You like that Act?

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!