The Donkey
New member
Thanks! It's good to start off the day with a laugh.:lol:
Got any more good jokes?
Thanks! It's good to start off the day with a laugh.:lol:
Got any more good jokes?
Real life with him is funnier. He points it at his foot before pulling the trigger:lol:
Like this?:
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.
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:
Those principles aren't exclusive to computer security. In fact, if you focus only on computer security and ignore physical security and personnel security, you've already created larger vulnerabilities than any computer-specific issue. In any computer system, the users are always your biggest vulnerability.
The real secret that most people don't realize is that security is security. It doesn't magically change just because you are working with a computer. Security is more of a mindset than a discipline-specific skill.
Patrick Moran already demonstrated one such threat model with his advice in the Project Veritas video that got him in trouble.
Photo ID provides a relatively simple (and therefore easy to implement) way to cross verifying someone's identity. Are they foolproof? No, but they don't have to be. All they have to do is make it sufficiently more difficult to exploit the vulnerability.
Additionally, many of the "cryptographic means" you mention would be far harder to implement in practice, because they would have to be useable for all voters. Photo ID is already easily understood (and possessed) by the vast majority of voters because they use it in other aspects of their lives. That is a major consideration.
IIRC, Reagan chided Watt that "Mrs. Reagan is a California Girl".:lol:"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However, when his boss (President Reagan) declared himself to be a fan of the Beach Boys music, the ban was rescinded, and the Beach Boys performed at the White House."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 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. 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.
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.
That may be, but I could say the same thing about your proposal.Issuing private keys to people would severely complicate the system, and only lead to more issues that it could possibly solve.
Unless you have an actual counter-argument (not another deflection) I'm gonna throw the old QED out there.
And here is where your straw man is demonstrated.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.
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.
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.
...but ultimately we simply disagree.
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.
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.
...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.
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.