Re: Fwd: Re: "dumb scanners"

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Thu Dec 07 2006 - 14:47:46 CST

Hello:

    I'm not sure but I believe you are confusing latent fingerprints with 'invisible' fingerprints. Latent prints are effectively invisible unless some sort of dye particles are added that stick to the residual finger oils and so forth to make them visible.
 

-- 
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510 
858-578-8842
 
Work for the common good.
My profile:  
I blog now and then at:  
----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj@charter.net>
To: Open Voting Consortium List <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 12:33:14 PM
Subject: [OVC-discuss] Fwd: Re: "dumb scanners"
>But there needs to be only one "dumb scanner" (under officials' control) to
>avoid invading privacy by scanning voters' fingerprints, ballot serial
>numbers, etc. The "dumb scanner" can mis-scan in the same way as existing
>all-in-one scanners, so we still need sampling hand audits. I'm not sure that
>this approach solves much, but at least it appears to preserve privacy.
>
>-R
How would the scanner pick up invisible fingerprints?
Jerry 
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Sun Dec 31 23:17:09 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 23:17:16 CST