A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 12th 12, 10:45 PM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 12, 12:58Â*pm, wrote:" Nope" snip

you are in denial of reality.


You are a scatter brained idiot.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan...tion/na-ohio25
"Ohio poll workers convicted
January 25, 2007
CLEVELAND — Two election workers were convicted Wednesday of rigging a
recount of the 2004 presidential election to avoid a more thorough
review in Ohio's most populous county.

Jacqueline Maiden, elections coordinator of the Cuyahoga County
Elections Board, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were
convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct by an elections
employee. They also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of
failure to perform their duty as elections employees."


Your link has nothing to do with identity theft and nothing to do with
polling places.

The convictions were for attempting to cherry pick votes for a recount
days after the election was over.



  #22  
Old August 12th 12, 10:57 PM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.aviation.piloting
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"

On Aug 12, 2:45*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

On Aug 12, 12:58*pm, wrote:" Nope" snip


you are in denial of reality.


You are a scatter brained idiot.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan...tion/na-ohio25
"Ohio poll workers convicted
January 25, 2007
CLEVELAND — Two election workers were convicted Wednesday of rigging a
recount of the 2004 presidential election to avoid a more thorough
review in Ohio's most populous county.


Jacqueline Maiden, elections coordinator of the Cuyahoga County
Elections Board, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were
convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct by an elections
employee. They also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of
failure to perform their duty as elections employees."


Your link has nothing to do with identity theft and nothing to do with
polling places.

The convictions were for attempting to cherry pick votes for a recount
days after the election was over.


actually it establishes those who are doing the work at the polls are
capable of malice, the vetting process failed. My point is getting
stronger as your claim of security failed, validated by my second
citation below which stated "S.F. poll worker sentenced for stealing
ballots" he was found the next day at his home with "multipage
ballots, the voter roster, a memory card that recorded the votes cast,
a voting machine access key and a poll worker's cell phone, police
said."

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...tenced-for-ste...
"S.F. poll worker sentenced for stealing ballots...
He had with him multipage ballots, the voter roster, a memory card
that recorded the votes cast, a voting machine access key and a poll
worker's cell phone, police said.
Nicholas was arrested at his home in the Ingleside early the next
morning, and about 75 ballots were found in the lagoon two days after
election day.
He pleaded guilty in December to unlawfully carrying away or
destroying a poll list and ballots, in violation of the state
elections code"
  #23  
Old August 12th 12, 11:11 PM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 12, 2:45Â*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

On Aug 12, 12:58Â*pm, wrote:" Nope" snip


you are in denial of reality.


You are a scatter brained idiot.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan...tion/na-ohio25
"Ohio poll workers convicted
January 25, 2007
CLEVELAND — Two election workers were convicted Wednesday of rigging a
recount of the 2004 presidential election to avoid a more thorough
review in Ohio's most populous county.


Jacqueline Maiden, elections coordinator of the Cuyahoga County
Elections Board, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were
convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct by an elections
employee. They also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of
failure to perform their duty as elections employees."


Your link has nothing to do with identity theft and nothing to do with
polling places.

The convictions were for attempting to cherry pick votes for a recount
days after the election was over.


actually it establishes those who are doing the work at the polls are
capable of malice,


Well, whoop-de-do, scatter brain.

Lots of people are capable of malice but that is NOT the issue.

The issue is whether or not it would be possible to perform mass identity
theft at a polling place.

All your links have shown is how easy it is to get caught doing any
sort of mischief related to voting.





  #24  
Old August 13th 12, 12:20 AM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.aviation.piloting
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"

On Aug 11, 1:33 pm, wrote:" Utter nonsense.
Poll place officials have to go through some minimum vetting….
Everything is subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate
issue."

On Aug 11, 6:19 pm, wrote:" Yeah, and again,
attempting to copy the additional information to the existing
information would be instantly noticed by one of the anal little old
ladies that tend to make up the bulk of the personnel at a polling
place as "funny business" going on."

On Aug 11, 7:50 pm, wrote:" The people that
run the polling places take the whole thing very seriously and don't
take well to people doing other than what is expected so this isn't
going to happen in the real world."

On Aug 12, 10:16 am, wrote:" In addition,
there are monitors in the room to ensure everyone is doing what they
are supposed to be doing."

On Aug 12, 3:11 pm, wrote:" Well, whoop-de-
do, scatter brain. Lots of people are capable of malice but that is
NOT the issue. The issue is whether or not it would be possible to
perform mass identity theft at a polling place. All your links have
shown is how easy it is to get caught doing any sort of mischief
related to voting."

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...ts-2333835.php

You incorrectly tried to isolate the argument, which contradicts your
blanket statement “Everything is subject to tampering”. Then you
ignorantly tried to argue the vetting was full proof and produces a
secure environment, which was proven false by my links, and
contradicted by your blanket statement. Then you argued that because
poll workers "take the whole thing very seriously", a secure
environment would be produced which has been proven false by my links
showing a breach of a secure environment, therefore based on your
logic some dont take the "whole thing seriously". Then you argued
that "anal little old ladies" would produce a secure environment, and
my link showed the "anal little old ladies" doing "funny business", a
failure in your vetting and a demonstration of your false sense of
security. My link showed that in spite of the presence of “room
monitors”, and the vetting process, and anal little old ladies a poll
worker left with the poll stole a “voter roster”, a camera phone image
would have less evidence. My links establish the ignorance of your
argument, while at the same time showing identity theft could
potentially be committed by poll worker(s) with good memory by
matching the stolen or digitally imaged voting roster to the ID’s
presented (date of birth, DL #). The point is by mandating the
presentation of personal information without protection at the polling
place, you are making it easier to conduct identity theft. I have
stated increasing the risk, and your weak attempts to marginalize the
risk have failed. My other links have shown the dangers of sharing
personal information in a public setting (shoulder surfing etc.),
which inherently means people should do things to reduce the risk, not
keep acting with a false sense of security. The "whoop-de-do" on you
part is that you know your argument of a secure vetted environment
have been proven to be false, and that was your childish way of
admitting so. Now your argument is an illogical assumption that if
the crime has not been committed it cannot occur, which is a false
sense of security based on ignorance.
  #25  
Old August 13th 12, 01:29 AM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:33 pm, wrote:" Utter nonsense.
Poll place officials have to go through some minimum vetting….
Everything is subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate
issue."

On Aug 11, 6:19 pm, wrote:" Yeah, and again,
attempting to copy the additional information to the existing
information would be instantly noticed by one of the anal little old
ladies that tend to make up the bulk of the personnel at a polling
place as "funny business" going on."

On Aug 11, 7:50 pm, wrote:" The people that
run the polling places take the whole thing very seriously and don't
take well to people doing other than what is expected so this isn't
going to happen in the real world."

On Aug 12, 10:16 am, wrote:" In addition,
there are monitors in the room to ensure everyone is doing what they
are supposed to be doing."

On Aug 12, 3:11 pm, wrote:" Well, whoop-de-
do, scatter brain. Lots of people are capable of malice but that is
NOT the issue. The issue is whether or not it would be possible to
perform mass identity theft at a polling place. All your links have
shown is how easy it is to get caught doing any sort of mischief
related to voting."


Yep, and just about everything above is validated by your link below.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...ts-2333835.php



You incorrectly tried to isolate the argument,


Nope, I focused on the crux of your whinning, i.e. showing ID at a polling
place will lead to mass identity theft.

which contradicts your
blanket statement “Everything is subject to tampering”. Then you
ignorantly tried to argue the vetting was full proof and produces a
secure environment,


Incoherent.

which was proven false by my links,


Nope, if anything your single link related to polling places just goes
to show how unlikely it is that anyone could get away with mass identity
theft at a polling place.

Your other link had nothting to do with the subjct of identity theft at
a polling place.

and
contradicted by your blanket statement.


Inchoherent.

Then you argued that because
poll workers "take the whole thing very seriously", a secure
environment would be produced which has been proven false by my links


Nope, one of your links had nothing to do with polling places and the
other just showed how easy it is to get caught doing mischief at a polling
place.

showing a breach of a secure environment, therefore based on your
logic some dont take the "whole thing seriously".


Illogical as both links showed how easy it is to get caught tampering
with the voting system.

Remaining rambling, run on sentences and sentence fragments snipped.

Do you have any clue how to compose a paragraph?


  #26  
Old August 13th 12, 01:36 AM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.aviation.piloting
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"

On Aug 12, 5:29*pm, wrote:


In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:33 pm, wrote:" Utter nonsense.
Poll place officials have to go through some minimum vetting….
Everything is subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate
issue."
On Aug 11, 6:19 pm, wrote:" Yeah, and again,
attempting to copy the additional information to the existing
information would be instantly noticed by one of the anal little old
ladies that tend to make up the bulk of the personnel at a polling
place as "funny business" going on."
On Aug 11, 7:50 pm, wrote:" The people that
run the polling places take the whole thing very seriously and don't
take well to people doing other than what is expected so this isn't
going to happen in the real world."
On Aug 12, 10:16 am, wrote:" In addition,
there are monitors in the room to ensure everyone is doing what they
are supposed to be doing."
On Aug 12, 3:11 pm, wrote:" Well, whoop-de-
do, scatter brain. Lots of people are capable of malice but that is
NOT the issue. The issue is whether or not it would be possible to
perform mass identity theft at a polling place. *All your links have
shown is how easy it is to get caught doing any sort of mischief
related to voting."

snip
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...tenced-for-ste...
You incorrectly tried to isolate the argument,

snip
which contradicts your
blanket statement “Everything is subject to tampering”. *Then you
ignorantly tried to argue the vetting was full proof and produces a
secure environment,

snip
which was proven false by my links,

snip
and
contradicted by your blanket statement.

snip
Then you argued that because
poll workers "take the whole thing very seriously", a secure
environment would be produced which has been proven false by my links

snip
showing a breach of a secure environment, therefore based on your
logic some dont take the "whole thing seriously".

snip


bs non-relevant digressions snipped, and please use well reasoned
logic, as you have yet to display you have a real rebuttal to my
factually correct argument. Try again, this time instead of skipping
over the fact i crushed your weak replies one by one, you might want
to just admit all you have left is your typical ad hominem bs.
  #27  
Old August 16th 12, 07:43 PM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.aviation.piloting
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"

On Aug 16, 11:00 am, wrote:””snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1c8836f56ead51

You incorrectly tried to isolate the argument, which contradicts your
blanket statement “Everything is subject to tampering”. Then you
ignorantly tried to argue the vetting was full proof and produces a
secure environment, which was proven false by my links, and
contradicted by your blanket statement. Then you argued that because
poll workers "take the whole thing very seriously", a secure
environment would be produced which has been proven false by my links
showing a breach of a secure environment, therefore based on your
logic some dont take the "whole thing seriously". Then you argued
that "anal little old ladies" would produce a secure environment, and
my link showed the "anal little old ladies" doing "funny business", a
failure in your vetting and a demonstration of your false sense of
security. My link showed that in spite of the presence of “room
monitors”, and the vetting process, and anal little old ladies a poll
worker left with the poll stole a “voter roster”, a camera phone image
would have less evidence. My links establish the ignorance of your
argument, while at the same time showing identity theft could
potentially be committed by poll worker(s) with good memory by
matching the stolen or digitally imaged voting roster to the ID’s
presented (date of birth, DL #). The point is by mandating the
presentation of personal information without protection at the polling
place, you are making it easier to conduct identity theft. I have
stated increasing the risk, and your weak attempts to marginalize the
risk have failed. My other links have shown the dangers of sharing
personal information in a public setting (shoulder surfing etc.),
which inherently means people should do things to reduce the risk, not
keep acting with a false sense of security. The "whoop-de-do" on you
part is that you know your argument of a secure vetted environment
have been proven to be false, and that was your childish way of
admitting so. Now your argument is an illogical assumption that if
the crime has not been committed it cannot occur, which is a false
sense of security based on ignorance.

http://www.policeandsheriffspress.com/vic/
"Welcome
Welcome to the Georgia Voter ID System website! This site has been
created for you the Georgia Voter Registrar. As you can see from the
menu there are copies of the Quick Reference Guide, Training Manual,
Frequently Asked Questions section, and Contact Information. We hope
that you enjoy using this site and find it to be helpful."

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...tenced-for-ste...
"S.F. poll worker sentenced for stealing ballots...
He had with him multipage ballots, the voter roster, a memory card
that recorded the votes cast, a voting machine access key and a poll
worker's cell phone, police said. Nicholas was arrested at his home in
the Ingleside early the next morning, and about 75 ballots were found
in the lagoon two days after election day. He pleaded guilty in
December to unlawfully carrying away or destroying a poll list and
ballots, in violation of the state elections code"

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."

http://www.businesscreditfacts.com/p...ource-Identity
"Beware of shoulder surfers. Protect credit cards, driver's licenses
and checks from wandering eyes.

http://www.privacy.ca.gov/consumers/...ty_theft.shtml
"Identity Theft
Identity Theft First Aid
Identity theft is taking someone else's personal information and using
it for an unlawful purpose (California Penal Code Section 530.5). It
is a serious crime with serious consequences. There were 11.6 million
U.S. adults who were victims of identity theft in 2011. That
represents 4.9% of adults, including over a million Californians. The
total cost of identity theft in 2011 was $18 billion. The average
victim spent $354 and 12 hours to resolve the problem and clear up
records."

http://its.virginia.edu/security/idtheft/

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan...tion/na-ohio25
"Ohio poll workers convicted
January 25, 2007
CLEVELAND — Two election workers were convicted Wednesday of rigging a
recount of the 2004 presidential election to avoid a more thorough
review in Ohio's most populous county. Jacqueline Maiden, elections
coordinator of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board, and ballot manager
Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count of negligent
misconduct by an elections employee. They also were convicted of one
misdemeanor count each of failure to perform their duty as elections
employees."

  #28  
Old August 16th 12, 09:49 PM posted to alt.global-warming,rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

A bunch of rambling, run on, puerile, illogical nonsense, as usual and
posted it to a group where it has no relevance.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cessna 337 [82 of 386] "Picture 9.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Shaun Howell Aviation Photos 0 November 22nd 09 04:13 AM
Cessna 337 [75 of 386] "Picture 2.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Shaun Howell Aviation Photos 0 November 22nd 09 04:12 AM
Sunday 072907 in Oshkosh Pt 1 - the C17 [5/6] - "19 C17 more drama, this time from the sun just above the picture.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Just Plane Noise[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 July 30th 07 10:49 PM
military and overseas voting [email protected] Military Aviation 6 September 25th 04 08:25 AM
Gravel as opposed to aspalt runway Jay Honeck Owning 5 January 24th 04 01:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.