Right off the bat, I want to make a point this is not about taking hairs or cheek swabs for use in identifying students taking exams. But I find it interesting boards of education are looking at secure identification processes, when liberals freak if voters are required to show up and present a government issued ID.
For background, the Long Island education scandal broke late in 2011. They figure more than 40 students were involved in schemes to cheat on the SAT and ACT. They wanted to pad resumes and improve their chances at scholarships and getting into college. Now we have this from the local CBS News affiliate in New York.
Since the SAT and ACT cheating scandals broke wide open on Long Island, lawmakers have pledged to come up with unique cutting edge ways to combat identity theft.
This probably happens more than you think, but it’s small scale compared to the reported voting irregularities and outright voter fraud around the country. Heck, in South Carolina primary last week, the state’s attorney general reported more than 950 dead people voted. The report was forwarded to the Justice Department, who blocked the state’s efforts to implement a voter ID law prior to the primary … it was racist.
Back to the Long Island solution to test cheating, with my emphasis in bold.
“It’s a great way for people to really be who they are when they take the test, and not try to fake it,” Massapequa High School graduate Jennifer Karp told McLogan.
Karp volunteered her forensic image for a digital DNA. It begins with mandatory pre-registering at a student’s home school with official legal ID documents only.
“All of that is uploaded to an I.T. system of wireless connections called the ‘CLOUD,’” Dr. Hayward said.
The student’s unique digital DNA code is created and assigned to an ID card with covert authentication marks printed onto it. Proctors can verify instantly with a simple UV light and smart phone scan.
More on how it works in the next paragraph, but prior to taking the test – most likely weeks before – the student’s identity needs to be verified by official legal documents, and an ID card is created from that information. The ID will conclusively tie the student to the exam, which is verified by test proctors on site. What say those of you who were freaked out about President George W. Bush stealing the election in 2000?
More on digitalDNA…
The digitalDNA system creates a counterfeit-proof, secure ID card. The card is embedded with infinitesimal molecules of plant DNA segments that authenticate a student’s identity in a way that is absolutely uncopyable. The anti-counterfeiting technology also features a scannable printed code, which visually represents the same identity information. Embedded within the iconic code, and in covert locations on the card, is the physical code of digitalDNA. A scan, using a Smartphone or other mobile device, may be done instantly for exam-screening purposes, or at any other point. If deemed necessary, a second level of screening is available: the plant DNA on the card may be swabbed and forensically evaluated; a system well-recognized by courts globally.
We need ID to board a plane. We need to present ID during a lawful interaction with law enforcement. We need ID to open a bank account. We need to present ID at the local bar … but it’s racist to verify identification when you vote?
I’ve got a few opinions about the voting process and wonder what you think. For the great majority of people, I don’t think it is a big deal to ask them to vote on the day of the election. You generally have more than 12 hours to get there, it takes less than 10 to 15 minutes once you walk in the door, and voting places are frequently less than a couple of miles away.
If you’re on a vacation or business trip, apply for an absentee ballot. If you’re home-bound, apply for an absentee ballot. All of these same-day voter registration and vote by ballot weeks ahead of the election simply provides additional opportunities for fraud, and does not seem to help with voter turnout. In the 1950s and 1960s, when there were practically no programs (same-day registration, vote early…) to increase voter turnout, participation rates for presidential years was more than 60 percent.
Since then, participation definitely went down, but we’re back up to previous levels in 2008. It’s apathy that lowered participation rates in the 1970s and 1980s, not our “busy lifestyles.”