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

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 12, 10:10 am, wrote:"Yes"snip
rambling nonsense
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...29ad74e61789ff

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.g...29ad74e61789ff

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...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."

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.