I believe all agents should have the same chips pets get at the shelters so we can track them. That way you will always be able to find them, even on vacation. Welcome to the future. (for those of you with no sense of humor, that’s known as fairly weak sarcasm)
Having a government issued license for the insurance industry is important. Too much at stake. Fingerprinting on the other hand is dangerous. The government needs to get out of my life!
But producers don’t work with children (like teachers who are fingerprinted). Producers don’t have keys to your house (like Realtors who are fingerprinted).
Why not give the government a saliva, blood, and hair sample too? Just in case. Also please report any suspicious activity, like taking photographs at tourist attractions, neighbors who close their blinds, anyone unpatriotic, or anyone who refuses to show their papers.
Fingerprint machine-makers like to cut monopoly deals with states that force agents to only use their $6,000 machines for making “official” fingeprint background checks. Sending agents “out” to visit machine locations, even at police stations, risks impersonation-fraud. We’ve patented a convenient disposable kit that safely does the job right in the agent’s office, just like drug tests work, (but without the cup.) The model legislation that’s proposed should avoid specifying the exact mechanism of acquiring or capturing agents’ fingerprints “in order to be official.”
I was finger printed when I got my license back in 1994. I was also finger printed at the DMV. The hospital where I was born and the hodpital where my son was born at also took finger prints. So what! I don’t care. I have nothing to hide or plan on doing any criminal activity either.
I’m hearing more and more of people saying that the government should just stay out of the way and our lives. But if people didn’t commit crimes or fraud, we would need any government or police. Not only that, wasn’t it the de-regulations that happened over time (mainly the housing market) that got us to where we are today?
I know it’s funny to mention fraud and government in the same sentence but, there are still a few good apples in Washington that really want to do some good.
Nope. Sorry. People have to be kept in check so it’s harder for them to screw hard working and honest people over.
I sell commercial lines and I get peoples financial info all the time for bonds including ther drivers license # and social.
You missed the point, Allan. Taking your point further…CSR’s and data entry clerks see the same financial information you mentioned that producers see. Do you want them fingerprinted as well? How about the teller at the bank that helps you open a checking account…want her fingerprinted? How about the clerk at the dentist’s office that sees your medical information? Her too? Not to mention the checkout gal at the supermarket or convenience store where they get to look at your credit card information… The key question Allan, is where exactly would you draw the line? See how ridiculous this can become?
And as long as I’m on my soapbox: If the same standards applied to getting an insurance agent/broker license applied to serving in the US Congress, there are several congressmen that would be removed from office.
Regards…
I think we should all have to pee in a cup. Also, I think a member of the regulatory agency should be holding the cup. IF you get 80% or more of your “product” in the cup, you get a producer’s license.
Then, the government can run DNA tests to their hearts content. Also, they get to see how big the openings on toilets and urinals must be for they will have the research already performed.
Plus, they should give each producer a gel filled bite pad so they can get a copy of our dental records, too. You never know, we might bite an insured.
DNA is just as easy to collect and can more readily be stored in the national database.
There was a time, not really all that long ago, when you were fingerprinted only if you were being charged with a crime (“being booked”); when did this country go so crazy?
BTW, are we supposed to care if an insurance producer has a DWI conviction? What if he has failed to pay his taxes–oh wait, that gets you Secretary of the Treasury . . .
C’mon, Allan. If you think me pointing out the absurdity of this is being paranoid, then I feel sorry for your seeming inability to see the ridiculousness of it. I’ll repeat the point: Exactly WHERE would you draw the line??? EACH and EVERY ONE of the professions I mentioned get to see personal financial data, just as much as an insurance producer. Think about it.
Allan…I have never been arrested, I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I’ve never done drugs and I go to church on Sunday. Heck, I don’t even pass the little old lady driving in front of me. And I STILL don’t see how you can not understand how asinine it is to single out producers when all those other professions I mentioned also get to see your personal financial information and not one of those need to get fingerprinted. Get it out of your head that you’ve done nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to hide. That is NOT the point. The point is purely this: WHY are they so intent to single out OUR profession? Apparently, virtually every other person that has posted here gets what I am trying to explain to you.
I have “nothing to hide and nothing to fear”. I also don’t think the government has any right in my business. It’s a matter of privacy. If you can’t see where all of this is leading, then you’re not as smart as you evidently think.
Beyond the privacy issues, which are not insignificant as others here have alluded to, what about just the burden of finger-printing? New York had a proposal in the 2009 budget to fingerprint all new licensees and every existing licensee at renewal, at a cost of $75 per.
For our agency, which has 17 licensed individuals, that would translate to a $1,200+ expense, not to mention the inconveniences of having to actually go get fingerprinted.
While there’s an intellectual argument against fingerprinting, there’s also a bottom line argument.
Maybe this is why I’m not that concerned.
Here are bits of this new story that I’ve pasted.
Point 1. Don’t be alarmed, but there are convicted criminals roaming around the country acting as insurance producers.
Point 2. States that collect fingerprints use them to electronically obtain background reports from state or federal databases, or both, depending on their authorization.
Point 3. The states that use fingerprinting say that it makes a difference. In a recent Insurance Journal survey of 26 state insurance departments, each of the 11 states participating that use fingerprinting reported that the tool has definitely helped them identify producer hopefuls who have served prison time or had notable run-ins with the law.
Point 4. New Mexico officials told Insurance Journal that applicants with histories of rape, child abuse and forgery have been blocked from entering the business thanks to fingerprints.
Now the argument that most of you are making is where do you draw the line? And it’s none of the governments business, etc. etc.
What you rather have? Some regulation and crime and fraud stopped or at leased slowed way down? Or, nothing at all and have total anarchy just because all the paranoid people thing that the CIA or FBI is wathcing them?
Keep in mind that I’ve been finger printed since 94 and others longer than that. Nothings ever happened.
So, I guess my point is, that the state and fed’s have your prints. Your a good citizen and have never and most likely will never commit fraud or a crime. What are you fearing?
You are absolutely unbelievable. You think things are better in the states where the producers are fingerprinted and the support staff isn’t? Are you THAT naive????
Here is the glorious Empire State (NY) we do not fingerprint. However, we have an aggressive, capable insurance dept. They follow through on verifying licensing information. They find the miscreants, fine them and revoke their licenses.
Well, since I have been under the jurisdiction of the NYSID for the past 32 years, I have a slight indication of how they work.
Plus, monthly, the PIANY will post a link to the NYSID website showing the various actions taken against individuals, agencies, companies for violations of State law.
I have met with a NYSID investigator in the course of an investigation. He was both professional and very thorough.
Our bureaucrats work well, in spite of our dysfunctional State Government.
Bob is the one who doesn’t get it. He persists in confusing “scrutiny” with “suspicion” and wants everyone else to do the same. Note the lengths he goes to “prove” how innocent he is. That’s not the point, of course. It’s liability, a concept Bob probably DOES understand. Juries don’t forgive employers for failing to discover relevant CHRI, especially when a reasonable and demonstrably superior means for doing it is now widely known and available. Juries are contemptuous of the typical defendant-employer’s “excuse” that it was too expensive to do fingerprints. Evidently enough agents visit prospects’ homes to generate risk as a class. It’s that risk which warrants the scrutiny, and that’s why certain groups are “singeled-out” for it. It’s not that individuals in them are suspected of anything. Cab drivers don’t get fingerprinted, schoolbus drivers do. Nobody does, should, or will suspect Bob. Nevertheless, Bob’s background should be scrutinized. Many groups for whom scrutiny is warranted, turn up having no concealed CHRI. That’s the expected outcome. Apparently enough insurance agents concealed some disqualifying CHRI in their backgrounds to make scrutiny (not suspicion) necessary. When Bob enrolls his child in daycare, will he leap to defend the privacy rights of those daycare workers with equal ardor? I doubt it.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. It’s amazing how you tied in my profession with a professional day care provider (which, by the way, has EVERYONE fingerprinted, all the way down to the cafeteria worker and janitor).
I appreciate you took a long time to write your retort to my post, but suffice it to say, I’ll catagorize you as another Allan.
This is Big Brother. We want to watch your every move. We will add all fingerprints of every agent to a database. We will require DNA in the future. We want to charge you fees and run your life. Welcome to 1984.
The song was Paranoia – Big Destroya (sic). The Feds are watching us very well. If you had your DNA tested and were never guilty of a crime, the Feds have your DNA in a bank and can access it for 12 years. Here is the story. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/081309-government-dna-database-plans
Just how many attornys, judges, real estate maggits, and bankers who have DUI “allegations of 1.5 BA limits” are able to continue to practice. I know of one State judge, and one attorney that meet that criteria. I know of one attorney that while on court ordered abstinance and probation even committed rape, but since his attorney ‘said’ it was alright for him to drink he got off altogether as he was under the influence at the time of the assault with a dead weapon.
I have no problem getting fingerprinted, but when it is a requirement for Non-resident licenses, it is a problem. My States Police departments will not do fingerprinting anymore, and if you are lucky enouhg to find a department to do it, they want ot charge you to do it. This is over 8 years ago, and I am sure they will not do it at all anymore. We as licensed agents are overcharged already.
Driving with a substance in your blood, having a burned out tail light and being pulled over by an overzealous cop is now comparable to being a rapist or murderer?
If the government wants info on you, they can get it, new fingerprints or not. To think that getting fingerprinted is opening yourself up to government scrutinization is ridiculous. If you want to be upset at anything, be upset over the potential cost this could be to you in the future!
Why? I abide by the law. Perfect example of why I don’t disagree with it…..Our agency just reported someone to the Department of Insurance that had been an employee for several years. He had decades of experience in the insurance business. Moved from out of state to South Carolina. Passed the test, PASSED the SLED(S.C. Law Enforcement Division) background check. After certain criminal things surfaced and he was no longer with the agency it was discovered he is a convicted FELON in the state from which he came. He had NO license from that state because their Department of Insurance had revoked him for forgery and larceny. Fingerprinting would have picked up on that where the SC criminal check did not. It would have saved endless hours of manpower and saved the insureds from potential problems.The real disgrace of it all is the State DOI revoked him but the Attorney Generals office allowed the fine to be a civil one and not criminal. After dealing with the risidual problems from just that one employee, I’m all for it! But then again…I have nothing to hide.
That leaves the door wide open . So what other professions would this also apply to???
What about real estate aents,contractors ??? or even better everyone in the work force. Just find this law one sided going after insurance producers
I just applied for my AZ insurance license and noted that if anyone has ever been convicted of drunk driving, then you do not have to disclose that information in the criminal history section. Basically, drunk drivers get a free pass… WTF is that?
Well, what does a DWI have to do with financial crimes and financial integrity? Or do you just want some kind of witch hunt and a feeling of exclusivity in your industry? Bet you never made a bad decision before ;)
They say finger-printing is a filter to help “weed out” those individuals from obtaining an insurance license with serious criminal history in other areas of the financial sector. Serious convictions like money laundering, passing bad checks, embezzlement, grand-theft (not the game), racketeering and etc… are most definitely door slammers on getting a license in the insurance industry. The other argument is that finger-printing drives revenue for the state. I paid $22 to have my finger-prints scanned by a computer and then printed on a finger-print card for the FBI. I could have done it myself the old fashioned way with some ink for free.
I believe all agents should have the same chips pets get at the shelters so we can track them. That way you will always be able to find them, even on vacation. Welcome to the future. (for those of you with no sense of humor, that’s known as fairly weak sarcasm)
Politicians & their unionized bureaucrats should also be fingerprinted.
Having a government issued license for the insurance industry is important. Too much at stake. Fingerprinting on the other hand is dangerous. The government needs to get out of my life!
Yes there are bad apples out there…
But producers don’t work with children (like teachers who are fingerprinted). Producers don’t have keys to your house (like Realtors who are fingerprinted).
Why not give the government a saliva, blood, and hair sample too? Just in case. Also please report any suspicious activity, like taking photographs at tourist attractions, neighbors who close their blinds, anyone unpatriotic, or anyone who refuses to show their papers.
Fingerprint machine-makers like to cut monopoly deals with states that force agents to only use their $6,000 machines for making “official” fingeprint background checks. Sending agents “out” to visit machine locations, even at police stations, risks impersonation-fraud. We’ve patented a convenient disposable kit that safely does the job right in the agent’s office, just like drug tests work, (but without the cup.) The model legislation that’s proposed should avoid specifying the exact mechanism of acquiring or capturing agents’ fingerprints “in order to be official.”
Oh boy.
I was finger printed when I got my license back in 1994. I was also finger printed at the DMV. The hospital where I was born and the hodpital where my son was born at also took finger prints. So what! I don’t care. I have nothing to hide or plan on doing any criminal activity either.
I’m hearing more and more of people saying that the government should just stay out of the way and our lives. But if people didn’t commit crimes or fraud, we would need any government or police. Not only that, wasn’t it the de-regulations that happened over time (mainly the housing market) that got us to where we are today?
I know it’s funny to mention fraud and government in the same sentence but, there are still a few good apples in Washington that really want to do some good.
Nope. Sorry. People have to be kept in check so it’s harder for them to screw hard working and honest people over.
I sell commercial lines and I get peoples financial info all the time for bonds including ther drivers license # and social.
Tell me now I shouldn’t be finger printed.
You missed the point, Allan. Taking your point further…CSR’s and data entry clerks see the same financial information you mentioned that producers see. Do you want them fingerprinted as well? How about the teller at the bank that helps you open a checking account…want her fingerprinted? How about the clerk at the dentist’s office that sees your medical information? Her too? Not to mention the checkout gal at the supermarket or convenience store where they get to look at your credit card information… The key question Allan, is where exactly would you draw the line? See how ridiculous this can become?
And as long as I’m on my soapbox: If the same standards applied to getting an insurance agent/broker license applied to serving in the US Congress, there are several congressmen that would be removed from office.
Regards…
I think we should all have to pee in a cup. Also, I think a member of the regulatory agency should be holding the cup. IF you get 80% or more of your “product” in the cup, you get a producer’s license.
Then, the government can run DNA tests to their hearts content. Also, they get to see how big the openings on toilets and urinals must be for they will have the research already performed.
Plus, they should give each producer a gel filled bite pad so they can get a copy of our dental records, too. You never know, we might bite an insured.
DNA is just as easy to collect and can more readily be stored in the national database.
There was a time, not really all that long ago, when you were fingerprinted only if you were being charged with a crime (“being booked”); when did this country go so crazy?
BTW, are we supposed to care if an insurance producer has a DWI conviction? What if he has failed to pay his taxes–oh wait, that gets you Secretary of the Treasury . . .
I think you guys are getting a bit crazy with the scenarios that you are laying out.
The article was related to insurance producers.
We’re not the only ones in our field that get finger printed.
Are you people really that paranoid?
C’mon, Allan. If you think me pointing out the absurdity of this is being paranoid, then I feel sorry for your seeming inability to see the ridiculousness of it. I’ll repeat the point: Exactly WHERE would you draw the line??? EACH and EVERY ONE of the professions I mentioned get to see personal financial data, just as much as an insurance producer. Think about it.
Good post! You cracked me up on that one!
Bob
Pray tell…just who are the ‘good apples’ that are left in Washington? I’m not seeing any & I’m not a kool-aid drinker.
I like the idea of getting fingerprinted. It helps the nice officer identify me when I am so drunk I can’t remember who I am.
Yes, I hear what you are saying. But if you have nothing to hide or nothing to fear, why the paranoia?
I guess if I had a better understanding on how the government would use my finger prints against me when I have done nothing wrong, I would get it.
Allan…I have never been arrested, I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I’ve never done drugs and I go to church on Sunday. Heck, I don’t even pass the little old lady driving in front of me. And I STILL don’t see how you can not understand how asinine it is to single out producers when all those other professions I mentioned also get to see your personal financial information and not one of those need to get fingerprinted. Get it out of your head that you’ve done nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to hide. That is NOT the point. The point is purely this: WHY are they so intent to single out OUR profession? Apparently, virtually every other person that has posted here gets what I am trying to explain to you.
I have “nothing to hide and nothing to fear”. I also don’t think the government has any right in my business. It’s a matter of privacy. If you can’t see where all of this is leading, then you’re not as smart as you evidently think.
>>But if you have nothing to hide or nothing to fear . . .
Allan,
Beyond the privacy issues, which are not insignificant as others here have alluded to, what about just the burden of finger-printing? New York had a proposal in the 2009 budget to fingerprint all new licensees and every existing licensee at renewal, at a cost of $75 per.
For our agency, which has 17 licensed individuals, that would translate to a $1,200+ expense, not to mention the inconveniences of having to actually go get fingerprinted.
While there’s an intellectual argument against fingerprinting, there’s also a bottom line argument.
Maybe this is why I’m not that concerned.
Here are bits of this new story that I’ve pasted.
Point 1. Don’t be alarmed, but there are convicted criminals roaming around the country acting as insurance producers.
Point 2. States that collect fingerprints use them to electronically obtain background reports from state or federal databases, or both, depending on their authorization.
Point 3. The states that use fingerprinting say that it makes a difference. In a recent Insurance Journal survey of 26 state insurance departments, each of the 11 states participating that use fingerprinting reported that the tool has definitely helped them identify producer hopefuls who have served prison time or had notable run-ins with the law.
Point 4. New Mexico officials told Insurance Journal that applicants with histories of rape, child abuse and forgery have been blocked from entering the business thanks to fingerprints.
Now the argument that most of you are making is where do you draw the line? And it’s none of the governments business, etc. etc.
What you rather have? Some regulation and crime and fraud stopped or at leased slowed way down? Or, nothing at all and have total anarchy just because all the paranoid people thing that the CIA or FBI is wathcing them?
Keep in mind that I’ve been finger printed since 94 and others longer than that. Nothings ever happened.
So, I guess my point is, that the state and fed’s have your prints. Your a good citizen and have never and most likely will never commit fraud or a crime. What are you fearing?
You are absolutely unbelievable. You think things are better in the states where the producers are fingerprinted and the support staff isn’t? Are you THAT naive????
Show the data.
Allan,
Here is the glorious Empire State (NY) we do not fingerprint. However, we have an aggressive, capable insurance dept. They follow through on verifying licensing information. They find the miscreants, fine them and revoke their licenses.
All without prints.
How are you so sure?
Well, since I have been under the jurisdiction of the NYSID for the past 32 years, I have a slight indication of how they work.
Plus, monthly, the PIANY will post a link to the NYSID website showing the various actions taken against individuals, agencies, companies for violations of State law.
I have met with a NYSID investigator in the course of an investigation. He was both professional and very thorough.
Our bureaucrats work well, in spite of our dysfunctional State Government.
Bob is the one who doesn’t get it. He persists in confusing “scrutiny” with “suspicion” and wants everyone else to do the same. Note the lengths he goes to “prove” how innocent he is. That’s not the point, of course. It’s liability, a concept Bob probably DOES understand. Juries don’t forgive employers for failing to discover relevant CHRI, especially when a reasonable and demonstrably superior means for doing it is now widely known and available. Juries are contemptuous of the typical defendant-employer’s “excuse” that it was too expensive to do fingerprints. Evidently enough agents visit prospects’ homes to generate risk as a class. It’s that risk which warrants the scrutiny, and that’s why certain groups are “singeled-out” for it. It’s not that individuals in them are suspected of anything. Cab drivers don’t get fingerprinted, schoolbus drivers do. Nobody does, should, or will suspect Bob. Nevertheless, Bob’s background should be scrutinized. Many groups for whom scrutiny is warranted, turn up having no concealed CHRI. That’s the expected outcome. Apparently enough insurance agents concealed some disqualifying CHRI in their backgrounds to make scrutiny (not suspicion) necessary. When Bob enrolls his child in daycare, will he leap to defend the privacy rights of those daycare workers with equal ardor? I doubt it.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. It’s amazing how you tied in my profession with a professional day care provider (which, by the way, has EVERYONE fingerprinted, all the way down to the cafeteria worker and janitor).
I appreciate you took a long time to write your retort to my post, but suffice it to say, I’ll catagorize you as another Allan.
This is Big Brother. We want to watch your every move. We will add all fingerprints of every agent to a database. We will require DNA in the future. We want to charge you fees and run your life. Welcome to 1984.
George Orwell was right.
“i’ll believe that when me sh&t turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert”
What was the name of the song from the Kinks? I think it was Paranoia Will Destroy Ya…….
The song was Paranoia – Big Destroya (sic). The Feds are watching us very well. If you had your DNA tested and were never guilty of a crime, the Feds have your DNA in a bank and can access it for 12 years. Here is the story. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/081309-government-dna-database-plans
Just how many attornys, judges, real estate maggits, and bankers who have DUI “allegations of 1.5 BA limits” are able to continue to practice. I know of one State judge, and one attorney that meet that criteria. I know of one attorney that while on court ordered abstinance and probation even committed rape, but since his attorney ‘said’ it was alright for him to drink he got off altogether as he was under the influence at the time of the assault with a dead weapon.
I have no problem getting fingerprinted, but when it is a requirement for Non-resident licenses, it is a problem. My States Police departments will not do fingerprinting anymore, and if you are lucky enouhg to find a department to do it, they want ot charge you to do it. This is over 8 years ago, and I am sure they will not do it at all anymore. We as licensed agents are overcharged already.
Driving with a substance in your blood, having a burned out tail light and being pulled over by an overzealous cop is now comparable to being a rapist or murderer?
Thank you MADD. WTF
What about the Corp CEO’s Presidents Vice Presidents and ETC
They are the real CROOKS !!
If the government wants info on you, they can get it, new fingerprints or not. To think that getting fingerprinted is opening yourself up to government scrutinization is ridiculous. If you want to be upset at anything, be upset over the potential cost this could be to you in the future!
Why? I abide by the law. Perfect example of why I don’t disagree with it…..Our agency just reported someone to the Department of Insurance that had been an employee for several years. He had decades of experience in the insurance business. Moved from out of state to South Carolina. Passed the test, PASSED the SLED(S.C. Law Enforcement Division) background check. After certain criminal things surfaced and he was no longer with the agency it was discovered he is a convicted FELON in the state from which he came. He had NO license from that state because their Department of Insurance had revoked him for forgery and larceny. Fingerprinting would have picked up on that where the SC criminal check did not. It would have saved endless hours of manpower and saved the insureds from potential problems.The real disgrace of it all is the State DOI revoked him but the Attorney Generals office allowed the fine to be a civil one and not criminal. After dealing with the risidual problems from just that one employee, I’m all for it! But then again…I have nothing to hide.
The Map is incorrect, LA now does fingerpritning for their agents.
If they have a License they will be finger printed.
WRONG if you count there is 18 states that are red
That leaves the door wide open . So what other professions would this also apply to???
What about real estate aents,contractors ??? or even better everyone in the work force. Just find this law one sided going after insurance producers
Why just insurance producers? How about real estate agents, contractors or even better the whole work force. I find this law very one sided.
I just applied for my AZ insurance license and noted that if anyone has ever been convicted of drunk driving, then you do not have to disclose that information in the criminal history section. Basically, drunk drivers get a free pass… WTF is that?
Well, what does a DWI have to do with financial crimes and financial integrity? Or do you just want some kind of witch hunt and a feeling of exclusivity in your industry? Bet you never made a bad decision before ;)
They say finger-printing is a filter to help “weed out” those individuals from obtaining an insurance license with serious criminal history in other areas of the financial sector. Serious convictions like money laundering, passing bad checks, embezzlement, grand-theft (not the game), racketeering and etc… are most definitely door slammers on getting a license in the insurance industry. The other argument is that finger-printing drives revenue for the state. I paid $22 to have my finger-prints scanned by a computer and then printed on a finger-print card for the FBI. I could have done it myself the old fashioned way with some ink for free.
I am in the state of IL. I just received my State License as a Life Insurance Producer. Is it required to have fingerprints in the state of IL?