On Aug 16, 8:45*am, wro
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...6dce64f49f9c4d

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/...tenced-for-ste...

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.