If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"
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...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. 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/...tenced-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" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"
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...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. 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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for 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/...ts-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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"
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/...ts-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? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"
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/...tenced-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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"
On Aug 16, 11:00 am, wrote:””snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1c8836f56ead51 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/...tenced-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/p...ource-Identity "Beware of shoulder surfers. Protect credit cards, driver's licenses and checks from wandering eyes. http://www.privacy.ca.gov/consumers/...ty_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...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." |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OT "Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?"
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cessna 337 [82 of 386] "Picture 9.jpg" yEnc (1/1) | Shaun Howell | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 22nd 09 03:13 AM |
Cessna 337 [75 of 386] "Picture 2.jpg" yEnc (1/1) | Shaun Howell | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 22nd 09 03:12 AM |
Sunday 072907 in Oshkosh Pt 1 - the C17 [5/6] - "19 C17 more drama, this time from the sun just above the picture.jpg" yEnc (1/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | July 30th 07 10:49 PM |
military and overseas voting | [email protected] | Military Aviation | 6 | September 25th 04 08:25 AM |
Gravel as opposed to aspalt runway | Jay Honeck | Owning | 5 | January 24th 04 12:40 AM |