Using Biometrics for Voter ID

[Coleman Smith]

There has been a substantial amount of discussion in various political boards about the problem of using voter identification for elections. it is asserted that that people of color off and having more difficulty obtaining the necessary a documentation for voter identification in states.

My suggestion is that voter identification be modified to include both fingerprints and photographs. at the gym where I am a member, when you flash your ID card in front of a card reader your picture appears on the screen. this is a good positive identification

They can print readers on become much less expensive and are faster.

There has been some controversy regarding the accuracy of a fingerprints used in this manner because of some of the technology using used in reading them is had some problems. my feeling is fingerprint readers are more accurate than what is commonly used and harder to forge. it's very difficult to change the fingerprint on the end of your finger and when you combine that with the use of both a fingerprint and a photograph the odds of Mississippi reduced.

I do recognize that there is some Obsession from some people for using Biometrics for identification not based on their own feelings about the issue.

According to chat GPT about 40 countries that use fingerprints for voter id.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with fingerprints is false negatives. My wife has very hard to read prints--to the point that someone doing it said she would be the perfect criminal because she wouldn't leave prints. Admittedly, the technology might have improved since.

 

[Coleman Smith]

The problem with fingerprints is false negatives. My wife has very hard to read prints--to the point that someone doing it said she would be the perfect criminal because she wouldn't leave prints. Admittedly, the technology might have improved since.

No system is perfect, the question is, is this a fatal defect.

If this occurs at only a small percentage of people then it is just a problem that can probably build he dealt with by using other alternatives.

I suggest that fingerprints be used in conjunctions with a photograph of the applicant so that when your fingerprint is red your picture appears on the screen.

I believe that the system developers would find a workaround for those who have fingerprints that are difficult to read and on rare occasions where people have no fingerprints at all because they are double amputees I'll be hands and or arms.

 

[ZiprHead]

What makes you think this is needed. Besides the bullshit claims of the righties who claim illegals are voting.

 

[Coleman Smith]

What makes you think this is needed. Besides the bullshit claims of the righties who claim illegals are voting.

I'm not certain that it is needed in fact.

However, this would remove the basis of the complaint from the right wing about minorities and not being properly registered, identified or committing voting fraud.

 

[bilby]

What makes you think this is needed. Besides the bullshit claims of the righties who claim illegals are voting.

I'm not certain that it is needed in fact.

However, this would remove the basis of the complaint from the right wing about minorities and not being properly registered, identified or committing voting fraud.

That complaint is already baseless, so attempting to address it is futile.

No matter what you do, the complaint will persist; Attempts to make fraud harder will just result in the fuckwits saying "Ah-ha! There must be fraud, or they wouldn't be spending money and effort on trying to stop it!"

 

[Coleman Smith]

That complaint is already baseless, so attempting to address it is futile.

No matter what you do, the complaint will persist; Attempts to make fraud harder will just result in the fuckwits saying "Ah-ha! There must be fraud, or they wouldn't be spending money and effort on trying to stop it!"

I respect your opinion on this issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with fingerprints is false negatives. My wife has very hard to read prints--to the point that someone doing it said she would be the perfect criminal because she wouldn't leave prints. Admittedly, the technology might have improved since.

No system is perfect, the question is, is this a fatal defect.

If this occurs at only a small percentage of people then it is just a problem that can probably build he dealt with by using other alternatives.

I suggest that fingerprints be used in conjunctions with a photograph of the applicant so that when your fingerprint is red your picture appears on the screen.

I believe that the system developers would find a workaround for those who have fingerprints that are difficult to read and on rare occasions where people have no fingerprints at all because they are double amputees I'll be hands and or arms.

If the system can't read your prints how does that work? I've watched people whose job it is to take fingerprints take several tries with her.

And note that it's possible to temporarily mess with prints to make them not read.

 

[Coleman Smith]

If the system can't read your prints how does that work? I've watched people whose job it is to take fingerprints take several tries with her.

And note that it's possible to temporarily mess with prints to make them not read.

As previously noted, no system is perfect.

What alternative do you suggest?

 

[Patooka]

If the system can't read your prints how does that work? I've watched people whose job it is to take fingerprints take several tries with her.

And note that it's possible to temporarily mess with prints to make them not read.

As previously noted, no system is perfect.

What alternative do you suggest?

York system works just fine. The problem you lot have is that you don't ensure spreading lies about election fraud to have consequences.

 

[RVonse]

If the system can't read your prints how does that work? I've watched people whose job it is to take fingerprints take several tries with her.

And note that it's possible to temporarily mess with prints to make them not read.

As previously noted, no system is perfect.

What alternative do you suggest?

It's always much easier for everyone to pretend there is no problem then it is to provide or offer partial solutions.

Then they can lose their next election and wonder how it happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the system can't read your prints how does that work? I've watched people whose job it is to take fingerprints take several tries with her.

And note that it's possible to temporarily mess with prints to make them not read.

As previously noted, no system is perfect.

What alternative do you suggest?

First, establish that there's something that actually needs solving.

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean, there's so little point to it.

We can always be "more sure" about things, but at some point it becomes an impediment designed to cause failure with no need.

If things are within the margin expected by such means of false voting, then we should either do a recount or a runoff election.

There are many things that can and should be focused on *long before* we go through the expense of biometric collections (which themselves could be heavily abused).

I think electronic voting was a mistake. It was a mistake I endorsed once upon a time.

Personally, I have no problem with electronic counts, but purely electronic or even ticker tape vote logs are problematic. Systems like that are too soft a target for fraud.

Proper and formal polls require an immediate physical readable artifact of the vote that is then interpreted by a counting machine.

Ideally the machine would tell you what vote you cast, and then you be shown a picture of your ballot, and would confirm or reject the read of it and have it read again until it says it right, and then when you are satisfied, it puts the ballot in an internal vault and sends a scan of it to the cloud and to internal storage, and you would use a voucher of some kind to process the ballot.

Minnesota does most of that except you don't get to validate the scanner result before it's finalized, and they don't require a voucher to process the ballot.

That's as secure as it really needs to be, and as secure as is good for society at large. More security is onerous, and overreaching.

What we need is more oversight, fewer places where trust may be broken on the side of the polling side, not the voter side; The voting side is already protected by the high risk and low reward.

 

[bilby]

If an election is close enough for fraud to alter the result, or indeed close enlugh that recounting can alter the result, I have to wonder why it really matters which candidate is declared the winner.

Whoever wins in such circumstances almost certainly wasn't the first choice for more than half of the constituency; Any result in such circumstances is unsatisfactory for most voters - which is exactly the situation representative democracy is supposed to avoid.

If the result is that close, the system is already unfit for purpose, before we even consider cheating, or mis-counting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think electronic voting was a mistake. It was a mistake I endorsed once upon a time.

Personally, I have no problem with electronic counts, but purely electronic or even ticker tape vote logs are problematic. Systems like that are too soft a target for fraud.

Proper and formal polls require an immediate physical readable artifact of the vote that is then interpreted by a counting machine.

Ideally the machine would tell you what vote you cast, and then you be shown a picture of your ballot, and would confirm or reject the read of it and have it read again until it says it right, and then when you are satisfied, it puts the ballot in an internal vault and sends a scan of it to the cloud and to internal storage, and you would use a voucher of some kind to process the ballot.

You're not paying attention to the properly secured machines.

Paper ballots--easy to substitute tracelessly. Purely electronic ballots--easy to change bits tracelessly. But the system here I think it more resistant than either: we have electronic voting but you enter your selections and then it prints a confirmation on a long roll of paper. You then accept or reject what's on the paper. The long roll of paper means it's very hard to tamper with it, you would have to print a whole substitute roll and match it up with the records of when ballots were cast.

 

[Coleman Smith]

We use a similar system in Kansas.

First they identify you by drivers license and asking you to cite your address.
Second, you got a voting machine and vote.
Third the machine prints out your vote, you review your vote and confirm it.
Fourth, you then go to another machine and scan it.
Fifth, the paper record is shredded.

I think having finger prints used instead or in addition to driver'slicense would be a good addition to the security.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The problem with fingerprints is false negatives. My wife has very hard to read prints--to the point that someone doing it said she would be the perfect criminal because she wouldn't leave prints. Admittedly, the technology might have improved since.

gloves don't leave fingerprints either. couldn't a perfect criminal just wear gloves? and many criminals are still caught even without fingerprints; e.g., the assassin of that healthcare CEO.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If the system can't read your prints how does that work? I've watched people whose job it is to take fingerprints take several tries with her.

And note that it's possible to temporarily mess with prints to make them not read.

As previously noted, no system is perfect.

What alternative do you suggest?

It's always much easier for everyone to pretend there is no problem then it is to provide or offer partial solutions.

Then they can lose their next election and wonder how it happened.

What is the problem needing a solution here? Apparently the 2024 election went just swimmingly. I haven't heard any complaints of major or minor fraud being an issue here. All those problems that existed back in 2020 must have been completely fixed to make our elections fraud-proof.

 

[Elixir]

many criminals are still caught even without fingerprints; e.g., the assassin of that healthcare CEO.

Lucky catch. What a blunder.

 

[Shadowy Man]

many criminals are still caught even without fingerprints; e.g., the assassin of that healthcare CEO.

Lucky catch. What a blunder.

View attachment 48759

Snitches get stitches, dependent of course on whether your health insurance company approves the expense.