Digital Images Now Accepted as Proof? (Open Thread)

tablet - CopyWe 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?

#####

Advertisements

122 responses to “Digital Images Now Accepted as Proof? (Open Thread)

  1. Topple …is a fine word…TIME WILL TELL…. YES WE CAN!!!!
    I just adore leaks…I really do… heads up 2 all & I pray for everyone…
    Lovin’ … the END of this VIDEO …shakin’ in his FLIP FLOPS indeed!
    So Under LOCK & KEY!!!! just 40 pages? Go Mr. REED HAYES…GO!
    Go Judge ROY MOORE… GO! …is this what we have been hatchin’?
    I’m so past ready…. I may even paint myself BLACK…after this!!!!

  2. Obamaphones have been around since before Bush took office. Shouldn’t they be called Bushphones?

    • Actually, the Lifeline program began during the Reagan administration as Lifeline. They expanded it to include cell phones towards the end of the Bush adminstration. In 2008, it cost taxpayers $819 million. By 2012, the cost had more than doubled, to $2.2 BILLION, with waste and fraud in the program exploding under Obama. Clair McCaskill, ordinarily an Obama supporter, was outraged to find that she, a millionaire, was solicited as a potential recipient of a FREE PHONE.

      From the first link:

      “Senator Claire McCaskill found an offer in the mail at her Washington condo last year that sounded too good to be true. The flier said the Missouri Democrat—a millionaire many times over—could apply for a free cell phone, complete with monthly service, paid for by the federal government. From what McCaskill could tell, “you just had to check the box” saying you met the income requirements, submit the form, and collect the phone, she says. The senator suspected something wasn’t right and began looking into it. What she found was a federal giveaway gone astray: In some instances, the government is handing out multiple phones to the same people. And there’s no national tracking system keeping tabs on who’s enrolled—or whether participants even qualify. …”

      The “no tracking system” is very much like how the Obama administration refuses to track ILLEGAL ALIENS. As with all the “social safety net” programs, this Obamaphone program has exploded under socialist Obama, who WANTS to make as many people as possible dependent upon the STATE, which is why in most instances his administration does not check to ensure that any applicant is qualified to receive ANY benefits (e.g, not screening out illegal aliens) and does not punish those who happen to incidentally found to be illegally collecting benefits.

      That’s why we call this OBAMAPHONE–the characteristic that all one has to do to get the benefit is to claim to be eligible, no further questions asked.

      For those not paying attention, then it will probably come as a surprise that OBAMACARE will follow the same system: All one will have to do is CLAIM to be eligible to receive stipends (of other people’s money) to pay for insurance, whether or not the claim is true. The OBAMA administration has no plans to check to make sure that it’s true that the person is eligible for government assistance.

      Same for voting! No surprise that the Obama administration fights ALL ATTEMPTS to ensure that people who vote are eligible to vote. If they sign the pledge card at the “motor voter” registration station, claiming to be eligible, then even without presenting ANY PROOF of eligibility, they get to vote! Ensuring that they don’t have to produce voter ID at the polls, either, makes the system even more prone to fraud.

      Same for tax returns: The IRS allows illegal aliens to claim and illegally collect tax credits for children who don’t even live in this country! As many as 24 kids claimed at one address, in one case! Obama’s administration encourages this fraud by calculatingly looking the other way.

      Let’s also not forget the billions of dollars paid out to “black farmers” under yet another program where the “farmer” had only to claim to have thought about farming to get his or her reparations.

      Surprise! Obama himself claims to be “eligible” for the presidency. We’re just supposed to trust his claim, even though TO DATE he’s produced NO EVIDENCE proving his constitutional eligibility for the position. See any pattern here, Hap?

  3. Some of these statutes provide that “The presentment of proof of insurance in electronic form does not:
    (a) Authorize a search of any other content of an electronic device without a search warrant or probable cause; or
    (b) Expand or restrict the authority of a law enforcement officer to conduct a search or investigation.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s