Re: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 26, Issue 20

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Fri Dec 08 2006 - 14:53:19 CST

Thanks, Charlie. I agree with you. I think this issue is really a
non-issue from a practical point of view. Even if it does eventually
become somehow feasible from a resolution point of view I think the
requirement for a UV bulb in the scanner makes this impractical.

Can we put this to rest now?

Jerry Lobdill

At 02:00 PM 12/8/2006, you wrote:
>Reply-To: charlie strauss <cems@earthlink.net>,
> Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>Message-ID:
><4756087.1165601588868.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] latent fingerprints
>Message: 2
>
>First I think this worrying about fingerprints issue is edging
>towards the realm of fume huffing. If I wanted to know which
>ballot was yours , I could figure out ways a lot simpler than finger
>print analysis. e.g. just give them a bag of polonium porkrinds
>before they go in the polls. On the less fantastic side, I've got
>bags of microtag poweder sitting in my desk drawer (it's used to
>tracably serial number mark everthing from gunpowder to designier
>jeans: it looks and acts like fine soot till you put it under a
>microscope--then you see a colored plastic bar code). it would be
>easy to get this onto someones hands. Or, even more
>realistically, i'd just edge mark the ballots ahead of time: draw
>a fine diagonal line across the edges with a magic marker--then I
>could always recreate the ballot order later.
>
>However taking it as a challenge to somehow scan fingerprints....
>First the kind of blunt instruments in use for oval scanners wont
>have the resolution. But since some folks want to replace those
>with high resolution scanners, then one approach might be to use a
>UV fluorescent light in the scanner. Finger prints exhibit some
>weak phosphorescence. Unfortunately most white paper also contains
>"whiteners" that are fluorescent as well so there's going to be a
>signal to noise issue. You might be able to boost that some if you
>had a way to pulse the illumination and time-gate the optical
>signal. But that would be one heck of piece of scanner
>hardware. If you selected the whitener carefully you might be abled
>to have it quenched by the finger print oil itself.... Or better
>yet, don't order ballots that are naturally fluorescent.
>
>perhaps a better approach would be to give the person a slighty
>leaky pen and assume they would get it on their fingers.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. ProgressiveNews2Use has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is
ProgressiveNews2Use endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers
and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating
pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions
posted on ProgressiveNews2Use may not match the versions our readers
view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

_______________________________________________
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