We the People have been pointing out–for at least the past four or five years–the FACT that Barack Hussein Obama II still has not produced any physical evidence to prove his eligibility for the presidency. Yes, he’s placed a “long-form certificate of live birth” on the White House (WH) blog. But where’s the real deal? Despite a plethora of lawsuits that seek to force Obama to prove his eligibility, thus far his lawyers have not produced for any court the document that allegedly was scanned to produce that image on the WH blog. Why not, if it’s legitimate? Because Obama steadfastly refuses to show the underlying document to any member of the public and, most pertinent, to any court, many of us have joked (and complained) that we would never be afforded the same privilege. Would any government entity accept as proof a digital image on a website? Would your state driver’s license bureau, for example, accept a birth certificate that you display to them on your laptop? How about the ATF? The IRS? The Department of State? Will they accept as “proof” an image that you simply plopped onto a website, especially if the “document” shows signs of being digitally altered, edited, tampered with? Some citizens have been tempted to at least try to use a digital image from the Web when they go to get a driver’s license, buy a gun, apply for a tax exemption, obtain a passport–just to see what sort of response they get. Put a digital image on the Web and give the government a link. Think that will work?
If it’s good enough for Obama, it should be good enough for us. Right?
Believe it or not, some government agencies are now accepting digital images as proof! [emphasis added to quotes]
It is getting a lot easier in many states to show proof of insurance coverage during a traffic stop. In what has become one of the hot insurance-related legislative trends, 17 states passed laws this year allowing drivers to show proof of insurance using a smart phone. This brings to 24 the states that say “yes” to electronic proof of coverage, according to the Property Casualty Insurance Association of America (PCI). “In just two years, policy makers in nearly half the country have changed their laws to enable consumers to use their smart phone to show they have insurance instead of keeping that little piece of paper in the glove compartment,” said Alex Hageli, PCI director of personal lines policy. “It makes good sense to allow consumers and insurers to use increasingly ubiquitous technology to comply with the law.” The 17 states to approve electronic proof of coverage laws in 2013 are: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. This list is likely to grow even longer in 2013 as legislation is awaiting signature by governors in Florida, Illinois, Missouri and Wisconsin. PCI is supporting legislation still moving in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Oh, that’s nice, isn’t it? If you live in a state that requires drivers to carry insurance, now you’ll be faced with the prospect of being rear-ended by some scofflaw (maybe driving an Obama car), who will then pull out a “smart phone” (perhaps an Obamaphone) and display bogus “proof of insurance”. I’m just sayin’: This smells like another progressive plot. 🙂 Yet, no doubt, there will be laws (or at least policies) that force the cops to accept the digital “proof”, lest the cops profile deadbeats. Today, there’s already a profitable underground industry to produce and sell counterfeit “proof of insurance” cards. Now there’ll be employment for the out-of-work photoshoppers and programmers, who can create digital “proof of insurance” for scofflaws! You may think: “Surely they’ll require the image to be hosted by the insurance company’s website.” Ever heard of website spoofing? It’s
the act of creating a website, as a hoax, with the intention of misleading readers that the website has been created by a different person or organization. Normally, the spoof website will adopt the design of the target website and sometimes has a similar URL. Another technique is to use a ‘cloaked’ URL. By using domain forwarding, or inserting control characters, the URL can appear to be genuine while concealing the address of the actual website.
I’ll bet most legislators have never heard of or would even understand website spoofing.
There’s not a system created by human beings that a determined and resourceful crook cannot get around.
Sure, insurance companies and the authorities warn that there might be hell to pay if someone forges proof of insurance, but so far that’s not stopped the uninsured, who’ve also learned that they can simply buy a policy, get the card, and then cancel the policy. States and courts aren’t much into enforcing the law: judges often reduce penalties, making the laws relatively useless.
So you get into an accident with some fool with no insurance; he shows the cops his fake “proof of insurance” on his Obamaphone; and off he goes. If he’s also driving with a fake driver’s license (which is as possible), you’re left holding the bag. Welcome to the Obamanation! A cynical person might wonder whether this push to allow “electronic proof” has another motive besides the convenience of the driving public. When someone who has allegedly bogus “proof of insurance” is called into court, will that person be allowed to have his insurance company records (“if any”) SEALED under the guise of “privacy”? Will the victim then have to prove that the “electronic proof of insurance” is bogus instead of the perp having to prove it’s real?