Reply	Ah, so.. all clerks are stupid is a valid argument? And he's talking about slowing down paperwork when I'm talking about systems that speed it. Thats what my expectation of his expertise was. To understand just how fast you can make paper move. Again. I've seen these systems operational. Using non standard forms where key terminology can be somewhat intelligently mapped from form header. Not entirely unlike HUD1 or similar variations. Where >clerks< were re-tasked or eliminated and document throughput was increased by over a factor of 10. but I don't know anything about it at all. THIS APPLICATION is too hard. There can be no system brought to bear that could improve throughput or accuracy of records that is less expensive than hiring data entry clerks and office managers who sit and key all day long so that there are up to 6 month backlogs created in the official record. Obviously I'm an idiot. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,142 by crazy 9/25/10 10:47:40 PM Reply	Ah, let's compare our big swinging credentials. Nah, let's not. Have I argued the tech point here? Nope. Tech is not the block. Acceptance that the tech will be used correctly, and paid for, and programmed well enough not to fuck too many people over as the kinks are worked out, etc, yeah, it's all doable. Except: WE know tech (and all possible solutions) have a possible error rate. The issue is that while tech can pretend to be all above board, we really can bury a shitload of hidden code (faulty on purpose or not) that can be to our benefit. As a non-coder, you may intellectually accept that as a reasonable statement. As a tech, is an incredibly scary one. I envision not just how the system will fail because the people involved fucked it up, I also think about how many people will be attempting to game it. Both on the tech and the politics. And if you say, sure, that's easy, just: Blah blah blah, you only reinforce the VP syndrome. This is not a bad idea. This is not an idea that can't be done. This is a simply an idea that shouldn't be done, 1st, because it simply is a transfer of power that I think is stupid (and illegal), and #2, if it even got started, it would be a gold mine for scumbags to go attack every implementation projects (and there will be thousands). The current system may suck, as far as you are concerned, but the alternative you present is far worse. SRCMC worse.
Post #333,145 by drook 9/26/10 9:19:37 AM Reply	You're still fixing the wrong problem Banks submitted paperwork that wasn't true. I'm not "favoring the banks" no matter how many times you say it. I'm not "trusting the banks to get it right", I'm saying that should be required by law with appropriate penalties when they're wrong. -- Drew
Post #333,147 by beepster 9/26/10 10:30:07 AM Reply	Re: You're still fixing the wrong problem and what appropriate penalties would those be that would necessarily also apply to all plaintiffs in all civil trials..and how would this not destroy the court system any less than advocating a check of official record in specific instance of where lenders try to confiscate property unopposed. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,156 by drook 9/26/10 11:54:19 AM 9/26/10 11:54:34 AM Reply	They already do Are you aware of a trend of plaintiffs in some other area of law habitually and repeatedly submitting inaccurate documents and not being sanctioned for it? Second issue: Why in this case are you saying that this change "would necessarily also apply to all plaintiffs in all civil trials", but your suggestion to task the courts with doing their own research would not apply to all courts in all civil trials? -- Drew Edited by drook Sept. 26, 2010, 11:54:34 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,161 by folkert 9/26/10 2:19:52 PM Reply	Look at SCO v IBM. SCO v Novell. SCO v AutoZone... SCO v Chrysler

Welcome to IWETHEY!