Re: [ALSC-Forum] Feedback on Draft Report

[DPF]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:24:17 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 10:37:17PM +0000, David Farrar wrote:
>> 
>> Capture and fraud are different matters.  I agree e-mail address by itself is 
>> open to fraud.  However the necessity to also provide a workable postal address 
>> takes care of almost all fraud issues assuming the elector database can detect 
>> postal duplicate addresses.
>
>I'm sorry, but you simply don't comprehend the problem.  Having mail
>from the same postal address might be perfectly OK -- my wife lives with
>me, after all.  But so does my canary, and my dog, and maybe 15
>imaginary people.  All of them can have email addresses and legal postal
>addresses.  A legal postal address is essentially no protection against
>fraud. 

Many people would invent fraudulent people (as we see on the GA list)
if the only ID needed is an e-mail address.  Having to also provide an
actual postal address which means you can be more easily tracked down
for fraud is a big deterrent.

I agree that one would allow more than one person per postal address
but with a bit of common sense one can concentrate on the more likely
fraud cases which might be more than five voters per address.  

Still not perfect but for that case neither is restricting it to
domain name holders.  Not at all hard to register domain names under
fake names either is it.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527