Re: Calling all image detectives

[Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 04:35:51PM -0400, Richard M. Smith wrote:
> Is this a legit scan of Obama's birth certificate or a fake?

Yes, it looks legit.  I have some experience with birth certificates and can
attest that the best word to describe their creation, maintenance, etc. is
"haphazard".  That includes attempts by some states to modernize the
process, many of which have devolved into botched data migration projects.

The result is a crazy-quilt of differing forms, differing standards for
their use, differing practices (often by county), differing filing
methods, differing release policies, combined with sexism/racism,
the usual bureaucratic incompetence, and data loss incidents going back
a century. These are ongoing problems with absolutely no hope of
resolution in sight (for a variety of reasons) and in some cases, they're
actually getting worse commensurate with attempts at modernization, as
misplaced reliance on the supposed infallibility of computer systems
has the usual consequences.  The problem is further exacerbated by
widespread ignorance of all this at the federal level, leading to situations
where properly-issued birth certificates aren't recognized as valid
by entities such as the State Department, even when accompanied by
affadavits from the issuing state/county/locality.  And it's still
further aggravated by complicating factors such as personal name changes,
place name changes, adoptions, typographical errors/corrections,
and anglicization.

It will make your head hurt just to try to wrap your brain around this mess.

This is one of many reasons why various universal/voter ID proposals are
completely idiotic -- they're premised on the use of a primary data
source that's mostly garbage, and thus will invariably generate far more
problems than they pretend to solve.  Current case in point:

        97-Year-Old Arizona Woman Disenfranchised by Voter ID Law
        http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/11/97-year-old-arizona-woman-disenfranchised-by-voter-id-law

        "...But birth certificates weren't issued in 1910 in
        Shirley's birthplace of Clinton, KY..."

It's clear that the correct way to assess ANY birth certificate is
"circumstantial evidence", no better.  Those who consider it authoritative
are ignorant or delusional.  Of course, this means that any derivative
document which relies on it -- such as a driver's license or passport --
is also of dubious provenance.  Sadly, this hasn't stopped all kinds of
agencies from relying on these documents as if they're actually trustworthy.


Not that this birth certificate flap matters anyway, other than as a
demonstration of the increasing desperation of conservatives, who have
realized that their presumptive candidate for president is as stupid
as Bush and as senile as Reagan, and are starting to become genuinely
concerned about it.  As I've commented to one of my long-time friends
and political adversaries, plus points for the realization that dementia
is obviously setting in and that he wasn't very bright to begin with;
minus points for not figuring this out much sooner and managing to come up
with a nominee of at least minimally-acceptable functional intelligence.

---Rsk
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.