On Aug 11, 10:08*am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:









On Aug 10, 8:53*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:" Q: Just WHO is looking at the drive's license?"

A: Authorized elections officials, not just the run-of-the-mill
public.

On Aug 7, 10:15 am, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:" No longer (assuming that poll workers follow the law) can
community organizers"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...c4571e93728744...

All things being equal i would say your previous post which stated
"assuming that poll workers follow the law" answers your question.
The total popular vote for president in 2008 was just under 130
million, the state of missouri's poll worker instruction manual boasts
about its 20,000 poll workers. *Thats a hole lot of people, it seems
like you want to assume malice when it suits you, and assume good
civil behavior only when it fits your argument. *My point still stands
there are unintended consequences for no id protection at the voting
polls, this increases a voters exposure to the risk of identity theft,
which is an undue burden.

That increased exposure consists of showing ID to a vetted person once
a year in addition to showing ID to random people in random places several
times a week that also get some financial information.

I just don't see that as any sort of added risk.

If that once a year addition bothers someone, they can always elect to vote
by mail and also avoid having to stand in line as an added bonus.

The type of crime is on the rise, being conducted not only by an
individual but groups, crime rings (where a vetted person is part of a
group, its called an inside job). My point is to increase protection,
not rationalize the dropping of protection based on some false sense
of safety. I dont have a choice to vote at a different polling place
where you are mandating i must increase my risk to identity theft,
which is much different than if i choose to be a customer of a place
with higher protections in place. A polling place is a focal point,
where close to 70% of the total voting population will be revealing
their personal information in a 1 day window. Thats quite an
opportunity you are creating for lots of money to be stolen
(unintended consequences), based on the ideal of creating a 100% clean
election. Absentee ballots are subject to tampering, so to increase
mail in ballots would not assure a clean election, so your so called
solution is nothing more than a dodge.

https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs17-it.htm
"The crime of identity theft is on the rise. According to a February
2012 Javelin Study, identity theft rose 13% from 2010 to 2011. More
than 11.6 million adults became a victim of identity theft in the
United States during 2011. Identity theft was the number one complaint
filed with the Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Sentinel during
2011."

Using a variety of methods, criminals steal Social Security numbers,
driver's licenses, credit card numbers, ATM cards, telephone calling
cards, and other pieces of individuals' identities such as date of
birth. They use this information to impersonate their victims,
spending as much money as they can in as short a time as possible
before moving on to someone else's name and identifying information."