"I have stated my motivations many times. They are often inaccurate and incomplete and their own disclaimers prove this. They are not secure identity thieves and the recent thefts of ChoicePoint, Hamilton Ohio and several sites in Florida illustrate this. Even the most secure password protected site is not secure from hackers and the case with George Mason University illustrates this. The citizens who They consented to their documents being viewed and copied where they filed them placed their records in the trust of the townships and counties. To my knowledge no citizen has ever consented to their private information being published over the World Wide Webb by the government or anyone else. I don't think they really care if it will save you an hour long commute."


1. They are public record. It doesn't matter what anyone "agreed" to. Public record means that if someone wants them, under FOIA the copies have to be provided. Right or wrong, that is the law.

I agree that security is a MAJOR issue. But, again, this has no bearing on whether I can produce a quality product does it? Again, let's stick to whether a search can be reliably conducted online, not this tangent in regard to security.


"And yes, I am also motivated by the fact that this is not good for the independent abstractors or for the employee abstractors. They are citizens too but even more than this, they are my peers. You say it would be stupid NOT to use the online services. Will it be equally stupid for your employer not to use your services when your employer learns the "same" source can be accessed over the internet by foreign outsource companies for pennies against your salary? Will your employer think it is stupid when foreign outsource companies take his clients? Or will he think it was a mistake to embrace an online policy that exposed the citizens, the communities and the industry to unneccessary risk?"


2. The reality is that the issue here that you are pointing out is WAY broader than simply title examination. But again, I agree, that people doing what I am doing in India, or Indonesia do pose a threat to me and everyone else in the business. There is nothing that can be done about this though, as MANY companies have spent a great deal of time and money in putting together their own databases. Whether the information online or through a internally created database, they will get it. Again, it's public record, and the government can NOT deny access to it.

IN FACT - this is more of an argument in SUPPORT of online searches, as it is clear that there are companies that are able to do the searches via the Web...

"In every reference I made it was to the accuracy, completeness, and security of the sources, not the searcher. You acknowledge the four township sites in NYC are only have complete images back to 2003 and indexes to 1981. As to security, there is none that I saw. "

3.You misunderstood what I wrote. ACRIS is the ONLY place where you can get:
a. the block and lot indicies from 1981 to date.
b. copies of documents from 2003 to date.

ACRIS carries indicies from 1966 to date, and images from the same date. You still can not do a full purchase search, but there are VERY FEW refinance searches that can not have the full property information derived from ACRIS.

And again, security is moot to the point of whether a search can be done.

Finally, the accuracy of the sources is something the examiner should know. Consider that many places in NYC have indicies that are virtually destroyed - how good is the source then? As with anything in life, one should know their limitations, and I mentioned this in the other thread. What I know that I can't do, I send out to an examiner that is working in the field. I would hope that others do this.

As long as you know where your shortcomings are, there is no issue, in my mind, with doing a search online...

... and I am sure your ass is not sorry - you sort of took that out of context...

to post a reply: login - or - register