FNMA and MISMO dont get to rewrite USPAP, or sound appraisal practices.

Maybe I should not post this again. A cartoon illustrating the nature of data brokerage. 2018. Escalated quickly.

We’ve got enough data flowing through the system for an acceptable amount of forward progress, justice and accountability. The people do not need any more data to accomplish reasonable goals for every day societal activity. The only thing actually missing is the accountability. How long will the public continue to play along? An ever increasing surveillance data capture network, consistently and increasingly exploiting every day people, from data to written to voice to visual, movement tracking , behavioral and financial pattern recognition. Mysteriously incapable of accomplishing anything other than increasing corporate revenue? These tools can only be used to drive up peoples monthly billing, monopolize markets, move lifelong dedicated professionals in their fields out, erase their income potential? To farm taxpayer funding profit from a myriad of billion dollar government expenditures that never ever get fulfilled or finalized anywhere? Who’s even buying this in the first place? I’m about to buy another Nick Shirley t shirt right now.

The problems that actually needs addressed; existing law and traditional performance expectations being enforced. Transparent process needs to be mandated. Removing and penalizing those whom take advantage of conflicts of interests, creating unfair situational advantages at others expense, not competing by merit. Adherence to contracts. An honest conversation that the hype behind the tech advancements, not based upon a community interest, will not be beneficial to most people. I think we’re having that conversation right now.

All most appraisers ever wanted to do was run independent small businesses and be honest people. The few whom have gamed the system to create their advantageous positions did so at the expense of other appraisers, honest ethic and legitimate consumer protection. Our lives have been transposed by dishonest and self serving process. There is no fair balance in representation for every day regular working residential appraisers or the consumers they hoped to serve. This is not what most appraisers signed up for. Hence the continually declining licensee headcount. Diluting licensing requirements or increasing monetization of the process, with no benefits passed to the appraisers doing the actual work, will result in nothing other than continued attrition and ideological rejection of the allegedly modernized process

At this point it is almost comical how many people, including me, are trying to do the right thing and bending over backward to give Brent clear, patient, professional explanations. We keep assuming he simply does not understand, so we keep rephrasing the same basic points for his benefit. Yet somehow every straightforward explanation slips right past him as if written in a foreign language.

The only conclusion left is that he is not confused at all. He is just yanking everyone’s chain and enjoying the attention.

If he truly is an appraiser, which seems increasingly unlikely, remedial training would do him a world of good. In a friendly way of course, but the gap between what is being explained and what he pretends not to grasp is so wide it could qualify as its own special competency exam.

You’re exactly right, Pat, the pushback is massive because a huge segment of the public recognizes how unconstitutional this warrantless mass tracking really is. Communities are actively tracking & map tagging these systems on sites like deflock because ALPRs turn public streets into open air checkpoints where your daily movements are logged, stored, & sold without your consent.

There’s a direct parallel here to what’s happening with UAD 3.6. Just like these surveillance networks strip away fourth amendment privacy expectations in the public square, Cert 25 tries to strip them away inside a consumer’s private home. Both systems rely on unrecoursed data harvesting to turn everyday citizens into surveillance targets for corporate profit.

As for Brent not minding them at all… shocker. I didn’t expect anything less from a guy who’s ready to invite corporate data miners into his living room & give them a permanent key to the place! If you’re willing to sign away your own data rights & your clients’ privacy, a warrantless tracking dragnet on the street probably looks like a perk.

Don’t mind them at all

I’m guessing Class Valuation….only someone working for Class can be this thick.

Let’s pretend you’re right Brent. Let’s pretend that Cert 21 was ambiguous and vague, and it was just an ‘implied’ restriction against widespread unauthorized document redistribution.

The 3.6 Cert 25 is a wide open endorsement for anyone to do what they want with the document, forever, with no legal recourse. All of the liability is on the appraiser with a signed certification waving any defense we would have. With this logic, why not just completely remove the Intended User? This has been explained in great detail here by people far smarter than me.

Is that something you’re comfortable with? A new form and data collection system going wild with your intellectual property and work products?

Probably so, because your contrarian commentary paints you as a disinformation troll or just plain ignorant. Or both.

Brent, since Eric Kretz brought out the crayon box, let’s try drawing this out with the blue crayon so it’s impossible to miss: IT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY SAY THIS. It doesn’t have to, because that’s not how law or real life works.

Think about it this way: when you check into a hotel room, your room key gives you permission to stay there for the night. Does that key card need to explicitly state, “This card does not give you permission to live here permanently, take ownership of the room, tear down the drywall, & sell the television to strangers downstream”? No, because property law & theft laws already cover that by default. You only have permission to do exactly what is stated, & absolutely nothing more.

Under the old rules, Cert 21 only gave the client permission to manage that specific document inside the lending loop. Because you never signed away your intellectual property, federal copyright law protected your work by default. It didn’t need to explicitly say “no unlimited downstream scraping” on the paper because unauthorized data harvesting was already a violation of federal law, which is exactly why the defendants folded & paid a $50,000 settlement in the Tim Vining case.

The massive change with Cert 25 is that the GSEs engineered a contract workaround to force you to sign away those default legal protections upfront. You’re actively signing an express contract that gives them a permanent, royalty free license to scrape your interior photos, condition scores, & assignment results to train AVMs. Stop looking for what the old form didn’t say, & realize that the new form forces you to sign a certified legal waiver that strips your defenses & leaves you holding 100% of the liability out of pocket.

Where in cert 21 does it explicitly state that “it does not allow unlimited and non-recourse distribution of everything in your appraisal?”

Read Cert. 21 of your current 2.6 form. That’s what’s in place today. It provides some protection for you. To answer your question directly, it does specifically state in the current certification that the lender can distribute some of your information to certain parties, and it names them. However, it does not allow unlimited and non-recourse distribution of everything in your appraisal. Cert. 25 does exactly that, and you will be signing it, giving specific permission for anyone to do anything with your data and photos. I am certain that you can discern the difference between those two scenarios, with or without crayons.

So you like the phrase ” Consent must be obtained before this appraisal report may be disclosed or distributed to any other party (including, but not limited to, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media.”

I don dot work for either. What’s amusing is how everyone avoids answering my very simple question.

You’re either a GSE employee or work for an AMC. Nobody can be that obtuse.

I think you should review cert. 21 in the existing 2.6 report. The last line states “Such consent must be obtained before this appraisal report may be disclosed or distributed to any other party (including, but not limited to, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media”. The phrase “including but not limited to” provides coverage for appraisers regarding a wide variety of other parties in the event the lender distributes the report to anyone who has no legitimate reason to have it. When this information ends up in some homeowner’s insurance file, and their rates triple because of it, the lender could be sued. The new Cert. 25 removes this built-in protection, by getting you to sign a waiver basically abdicating everything Cert. 21 covers for you. So now you can be sued when some idiot downstream decides to post your photos on the internet, and you have no defense. As it sits today, you’d be protected from such downstream antics, but with 3.6, they’re making you acknowledge and share responsibility for whatever someone later does with your report, and everything in it.

I’m entertained. Are you not entertained?

Appraisers could always hit the wall with something, see if it’s rejected or not.

I really don’t know. What I do know is that matters of privacy are of the utmost importance. They are right now reaching a crescendo on the national stage. This one has a good chance of making it’s way to the national news circuit.

As a home owner and mortgage borrower myself, this is a very chilling moment. We spend our entire lives avoiding the data brokers. The thought of them having access to interior home photos for whatever use they felt like. Very chilling. I hope people bothered to watch the privacy video I posted in the last thread. Watched that again last night, there are a dozen direct correlations to the data an appraiser may provide, and how it can be mis used. It starts out slow talking about traffic cameras then evolves so quickly. It’s really shocking, even for people whom think they know what’s going on. Data brokerage of this nature is evil.

The fundamental question is posed; If mortgage lenders had enough data to originate loans then, why would they need more data now? Why would they need expanded permissions to use the data which was previously sufficient with at least somewhat sensible data constraints and privacy clauses?

Brent I can explain the legal concepts to you. I can not understand them for you.

Maybe re read the initial three to four articles on the matter.

Great comments Mad. Well, that’s why we just today checked in on TAF’s latest available tax returns. From 2024. They can afford lawyers. They do routinely pay for lawyers. It is their obligation to retain and hire the appropriate lawyers to give actual legal advice on the matter. This is their responsibility. A not legal advice statement is insufficient.

Well pull out your crayon box just one more time and answer the question, where in 2.6 does it explicitly state that use data or photos is prohibited!

Brent. I have a copyright statement on my reports. That bars anyone from legally using my data and conclusions for ANYTHING outside the certification statement without my consent.