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

On Aug 7, 9:12*pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:"
Drivers' licenses also contain DOB. Are they being used for ID theft?
NO."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1bdd55f5530704

Wrong, the answer is yes, a drivers license can aid in the theft of
ones identity, it contains a persons date of birth, and so does the
virgina photo ID (see below link). There are unintended consequences
for no id protection at the voting polls, this increases a voters
exposure to the risk of identity theft, an argument that would stump
justice Scalia, Thomas, and Alito's decision in CRAWFORD et al. v.
MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, as this increase risk is an undue
burden. As i stated i would, i crossposted this thread to both
alt.global-warming, rec.aviation.piloting as you seem to think you can
act one way in rec.aviation.piloting, but yet act like a troll in
alt.global-warming.

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

http://www.policeandsheriffspress.com/vic/
Georgia

In article
,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

On Aug 7, 9:12*pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:"
Drivers' licenses also contain DOB. Are they being used for ID theft?
NO."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1bdd55f5530704

Wrong, the answer is yes, a drivers license can aid in the theft of
ones identity, it contains a persons date of birth, and so does the
virgina photo ID (see below link). There are unintended consequences
for no id protection at the voting polls, this increases a voters
exposure to the risk of identity theft, an argument that would stump
justice Scalia, Thomas, and Alito's decision in CRAWFORD et al. v.
MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, as this increase risk is an undue
burden. As i stated i would, i crossposted this thread to both
alt.global-warming, rec.aviation.piloting as you seem to think you can
act one way in rec.aviation.piloting, but yet act like a troll in
alt.global-warming.

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

http://www.policeandsheriffspress.com/vic/
Georgia

Q: Just WHO is looking at the drive's license?

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

It is less of a problem than showing ID to:
a. cash a check
b. use a credit card
c. purchase liquor
d. enter age-restricted businesses
e. buy a drink at a bar.
f. any other activity requiring identity verification.

The whole argument against voter ID is nothing but a red herring put out
by those who would benefit most from voter fraud.

Hint: Their last syllable is "RATS."

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...8744e?hl=en-gb

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.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:53Â*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...8744e?hl=en-gb

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.

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."

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

snip


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.

Utter nonsense.

Poll place officials have to go through some minimum vetting.

Most businesses have zero protection in place for anything.

All you are disclosing at a polling place, once a year, is your name
and address.

At any given business, your are disclosing, many times a year, your
name, address, and some financial information.

And you DO have a choice in polling place as you have the option to
vote by mail.

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.

Voter turnout is much less than 70% of eligable voters and much, much
less of voting age population and basically irrelevant.

Close to 100% of the population has their name, address, and phone
number in the phone book, which anyone can obtain.

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.

Hysterical nonsense as there is little opportunity to steal money based
solely on a name and address.

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.

Everything is subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate issue.

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."

Yes, take note of all the information stolen.

Again, just a name and address is worth little and if it were, all that
would be required to obtain that information is a telephone book which
is available 365 days a year to everybody as opposed to once a year
to a select few.

On Aug 11, 1:33 pm, wrote:snip"Poll place
officials have to go through some minimum vetting....Everything is
subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate issue." snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...7ff51a3bff2e35

Dude, there were so many illogical fallacies in that reply its funny,
for instance if everything is subject to tampering why not poll
volunteers themselves, or the so called vetting process.

Next, are you claiming id theft can be done by the yellow pages, or
would the date of birth on a voter id/drivers license be more
helpful?

You just hypocritically argued that since there are risks, another
risk is not a concern, which is utter nonsense. You argued that
because you dont "see" any problem, there is none, which is appealing
to your own authority. In an effort to make walk in voting 100% clean,
you just skipped over the other option, which is not 100% clean. You
did this by using with the statement "Everything is subject to
tampering and that is an entirely separate issue.", which is an
illogical fallacy, based on the fact you are trying to clean up the
election process. If you are going to come back with a reply, how
about making it logical, and well reasoned, because you just trumped
yourself with your own words.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:33 pm, wrote:snip"Poll place
officials have to go through some minimum vetting....Everything is
subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate issue." snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...7ff51a3bff2e35

Dude, there were so many illogical fallacies in that reply its funny,
for instance if everything is subject to tampering why not poll
volunteers themselves, or the so called vetting process.

The point is that everything may be subject to tampering but that is
an issue totally separate from the issue of showing an ID to vote
might be subject to identity theft.

Next, are you claiming id theft can be done by the yellow pages, or
would the date of birth on a voter id/drivers license be more
helpful?

Personal names and addresses don't appear in the yellow pages, that is
for business.

Having a date of birth is marginally usefull but not without the other
financial information you are already disclosing at businesses but
are NOT disclosing to vote.

You just hypocritically argued that since there are risks, another
risk is not a concern, which is utter nonsense. You argued that
because you dont "see" any problem, there is none, which is appealing
to your own authority. In an effort to make walk in voting 100% clean,
you just skipped over the other option, which is not 100% clean. You
did this by using with the statement "Everything is subject to
tampering and that is an entirely separate issue.", which is an
illogical fallacy, based on the fact you are trying to clean up the
election process. If you are going to come back with a reply, how
about making it logical, and well reasoned, because you just trumped
yourself with your own words.

No, that is not my arguement at all.

My arguement is that you have your panties in a wad over a miniscule
risk of identity theft that is by far overshadowed by the rest of
practical life.

I would guess that your reaction to a fire in the house would be to put
slip covers on the sofa to keep it clean having totally lost track of
what the real issue is.

On Aug 11, 3:26 pm, wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...38baa9ed3ad848

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:33 pm, wrote:snip"Poll place
officials have to go through some minimum vetting....Everything is
subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate issue." snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...7ff51a3bff2e35
Dude, there were so many illogical fallacies in that reply its funny,
for instance if everything is subject to tampering why not poll
volunteers themselves, or the so called vetting process.
The point is that everything may be subject to tampering but that is
an issue totally separate from the issue of showing an ID to vote
might be subject to identity theft.
Next, are you claiming id theft can be done by the yellow pages, or
would the date of birth on a voter id/drivers license be more
helpful?
Personal names and addresses don't appear in the yellow pages, that is
for business.
Having a date of birth is marginally usefull but not without the other
financial information you are already disclosing at businesses but
are NOT disclosing to vote.

You just hypocritically argued that since there are risks, another
risk is not a concern, which is utter nonsense. You argued that
because you dont "see" any problem, there is none, which is appealing
to your own authority. In an effort to make walk in voting 100% clean,
you just skipped over the other option, which is not 100% clean. You
did this by using with the statement "Everything is subject to
tampering and that is an entirely separate issue.", which is an
illogical fallacy, based on the fact you are trying to clean up the
election process. If you are going to come back with a reply, how
about making it logical, and well reasoned, because you just trumped
yourself with your own words.
No, that is not my arguement at all.
My arguement is that you have your panties in a wad over a miniscule
risk of identity theft that is by far overshadowed by the rest of
practical life.
I would guess that your reaction to a fire in the house would be to put
slip covers on the sofa to keep it clean having totally lost track of
what the real issue is.

The need to show a voter ID, or standard picture id (drivers license)
reveals, name, date of birth, address, drivers license # (if card is
used), at a place where the the voters name and address are found on a
printed list. You are creating a focal point for personal
information, a potential situation for a person/group of people to
steal information, based on a mandate that all walk in voters share
personal information. So to your example, it would appear, in an
effort to fight one fire, you placed a whole lot of flammables right
next to another fire, i guess you could feel good about one fire
fighting effort, until the other house explodes.

In article
,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

On Aug 11, 3:26 pm, wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...38baa9ed3ad848

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Aug 11, 1:33 pm, wrote:snip"Poll place
officials have to go through some minimum vetting....Everything is
subject to tampering and that is an entirely separate issue." snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...7ff51a3bff2e35
Dude, there were so many illogical fallacies in that reply its funny,
for instance if everything is subject to tampering why not poll
volunteers themselves, or the so called vetting process.
The point is that everything may be subject to tampering but that is
an issue totally separate from the issue of showing an ID to vote
might be subject to identity theft.
Next, are you claiming id theft can be done by the yellow pages, or
would the date of birth on a voter id/drivers license be more
helpful?
Personal names and addresses don't appear in the yellow pages, that is
for business.
Having a date of birth is marginally usefull but not without the other
financial information you are already disclosing at businesses but
are NOT disclosing to vote.

You just hypocritically argued that since there are risks, another
risk is not a concern, which is utter nonsense. You argued that
because you dont "see" any problem, there is none, which is appealing
to your own authority. In an effort to make walk in voting 100% clean,
you just skipped over the other option, which is not 100% clean. You
did this by using with the statement "Everything is subject to
tampering and that is an entirely separate issue.", which is an
illogical fallacy, based on the fact you are trying to clean up the
election process. If you are going to come back with a reply, how
about making it logical, and well reasoned, because you just trumped
yourself with your own words.
No, that is not my arguement at all.
My arguement is that you have your panties in a wad over a miniscule
risk of identity theft that is by far overshadowed by the rest of
practical life.
I would guess that your reaction to a fire in the house would be to put
slip covers on the sofa to keep it clean having totally lost track of
what the real issue is.

The need to show a voter ID, or standard picture id (drivers license)
reveals, name, date of birth, address, drivers license # (if card is
used), at a place where the the voters name and address are found on a
printed list. You are creating a focal point for personal
information, a potential situation for a person/group of people to
steal information, based on a mandate that all walk in voters share
personal information. So to your example, it would appear, in an
effort to fight one fire, you placed a whole lot of flammables right
next to another fire, i guess you could feel good about one fire
fighting effort, until the other house explodes.

The whole Democrat argument is bogus. It is being advanced so that they
have a main avenue to corrupt the electoral process.

The registrars' assistants already have a copy of names and addresses
(which we sign when we vote). They are not going to copy down the
details of your driver's license while people are standing in line
behind you, waiting to vote.