<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>>…</b>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dave Sill via extropy-chat<br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>…Yeah, that I understand and agree with. I don't see a problem with a national ID that you aren't required to carry or produce upon demand. ..<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That’s what software face recognition does, and I agree with you Dave. I don’t see that as unreasonable search and seizure to use that technology and even to track people’s whereabouts with it. I know I just set off a firestorm with that comment, but I don’t see the 4<sup>th</sup> amendment as forbidding that.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>… I also don't see a problem with a national voter ID that you'd have to present at the ballot.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-Dave<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I agree with that too Dave, and have advocated some kind of personal ID verification at the polls since always. The notion is anathema in California. We have a little routine: I always hold my photo ID when I pick up my ballot, the volunteers say “We are not allowed to ask for that” I answer “I know, you didn’t, I am volunteering it.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>They know me, tolerate me anyway. {8^D<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>These are the kinds of things that reduce the appearance of impropriety.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>