I described the problem of remote notarization to one of my oldest friends and he quipped in jest:
“If paper notarizations were good ‘nuf for Jesus, they are good ‘nuf for me.”
"Seriously," I asked him, "are you asking me 'What would Jesus's notary do?' "
Have you noticed that there is already a version of this argument out.
It isn't meant as a joke, but my friend's joke is practically the same.
“This is how we have done it for 2000 years, and it has been working…”
It’s the same logic, except that it is NOT logic at all...it doesn't work.
If this was logic, that would mean we should have never started using electricity or indoor plumbing. I don't think any of us want to raise that argument in a discussion. So, this isn't really applicable to the remote notary debate that's coming in 2016-2017.
WANTED: BETTER ARGUMENTS.
Are there arguments with merit?
I have recently unearthed a couple.
One is in a law that passed in Texas in 2015.. I just found it the other night. It gives the impression that Texas's lawmakers aren't completely ready to put stock in e-signatures. But, that might just be the stepping stone they need to get tighter laws for e-signatures and e-notarizations in Texas. It's a dual edge sword for sure.
One article that I wrote recently, "No one cares about guns pointed at Grandma," will show you that decision makers across the U.S.want meat on the bones of arguments. They aren't impressed. It's going to take facts, figures, and someone who is smart and knows how to present concepts and communicate to change them back to the arguments that are based on "what if..."