4 ms·

> So it sounds like they verify your identity based on two photos that you provide? So if two photos provided by an unknown person match, then they become a tru

> So it sounds like they verify your identity based on two photos that you provide? So if two photos provided by an unknown person match, then they become a trusted person? Even if there's a separate step that matches that to the DMV database or something... all you actually need is a photo of the person you want to impersonate. I recently signed up for two different mobile banks (Monzo and bunq). Both of them verified my identity by having me take a photo of my passport, but then also recording a video of myself (with my face clearly visible) saying an exact phrase they specified, in one case “My name is $legalname and I'd like to open a Monzo account” and in the other a sequence of random numbers. That seems way more secure.

Tyr42 8y ago
More secure yes, but photoshop does exist.
- cwkoss 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk Face2Face would defeat this: anyone with enough images of the victim (and copy of ID) could impersonate them in this scheme.
TomMckenny 8y ago
The problem isn't who opened the account, it's whether they authorized a massive electronic transfer somewhere. The problem with voting is not and has never been physical people people voting fraudulently. It is the alteration of the votes on a central machine. (For example as an easily editable excel file on at least on occasion) The extra barriers to confirm the physical person standing at the booth is a redirection of a serious problem with Putin into a little more voter suppression.
- rfreytag 8y ago
  There is no way to be sure that voting is private and uncoerced with remote voting. Someone from a spouse to a precinct captain could be watching you vote on your phone under some threat of penalty.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    Nobody stops the interface from allowing the voters to vote as many times as they want before the deadline. Only the last vote counts. If the vote is tied to an ID then it’s definitely going to be unique.

Tyr42 8y ago

More secure yes, but photoshop does exist.

cwkoss 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk Face2Face would defeat this: anyone with enough images of the victim (and copy of ID) could impersonate them in this scheme.

TomMckenny 8y ago

The problem isn't who opened the account, it's whether they authorized a massive electronic transfer somewhere. The problem with voting is not and has never been physical people people voting fraudulently. It is the alteration of the votes on a central machine. (For example as an easily editable excel file on at least on occasion) The extra barriers to confirm the physical person standing at the booth is a redirection of a serious problem with Putin into a little more voter suppression.

rfreytag 8y ago
There is no way to be sure that voting is private and uncoerced with remote voting. Someone from a spouse to a precinct captain could be watching you vote on your phone under some threat of penalty.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  Nobody stops the interface from allowing the voters to vote as many times as they want before the deadline. Only the last vote counts. If the vote is tied to an ID then it’s definitely going to be unique.