Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?

On Aug 11, 5:22 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...Fdd4ae8204bf7b

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.

my argument is non-partisan, and equal, as opposed to yours which is
partisan and assigns malice to some but then illogically assumes good
civil behavior with others. With todays cell phone cameras, one only
needs a press of a button, and a good memory for numbers and names a
poll volunteer could take advantage of the voter id mandate. Name of
voter and address are listed, but you are mandating i provide an id
which contains my address (for cross reference), date of birth, and
possibly a drivers license number, to those who have access to that
list.

In article
,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

On Aug 11, 5:22 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...37b2a9?hl=en-g
b%CE%BFdd4ae8204bf7b

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.

my argument is non-partisan, and equal, as opposed to yours which is
partisan and assigns malice to some but then illogically assumes good
civil behavior with others. With todays cell phone cameras, one only
needs a press of a button, and a good memory for numbers and names a
poll volunteer could take advantage of the voter id mandate. Name of
voter and address are listed, but you are mandating i provide an id
which contains my address (for cross reference), date of birth, and
possibly a drivers license number, to those who have access to that
list.

No -- it is VERY partisan -- and made up in its entirety to add yet
another fantasy to Democrat objections to a more secure method of
assuring clean elections. The whole "ID theft" story is clever, but has
so little foundation in the real world that it defies credibility.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

my argument is non-partisan, and equal, as opposed to yours which is
partisan and assigns malice to some but then illogically assumes good
civil behavior with others. With todays cell phone cameras, one only
needs a press of a button, and a good memory for numbers and names a
poll volunteer could take advantage of the voter id mandate.

It is puerile nonsense to believe that no one would notice someone
imaging the ID in a polling place or that you will be able to find many,
if any at all, people who can instantly memorize hundreds of people's details.

Name of
voter and address are listed, but you are mandating i provide an id
which contains my address (for cross reference), date of birth, and
possibly a drivers license number, to those who have access to that
list.

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, 6:19*pm, wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...c14d0888953a78

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
my argument is non-partisan, and equal, as opposed to yours which is
partisan and assigns malice to some but then illogically assumes good
civil behavior with others. *With todays cell phone cameras, one only
needs a press of a button, and a good memory for numbers and names a
poll volunteer could take advantage of the voter id mandate.
It is puerile nonsense to believe that no one would notice someone
imaging the ID in a polling place or that you will be able to find many,
if any at all, people who can instantly memorize hundreds of people's details.
*Name of
voter and address are listed, but you are mandating i provide an id
which contains my address (for cross reference), date of birth, and
possibly a drivers license number, to those who have access to that
list.
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.

Declaration of safety based on your illogical replies and bs
assertions is another fallacy on your part, used to create false
sense of security in making your lame argument. Now its my turn to
make fun of your bs. Im sure the authorities and many businesses would
be interested in your so called 100% stop solution to id theft, "anal
little old ladies". According to you, no longer is ID theft a worry,
no more do we need to spend money on shredders, or out of date
security services, we have as you claim "anal little old ladies" to do
the work, wow you are delusional. We are told to be careful for a
person "shoulder surfing" for personal information, and im sure you
think those ""anal little old ladies" could never commit the crime of
identity theft (see below). We have on of your famous "anal little
old ladies" who started a business meant to care for "victims of
trauma, children, and members of the military and their families", on
the surface a good cause, but little did we know this "anal little
old lady" was capable using her business as a front for identity
theft, wow, there goes your 100% security policy. How about
addressing reality rather than playing stupid, as this is becoming
rather funny.

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

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...-as-phila.html
"77-year-old woman who acted as Phila. psychiatrist convicted
Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2012, 11:20am EDT
John George Senior Reporter- Philadelphia Business Journal
A 77-year-old King of Prussia, Pa., woman was convicted by a federal
jury Tuesday of health-care fraud, aggravated identity theft,
distribution of controlled substances and other charges....Benoit
opened the clinic in 2008 and advertised it as a trauma-specific
mental health clinic, directed at victims of trauma, children, and
members of the military and their families.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

snip puerile, paranoid babble

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

Good advice, but totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

snip irrelevant crap about a health care scame

It is obvious you have never voted in a polling place and likely have
never even been in one.

On Aug 11, 8:09*pm, wrote:snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...c1812a463e210a

you are in denial, and now your lame attempts at insults are getting
weaker and weaker.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:09Â*pm, wrote:snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...c1812a463e210a

you are in denial, and now your lame attempts at insults are getting
weaker and weaker.

You are clueless and looking sillier and sillier.

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."


you claim, instantly noticed, so then how did the dude in the story
below manage to leave the polling place 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"? You
are living in with a false sense of security


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


Mandating that a voter show a picture id (driver’s license being the
most common) reveals, name, date of birth, address, driver’s license #
(if card is used), at a place where 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
stealn formation, based on a mandate that all walk in voters share
personal information. That focal point is a place where close to 70%
of the total voting population will be revealing their personal
information in a 1-day window. 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. That’s
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, which means your so
called solution is nothing more than a dodge, 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. Such poor logic on your
part begs the question as to why you think the poll volunteer vetting
process is not subject to flaws/mistakes/misses/tampering. In fact
when pushed your only assurance that identity theft will not occur at
the polling place is that "anal little old ladies" are on duty, which
is pure idiocy on your part. Identity theft protection includes
shredding waste that contains important information so people who go
through a households *TRASH*, have a harder time stealing your
identity. The typical household waste contains food/dog/cat/toiletries
along with the personal information we are told to shred, this sits
and stews a week before it goes to the curb. With today’s cell phone
cameras, one only needs a press of a button to capture an image of the
voter roll (address and voters name), and a good memory for numbers
when inspecting the photo id, to gather such crucial personal
information. So if people are willing to go through a person’s week

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 11, 6:19Â*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."


you claim, instantly noticed, so then how did the dude in the story
below manage to leave the polling place 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"? You
are living in with a false sense of security


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

My god you are a scatter brained idiot.

Your story has nothing to do with identity theft and you should particularly
note that his misconduct was immediately noticed and he was immediately
arrested.

If anything the story proves my point that it would be nearly impossible
to get away with any funny business in a polling place.