That was a great read. Some of the author's enthusiasm comes across a bit campy at points, but in general, they seem justified in casting themselves as pariahs.<p>The whole scenario is a collission of off-color concerns. On one hand, you have notaries and the notary establishment (yeah, I made that up) fighting to save their place in the market. Then you have lawmakers who see it, fail to understand it, and are then lobbied by the aforementioned establishment. Then you've got consumers like PG who are (rightfully) on edge about the legality and scam-factor associated with the idea. Everyone is watching this out of the corner of their eye, defaulting to the position that something is fishy.<p>Notarization is something business people are trained to treat with some reverence. The entire concept of a signature as an agent of identification is a bit bizzare when you think about it. Your signature is not a secret, but it remains a critical security element. Notarization is a hack. It's another layer of the same thing varnishing over the whole "signature means agreement" show. Yet it's so simple, and so engrained in our way of conducting business that any attempt to change it freaks everyone out. Fascinating.
I'm really excited to see this concept made real.<p>Based on comments here, multi-factor (non-wallet) authentication is used to identify the parties. This method of ID verification is a technique that I helped pioneer at Equifax many years ago, and I've been disappointed that it hasn't ever really seemed to take off before. I occasionally see it in use here and there, but now really expect it to be recognized for its value. Not perfect for every case, but a useful tool nonetheless.<p>Cheers and way to go!
I was disturbed to see that pg killed an earlier thread on this company, on a rather flimsy basis. The financial industry is obviously ripe for disruption, but if those being disrupted can kick up enough dust to have HN erase all memory of a new idea, we have a bigger problem.
I flagged this before and I am going to flag this again: this service is <i>not legal</i> in any state <i>except Virginia</i> and will not satisfy the in-person verification requirements of any state (except Virginia, which does not require in-person verification of identity). This does not mean the service is illegal; it simply means that this service cannot be used for any legal purposes in any state or federal jurisdiction (except Virginia).<p>There is a reason this service is not, nor will it ever be disruptive--it does not address the core underpinnings of the notary system: verification of documents and identities. Online identify verification using inaccurate third party verification databases is not sufficient to prove identity for <i>any</i> purposes. Holding up a document or id card to a webcam does not allow for sufficient examination by the notary of the document or card showed to prove that the document or id card is what it is alleged to be.<p>Indeed, this system would actually aggravate the notarization scam problem it claims to address.<p>Going digital does not solve every problem. Most people at HN may not realize this, but there are a lot of situations where things cannot be done through a computer.