-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Call Gov. McDonnell: New Law Would Eliminate CHP As Valid Voter ID
- Thread starter The Donkey
- Start date
Real life with him is funnier. He points it at his foot before pulling the trigger:lol:
The Donkey
New member
Like this?:
No...not quite but you can read about it in his own words...in someone else's name:uhoh:..on Twitter.
He and Tricky Dick have a lot in common.
The Donkey
New member
Like this?:
"In April 1983, Interior Secretary Watt banned the Beach Boys from performing at the Washington Monument on the grounds that they, their music, or both, were un-American.
However, when his boss (President Reagan) declared himself to be a fan of the Beach Boys music, the ban was rescinded, and the Beach Boys performed at the White House."
Later, Secretary Watt was awarded the first "Shoots himself in the foot" Award by President Reagan. I have not been able to find an image of this ceremony and the award -- a plaster cast of a foot with a hole through it.
Obama actually has not really uttered much that puts him in this category. The "clingers" comment is pretty stale at this point, and was somewhat out of context to begin with. I am not sure that Biden's admonition that we should all "buy a shotgun" quite qualifies, and awarding it to Romney for his 47% remarks would only be piling on at this point.
But the Ronald Reagan "shoot himself in the foot" award is a grand idea which deserves to be resuscitated, IMHO.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
The Donkey
New member
So the President is committing Identity Fraud by tweeting in someone else's name about shooting his toes off on Twitter? That claim is about as silly as this:
So the President is committing Identity Fraud by tweeting in someone else's name about shooting his toes off on Twitter? That claim is about as silly as this:
Hell, he committed identity fraud when he claimed to be an American:lol:
But you're right, we should get back to the original issue. What was that again, Members of an open carry board should complain to McDonnell about not being able to use their CHP's to identify themselves so the Democrats can steal an election?
Maybe we can feed the trolls long enough to let McDonnell sign it in peace?
Feed a troll's mouth and it comes out of it's As&...er..Donkey!
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
You seem to think I don't know anything about this subject. Your incessant appeals to authority do not make your bare assertions any more valid.
lol. No. That's exactly what he did not do.
It's not computer security. It doesn't take one dedicated guy in another country to exploit a vulnerability, it takes a dedicated group of fraudsters.
You have not demonstrated a threat model. You've demonstrated a very, very remote vulnerability. These are not the same thing.
A computer system is always vulnerable to nuclear attack or, say, the sysadmin being taken at gunpoint, but this isn't a frequently considered threat model.
Why? Because it's incredibly remote.This is akin to making your root password "1234". It's false security, and it does nothing to patch your vulnerability against a dedicated attacker. Again, Patrick Moran is not your threat model. You're blowing what actually happened out of proportion – perhaps not ethically, but practically.
So, you can force people to get your magical "photo IDs" (the increasing use of which directly correlates with increases in identity fraud), but you can't mail them a card with private key encoded on it? Now I'm starting to detect some inexplicable, latent love for photo IDs themselves.
It's funny, because that actually addresses the "Moran threat model." You can't exactly forge a private key of someone who doesn't intent to vote.
Your solution addresses an imaginary threat model – one which exists in an alternate world where IDs serve as useful authentication.
Last edited:
2a4all
Regular Member
IIRC, Reagan chided Watt that "Mrs. Reagan is a California Girl".:lol:
grylnsmn
Regular Member
The vast majority of the population already have a photo ID, such as a driver's license, DMV ID card (for those who don't drive). With many of the more recent anti-counterfeiting changes made to those cards, they have gotten harder and harder to forge. It is still a simpler solution to use something that most people already have, rather than having to provide a separate credential to everyone. If you use something most people already have, then you only need to focus on providing credentials to a small portion of the population.You seem to think I don't know anything about this subject. Your incessant appeals to authority do not make your bare assertions any more valid.
lol. No. That's exactly what he did not do.
It's not computer security. It doesn't take one dedicated guy in another country to exploit a vulnerability, it takes a dedicated group of fraudsters.
You have not demonstrated a threat model. You've demonstrated a very, very remote vulnerability. These are not the same thing.
A computer system is always vulnerable to nuclear attack or, say, the sysadmin being taken at gunpoint, but this isn't a frequently considered threat model.
This is akin to making your root password "1234". It's false security, and it does nothing to patch your vulnerability against a dedicated attacker. Again, Patrick Moran is not your threat model. You're blowing what actually happened out of proportion – perhaps not ethically, but practically.
So, you can force people to get your magical "photo IDs" (the increasing use of which directly correlates with increases in identity fraud), but you can't mail them a card with private key encoded on it? Now I'm starting to detect some inexplicable, latent love for photo IDs themselves.
It's funny, because that actually addresses the "Moran threat model." You can't exactly forge a private key of someone who doesn't intent to vote.
Your solution addresses an imaginary threat model – one which exists in an alternate world where IDs serve as useful authentication.
Additionally, a card with a private key encoded doesn't verify that the individual showing up to vote is the same person who received the card.
Finally, if photo ID is so insecure, then why are they included in pretty much every facility "best practices" guideline out there? It is effective as part of an overall schema addressing election integrity, especially when paired up with a separate voter registration roll.
Photo IDs have numerous advantages. They are simple, already common, and they are well understood by people in general. Issuing private keys to people would severely complicate the system, and only lead to more issues that it could possibly solve.
roscoe13
Campaign Veteran
Boy, it's a good thing this thread hasn't degenerated into something that has absolutely nothing to do with OC! :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Roscoe
Roscoe
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
And so what? Neither does an ID. This is an impossible goal. Technologically, socially, politically... impossible.
Way to deflect, though. Remember, your threat model was Patrick Moran. Private keys patch this vulnerability; IDs do not. What would be needed to defeat private key authentication would be actual, real access to the individual and his willingness to give your candidate his private key, which is practically the same as an actual, real vote anyway. Might as well drive him to the polling booth at that point.
On the other hand, simply knowing he's not planning to vote, as in the Moran threat model, is sufficient to allow a fake ID to work. With sufficient dedication.
Unless you have an actual counter-argument (not another deflection) I'm gonna throw the old QED out there.
That may be, but I could say the same thing about your proposal.
Last edited:
The Donkey
New member
grylnsmn
Regular Member
And here is where your straw man is demonstrated.
A basic principle of security is that any system can be exploited with sufficient dedication, especially if you compromise an authorized user. There is no such thing as a perfect, unexploitable security system or security model. In other words, you are holding things up to an impossible standard that it was never designed to meet, and then arguing against that.
For example, you could make a perfectly secure computer system, but you would have to remove all power and network from it, and then destroy the hard drives. It would be unusable, but no one would be able to exploit it! The same principle applies to any other aspect in the field of security, not just computers.
Photo ID provides a stronger security than our current system while not significantly impacting the usability factor, because the vast majority of the population already has valid photo ID (such as a driver's license or DMV ID card). It also significantly increases the barrier to entry for someone trying to exploit the system, making it far more costly to them to pull off an exploit. That also reduces the potential scope of an exploit significantly.
Would there be inconvenience to some people? Yes. That's always the case when applying security principles. However, in the case of photo ID, it is relatively easy to mitigate that inconvenience.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Another deflection. You're trying to skirt around the fact that you still haven't demonstrated a serious threat model. You gave me Moran, which I shot down as being not serious and not fixable with IDs, and you deflect to "well it's not that hard!" I never said it was hard. I said it was unnecessary and ineffective.
You assert that IDs would make it prohibitively costly/difficult to pull off an exploit. You haven't actually defended this assertion; I'm supposed to accept it on blind faith. I don't. Unless you're going to be digitally scanning IDs at the polling place (no thanks!), it would be trivial to whip up a fake ID capable of fooling the average polling place volunteer.
Last edited:
grylnsmn
Regular Member
Except that I have demonstrated a potential threat model. You just disagree with it.
As for the costs associated with duplicating photo IDs, it's been years since you could fake a driver's license by simply slapping a new picture on it. Since July 2009, the new licenses and ID cards issued by the DMV have significant new security features. The cards that they replaced were previously only valid for up to 5 years, which means that by July 2014 all of the older ID cards will have been phased out. Even the older ID cards were not exactly easy to counterfeit. With the new cards, you can't exactly whip up a couple of them in your basement. Similar changes in the last few years (courtesy of HSPD-12, among other changes) have made federal IDs harder to counterfeit.
It wouldn't exactly be "trivial" to "whip up a fake ID". It would require expensive equipment and a major investment in time, money, and effort. Contrast that with using a color printer and a match/merge process to "whip up" a stack of fake utility bills for an arbitrary set of names and addresses.
At this point, without conceding anything, there's really no point in continuing the discussion. It's clear that you reject requiring photo IDs to vote completely, and I don't. You can claim all you want that I keep "deflecting", but ultimately we simply disagree.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
The Donkey
New member
Yeah, I'm hip. But Girlyman seems to have conceded much of the point of your posts:
So his argument rests on this assumption:
I don't see how putting together a fake "employer" or "student" photo ID is so much more difficult than faking a utility bill. I could probably pull off a serviceable one on my laptop from nothing in 45 minutes, and then just print many more from the template, filling in names for everyone who I wanted to pretend to be.
Getting them laminated would make them look "official" enough for polling place purposes. Surely lamination machines are not that expensive.
Girlyman's answer to this would probably be "I don't support the use of employer or student photo ID either -- only official photo ID, with countermeasures to avoid forgery." I suppose that is the next right wing pince nez shoe to drop, so one can expect more proposals along these lines in 2014, having the primary effect of insulating incumbents from Tea Party primaries.
If you really take such ideas seriously -- and I take Girlyman at his word on this -- you have to be OK with effectively restricting the franchise for some "because the vast majority of the population already has valid photo ID." But when these folks say "vast majority" they are talking percentages, not raw numbers, and there are certainly many THOUSANDS of otherwise qualified voters who are not part of this "vast majority" and who will not be by election day, which means they lose one of the most important rights they have to satisfy some abstract notion of "security" based on very hypothetical threats.
In this way of thinking, the trouble of securing acceptable ID becomes an "inconvenience" and there is no doubt that it is. Voting itself is an "inconvenience" when you have to wait line for hours when the boss wants you at work -- which is one reason why the more "inconvenient" you make voting, the better it is for the bosses.
There is this implicit attitude here that people who are not willing to undergo "inconvenience" do not really deserve to have their voices heard. But I think we make better collective choices about who is to represent us when as many voices that can be heard are. Why should we listen to the constipated ninnys who are willing to throw such basic republican principles away in the name of "security" or "preventing fraud" when there is no evidence of false identity fraud anywhere near the scale of people that we KNOW will be disenfranchised by accident as a consequence of these laws?
QED. Call the governor.
Numenor
Regular Member
Oh, I don't know... perhaps the case of the Poll worker in Ohio who voted for Obama 6 effing times, or maybe the precinct in PA that had ZERO votes for Romney. No, those clearly aren't evidence of fraud.
Sorry, a photo ID is a good idea. If people are too "inconvenienced" to go down to the DMV to get an ID card, then going to their polling place should also be too much of an "inconvenience" for them.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
LOL! So, in order to prevent poll worker fraud, we're going to institute ID checks performed by.... wait for it.... poll workers!!!
Brilliant. Hats off to you, sir!
:lol: