🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 15, 3:53�pm, John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
> In article <dfmanno-6FC3AC.12360115102...@reader.motzarella.org>,
> dfma...@mail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <MPG.235fbdd24c531a86989...@news.motzarella.org>,
> > �John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
>
> > > Mickey Mouse is probably the one example that would not be allowed. �Now
> > > that democrats have successfully gotten rid of the picture id requirements
> > > in most states, they have enabled the kind of voter fraud that they wanted
> > > all along (with ACORN providing the setup). �If they register Terrell Owens
> > > in one precinct, and a guy shows up and says he's Owens, he votes without
> > > needing to show an id. �Then if he goes to the next precinct and votes as
> > > Dion Saunders, he's Dion Saunders. �They register fake people after removing
> > > the one check that could prevent from actually voting. �If anyone wondered
> > > why democrats were against picture ids for voting, they can't be wondering
> > > anymore...
>
> > And as the Republican U.S. attorneys and a number of studies have found,
> > this happens very rarely.
>
> How would anyone really know how often it happens. �Once cast, the ballots
> cannot be tied to any voter because they are secret ballots. �Why not have
> picture id so no one has to wonder how "rare" it is? �The answer is because
> you want to enable the fraud to occur because you know which party is
> benefiting.
>
> John Black- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Commercial organizations such as banks typically do not try to
authenticate the identity of a person, but rather the validity of a
transactions (e.g. by signature or pin number) due to the acknowledged
difficulty in reliably identifying an individual in a fraud proof and
convenient manner.

It has been argued that identity cards impose a disproportionate
burden upon both government and citizens while empowering the
executive, which is contrary to the maxim: "the government that
governs best, governs least". Some have pointed out that extensive
lobbying for identity cards has been undertaken, in countries without
compulsory identity cards, by IT companies who will be likely to reap
rich benefits in the event of an identity card scheme being
implemented.

Cards with centralised database could be used to track anyone's
movements and private life, thus endangering privacy. The proposed
British ID card (see next section) will involve a series of linked
databases, to be managed by the private sector. Managing disparate
linked systems using a range of institutions and any number of
personnel is alleged to be a security disaster in the making.[7]

A requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to the
inconvenience of arbitrary requests from card controllers (such as the
police). This can lead to functionality creep whereby carrying a card
becomes de facto if not de jure compulsory, as in the case of Social
Security numbers, which are now widely used as ID.
Government claims that identity cards will prevent crimes may not be
based in fact. The former UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke conceded
that identity cards may only be useful in the identification of bodies
in the aftermath of a crime. As a strong presumption of identity is
given in favour of a card holder, the identity card scheme might be an
asset to potential terrorists.

In many cases, other forms of documentation such as a driver's
license, passport, or Medicare card serve a similar function on a more
limited scale, and thus an ID card is not needed.

The cost of introducing and administering an identity card system can
be very high. Figures from �30 (US$60) to �90 or even higher have been
suggested for the proposed UK ID card.[8]

In some countries where ID cards were required to show religious
affiliation (as used to be the case in Greece) or ethnic background,
this led to cases of discrimination. Under some interpretations of
Sharia law, apostate Muslims may be sentenced to death. Malaysia's
identity cards only state the religion if a person's religion is
Islam. This can become a bureaucratic nightmare or even lead to death
when a person changes his or her affiliation.
Some schemes do not adequately take into account whether data subjects
have legitimate reasons to conceal their identity. Victims of domestic
violence, witnesses in criminal investigations and trials, and others,
may not want their identity or locations to be widely known. Some
proposed schemes also do not adequately address these considerations.
http://www.fullidentity.com/

ID cards could lead to an increase in identity fraud since it would
lead to official reliance on a card or document that can be forged. No
country has ever successfully produced a totally unforgeable ID card.
Also stolen ID cards have also been used for identity fraud. Some
countries have no expiration time, so that the photos can be old and
unreliable, making stolen cards easier to use.

Rather than focus on government-issued ID cards, federal policy has
the alternative to encourage the variety of identification systems
that exist in the private marketplace today. Many of the private
systems already provide better assurance of identity and
trustworthiness than many government-issued ID cards.[9]