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.global-warming/msg/a51bdd55f5530704

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.global-warming/msg/a51bdd55f5530704
>
> 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.global-warming/msg/5c4571e93728744e?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.global-warming/msg/5c4571e93728744e?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.global-warming/msg/5c4571e93728744...
>
> > 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.global-warming/msg/677ff51a3bff2e35

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.global-warming/msg/677ff51a3bff2e35
>
> 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.global-warming/msg/4e38baa9ed3ad848

> 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.global-warming/msg/677ff51a3bff2e35
> > 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.global-warming/msg/4e38baa9ed3ad848
>
> > 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.global-warming/msg/677ff51a3bff2e35
> > > 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.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation > wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

Yep, they already have most of that information which you supplied when
you registered to vote, so to get anything more they either have to
copy your ID or write the information down on an extra copy of the
voter roll, all without anyone, like the other ID checkers sitting
next to them, noticing.

> You are creating a focal point for personal
> information, a potential situation for a person/group of people to
> steal information,

So once a year a gang of identity thieves is going to put a plant in
the local polling place and somehow steal personal information from
people with last names A-G while the other people behind the H-O and
P-Z signs next to the perp don't notice that something funny is going
on like accumulating information instead of just handing out ballots?

Puerile fantasy.

> based on a mandate that all walk in voters share
> personal information.

With one person who is supposed to do nothing more than match the ID
to the voter list and hand you a ballot.

If they are doing anything else, call the cops.

> 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.

I think you are totally out of touch with reality.

You have to show ID at an FAA ramp check; aren't you afraid identity
thieves are going to start impersonating FAA officials to steal from
people with known higher incomes, i.e. pilots?

On Aug 11, 5:45 pm, wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/c03dac65bce65d62?hl=en-gb%CE%BFdd4ae8204bf7b

> In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation > wrote:
> > 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.
> Yep, they already have most of that information which you supplied when
> you registered to vote, so to get anything more they either have to
> copy your ID or write the information down on an extra copy of the
> voter roll, all without anyone, like the other ID checkers sitting
> next to them, noticing.
> > You are creating a focal point for personal
> > information, a potential situation for a person/group of people to
> > steal information,
> So once a year a gang of identity thieves is going to put a plant in
> the local polling place and somehow steal personal information from
> people with last names A-G while the other people behind the H-O and
> P-Z signs next to the perp don't notice that something funny is going
> on like accumulating information instead of just handing out ballots?
> Puerile fantasy.
> > based on a mandate that all walk in voters share
> > personal information.
> With one person who is supposed to do nothing more than match the ID
> to the voter list and hand you a ballot.
> If they are doing anything else, call the cops.
> > 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.


With todays cell phone cameras, one only needs a press of a button,
and a good memory for numbers. 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/tolietries
along with the personal information we are told to shred, this sits
and stews a week before it goes to the curb. So if people are willing
to go through a persons week old curbside trash just to get *one*
persons personal information, stealing numbers from a polling place to
get a lot of peoples personal information is not to far out of the
realm.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation > wrote:

<snip>

> With todays cell phone cameras, one only needs a press of a button,

Yeah, and in a polling place it would be with dozens of people around who
would take notice of someone doing something this stupid.

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 11, 7:50*pm, wrote:snip" The people
that run the polling places take the whole thing very seriously" snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ee78dcbda1e0711a

thats a bs false sense of security, based on your illogical
hypocritical assumptions, you still have failed to refute my point.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 to all walk in voters. This
sharing of personal information in a non-secure highly populated
environment increases the of identity theft, an undue burden.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 7:50Â*pm, wrote:snip" The people
> that run the polling places take the whole thing very seriously" snip
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ee78dcbda1e0711a
>
> thats a bs false sense of security, based on your illogical
> hypocritical assumptions, you still have failed to refute my point.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 to all walk in voters. This
> sharing of personal information in a non-secure highly populated
> environment increases the of identity theft, an undue burden.

This is nothing more than a pile of rambling, puerile, nonsense.

It is obvious you have never been in a polling place.

On Aug 12, 10:10 am, wrote:"Yes"<snip
rambling nonsense>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/7029ad74e61789ff

glad you agree, setting aside your poor logic, its obvious the mandate
for a voter is a bad idea.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 10:10 am, wrote:"Yes"<snip
> rambling nonsense>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/7029ad74e61789ff
>
> glad you agree, setting aside your poor logic, its obvious the mandate
> for a voter is a bad idea.

Nope, I think it is a great idea and that your conserns of mass identity
theft at a polling place are puerile paranoia based on your total lack
of knowledge of how polling places work.

On Aug 12, 11:08*am, wrote: ""snip

and your opinions are backed by what your opinion, all things being
equal your lame attempt at dismissal is just another appeal to your
own authority.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 11:08Â*am, wrote: ""snip
>
> and your opinions are backed by what your opinion, all things being
> equal your lame attempt at dismissal is just another appeal to your
> own authority.

Nope, unlike you I have actually been inside of a polling place and
have observed how they work.

Your delusions of setting up mass identity theft inside a polling place
are utter nonsense and just can't be done.

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

you are in denial of reality.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/25/nation/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."

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/25/nation/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.

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/25/nation/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/S-F-poll-worker-sentenced-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"

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/25/nation/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.

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/S-F-poll-worker-sentenced-for-stealing-ballots-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.

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/S-F-poll-worker-sentenced-for-stealing-ballots-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?

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/S-F-poll-worker-sentenced-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.

On Aug 16, 11:00 am, wrote:””snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/111c8836f56ead51

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/S-F-poll-worker-sentenced-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/pdp.aspx?pg=Resource-Identity
"Beware of shoulder surfers. Protect credit cards, driver's licenses
and checks from wandering eyes.

http://www.privacy.ca.gov/consumers/identity_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/25/nation/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."

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.