> My point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's rather sidetracking the thread but that premise can lead to all kinds of issues. We don't know that the person living next door isn't plotting a terrorist attack so therefor we'll monitor his (and everyone else's) private data communications just in case.
In this particular case, as with so many others, I think it comes down to risk vs. reward and damage. If a lot of money is spent to prevent a small amount of fraud and in the same instance a lot of people are disenfranchised then the whole system is questionable. It's hard to discuss this without reliable statistics but I would start off by asking whether *anyone* thinks enough organised voter fraud is happening in the UK to actually change the outcome of elections?
-- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [email protected] or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
