CGC Response on Suspected Ewert Books

[Foolkiller]

However, the responses on 1 & 2 just don't make any sense. I deal in contracts and federal law/regs on private health information all day long. To my knowledge, there is nothing that would cover the information at issue here: linking a CGC # with the identity of the submitter. I always defer to not being aware of some state or other statute/reg. But I have not seen anything in the submission form that would create an obligation on CGC's part to hold this information as protected. Therefore, at the risk of being blunt, it's either BS, paranoid or I'm an *spoon* b/c I've forgotten something.

 

By the way, I'm not sure health care regs and HIPPA regs are really the same as the issues CGC faces. It's apples and oranges to some degree.

 

I don't think it's BS at all, given that it's the same answer that's been given all along, and I'm quite certain they consulted with their legal department first.

[Transplant]

The issue is whether it's written into the CGC contract when you submit or they have an internal policy that prevents it. In this case, it could be an internal policy. They retain a fairly large firm who does a lot of work for them on the coin side etc., and I believe they've reinforced the notion that are legally bound not to release the information.

 

Even if their lawyers are simply advising them that releasing the information is simply unwise -- the bottom line is, they don't believe they are allowed to release the information under their own agreements.

But an internal policy does not create an obligation to not disclose. Further, unless the submitter is aware of the policy, I can't see how it could even rise to the level of creating an expectation of privacy. I completely understand if they have decided that they don't want to release it. But don't tell us it's b/c of some contractual or legal obligation. I just don't see any and it's an easy out to tell people not familiar with privacy or contract law.

 

Just like there's no law saying that your drycleaner can't tell the world how many shirts you dropped off last week. I think the collecting community would be pretty forgiving of a one-time disclosure of suspected scammer's submissions list. CGC is not a swiss bank with a century long reputation for guarding depositor's privacy.

[Foolkiller]

The issue is whether it's written into the CGC contract when you submit or they have an internal policy that prevents it. In this case, it could be an internal policy. They retain a fairly large firm who does a lot of work for them on the coin side etc., and I believe they've reinforced the notion that are legally bound not to release the information.

 

Even if their lawyers are simply advising them that releasing the information is simply unwise -- the bottom line is, they don't believe they are allowed to release the information under their own agreements.

But an internal policy does not create an obligation to not disclose. Further, unless the submitter is aware of the policy, I can't see how it could even rise to the level of creating an expectation of privacy. I completely understand if they have decided that they don't want to release it. But don't tell us it's b/c of some contractual or legal obligation. I just don't see any and it's an easy out to tell people not familiar with privacy or contract law.

 

Just like there's no law saying that your drycleaner can't tell the world how many shirts you dropped off last week. I think the collecting community would be pretty forgiving of a one-time disclosure of suspected scammer's submissions list. CGC is not a swiss bank with a century long reputation for guarding depositor's privacy.

 

I understand your point of view, but without a full review of the agreement, or whether they have language that is stated that they interpret to creating an obligation, I personally can't answer without further analysis.

 

But the flip side is, why bother with having litigation and incurring the expense of defending a suit when you don't have to? It's not the collecting community you're concerned with, it's the submitter whose information you disclosed who would be upset.

 

Bottom line is, if it is written into the agreement -- then it would create a legal obligation. Also, if they state on their website or somewhere else that they will never disclose the information etc., you could certainly argue it is contractual in nature.

 

Listen, while this is nice to have this academic discussion, at the end of the day, this is their position. I don't feel that there's anything wrong with the decision, but I certainly understand why people desire to get the information.

[Transplant]

Oh hell. Are you back already?

I made a list of the things that I missed while I was away. You were not on it.

[seanfingh]

Oh hell. Are you back already?

I made a list of the things that I missed while I was away. You were not on it.

 

Fibber.

[DrWatson]

Oh hell. Are you back already?

I made a list of the things that I missed while I was away. You were not on it.

 

Fibber.

Exactly. He was blowing up my Blackberry right and left. He even sent Roy an e-mail having him PM me to send him an e-mail.

[seanfingh]

Oh hell. Are you back already?

I made a list of the things that I missed while I was away. You were not on it.

 

Fibber.

Exactly. He was blowing up my Blackberry right and left. He even sent Roy an e-mail having him PM me to send him an e-mail.

 

Very greggy-esque.

[Transplant]

Oh hell. Are you back already?

I made a list of the things that I missed while I was away. You were not on it.

 

Fibber.

Exactly. He was blowing up my Blackberry right and left. He even sent Roy an e-mail having him PM me to send him an e-mail.

[DrWatson]

Orlando is going to be fun.

[buttock]

The issue is whether it's written into the CGC contract when you submit or they have an internal policy that prevents it. In this case, it could be an internal policy. They retain a fairly large firm who does a lot of work for them on the coin side etc., and I believe they've reinforced the notion that are legally bound not to release the information.

 

Even if their lawyers are simply advising them that releasing the information is simply unwise -- the bottom line is, they don't believe they are allowed to release the information under their own agreements.

But an internal policy does not create an obligation to not disclose. Further, unless the submitter is aware of the policy, I can't see how it could even rise to the level of creating an expectation of privacy. I completely understand if they have decided that they don't want to release it. But don't tell us it's b/c of some contractual or legal obligation. I just don't see any and it's an easy out to tell people not familiar with privacy or contract law.

 

Just like there's no law saying that your drycleaner can't tell the world how many shirts you dropped off last week. I think the collecting community would be pretty forgiving of a one-time disclosure of suspected scammer's submissions list. CGC is not a swiss bank with a century long reputation for guarding depositor's privacy.

 

I understand your point of view, but without a full review of the agreement, or whether they have language that is stated that they interpret to creating an obligation, I personally can't answer without further analysis.

 

But the flip side is, why bother with having litigation and incurring the expense of defending a suit when you don't have to? It's not the collecting community you're concerned with, it's the submitter whose information you disclosed who would be upset.

 

Bottom line is, if it is written into the agreement -- then it would create a legal obligation. Also, if they state on their website or somewhere else that they will never disclose the information etc., you could certainly argue it is contractual in nature.

 

Listen, while this is nice to have this academic discussion, at the end of the day, this is their position. I don't feel that there's anything wrong with the decision, but I certainly understand why people desire to get the information.

 

It's not necessarily that releasing the info is illegal. But if these stipulations are in the contract, that simply opens them up to all sorts of civil nonsense. That's a huge headache and cost.

[drbanner]

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

 

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

 

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

 

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

 

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

 

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

 

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

 

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

 

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

 

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

 

Thanks Brian, and as you said, CGC has been consistent since day one as to the reason why they will not release a full list of serial numbers for all of Ewert's submissions. Some people just don't take no for an answer...must be frustrating.

[Moondog]

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

 

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

 

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

 

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

 

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

 

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

 

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

 

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

 

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

 

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

 

Thanks, Brian, but am I the only one puzzled that the president of the company is using board members to disseminate corporate policy?

[jkrk]

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

 

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

 

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

 

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

 

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

 

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

 

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

 

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

 

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

 

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

 

Thanks, Brian, but am I the only one puzzled that the president of the company is using board members to disseminate corporate policy?

 

Yep.

 

"what part of our policy did you misunderstand?".

 

I believe it's a case of Plausible deniability.

[cloudofwit]

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

 

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

 

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

 

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

 

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

 

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

 

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

 

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

 

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

 

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

 

Thanks, Brian, but am I the only one puzzled that the president of the company is using board members to disseminate corporate policy?

 

Scholars who study organizational communication could have a field day with this case study.

[codfish]

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

 

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

 

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

 

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

 

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

 

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

 

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

 

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

 

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

 

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

 

Thanks, Brian, but am I the only one puzzled that the president of the company is using board members to disseminate corporate policy?

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least. As mention it is plausible deniability.

 

What surprises me is that Ewert basically broke the terms of the contract and CGC admitted as much. They even "chased him from the hobby" yet they feel bound by the contract which was essentially rendered null and void by Ewert.

 

As well they basically did the final outing which also breaches that contract they are standing by. They revealed certain books which were Ewert subs and let information regarding certain submissions be revealed through their forum and yet still feel bound by their contract.

 

Honestly? This is all fairly silly and to let a board member release this lame duck policy is pretty weak. Not a surprise, mind you, but very disappointing.

[Paratrooper]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

[Davenport]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

Because in essence it's CGC's "Private Feedback" policy.

 

"Comics Guaranty LLC (CGC) Primary Grader Steve Borock said he advises all novice eBay bidders to avoid both Private Auctions and auctions with Private Feedback." link

 

 

[arexcrooke]

No its not.

Unless you are saying that Credit Card companies who do not allow private information to be given out to anyone is just like Ebay's private feedback policy.

[arexcrooke]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

Because they arent the answers they want to hear.

[Moondog]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

 

C'mon, Troop. Hearing something second-hand is not "direct from the horse's mouth." It's not corporate policy. It's just hearsay actually.

 

If Haspel, as the company president, has something to say, he should come on hear and say it.

 

Now, if he wanted to "leak" this info, he made a huge mistake since you don't leak information by having the source say, "I had dinner with _____ and he said this."

 

That's just lame.