Talk:Identity document forgery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Phony Passport VFD

As a solution to the problem raised in the vfd of SuperDude115's "Phony Passport" (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Phony passport, I created identity document forgery (which fits neatly with the naming convention of having articles on various kinds of forgery and an identity document article), and added and cleaned up the relevant information from this page, and from the conterminously created (and suspiciously similar) Fake ID (which is now a redirect). -- BDAbramson thimk 14:59, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Moved this from the article:

Edit: Sept 28th, 2005.

While it's true that the forgery of identity documents in print has become easier, the Federal Government has become ever more ingenious in finding digital methods of entrapment and foiling forgers' methods. The PC has, as stated before, revolutionized the process by which forgers print up new, false documents. However, it is infinitely easier for the police, or any other arm of the law to verify the authenticity of these documents. To form a new identity for oneself, one must start from the very beginning - Social Security number, new forms of secondary Identification, etc. So yes, printing yourself up a new ID to get into the local bar and grill has gotten a bit easier, but most places in metropolitan areas are wary of the new techniques, and use scanners to verify the ID. So be ware.
--All of this info is based on research conducted for a screenplay. It is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. --
--b

Rayray 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not an advertising repository

Please desist putting commercial links on this site. Phrases like "market is dominated by" are clearly NPOV and commercial links are not useful to this encyclopedia.

-- Actually, market dominance is absolutely nothing to do with opinion, and in actuality, is fact based on relative sales figures. You are therefore, completely wrong and that statement is not based upon a biased POV, and is infact useful to this encylopedia. However, unless sales figures can be offered, the fact should be removed from the article (though for reasons unrelated to your incorrect interpretation of what market dominance is). - Ryan1711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.5.167 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist's Cookbook

This article reads like the Jolly Roger Cookbook -a largely inaccurate guide on how to fake an ID. I assume that writing an accurate guide to creating a fake ID would be frowned upon - so what does that leave as an article that couldn't be place in an article about IDs, as opposed to ID forgery? --Captain Idiot 06:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] id "review sites"

replaced "fake-id.co.uk" with non-biased "theidcentre.com"

They are almost the same thing! Both are commercial links and both should be disallowed.

[edit] Mr/ Mrs. Jibble

Who is making this decision? Is anything being sold on these sites? Are they not unbiased and informative, regardless of their ownership? Who is Jibble? Why does he care? What is his/her "bag" so to speak?

I was going to submit a better rewrite of this entire section with legal case history etc, but I can't really see the point if Jibble is just going to eat it.


[edit] Jibble & Jobble Come Out

Jibble is visiting the Jelly museum today but asked me to ask who is asking?

This is Jobble, Jibble's pardner in grime. Hi!

Jobble thinks that Jibble would not have a problem with any links as long as they are not to sites controlled by any commercial players in the UK novelty fake ID marketplace. Jobble thinks the DMOZ link is OK for instance.

Jobble thinks that Jibble might want an input in any rewrite but Jobble thinks that if the mystery Jibble-inquisitor wanted to submit a rewrite then he/she should just do it. This is Wiki so it is obviously open for subsequent editing.

[edit] Voodoo Economics

"players". "controlled". "marketplace". It's OK now. 86.x.x.x ascertains the true identity of J{i,o}bble.

[edit] Subsequent Edits

A whois check on dmoz identifies it as owned by the Mozilla Corporation. "Corporation" = "commercial", so we must now deeeeelte.

[edit] Rewrite needed

This article needs a complete rewrite, for the following reasons, among others:

  1. Encyclopedia articles are not how-to guides: they exist to inform, not instruct
  2. Excessive focus on just one sub-field of IDs
  3. What about the history of identity document forgery? (ancient credentials, World War II...)
  4. Mention biometrics, modern anti-forgery techniques, cryptoprocessors...
  5. Mention the trade-off between anti-forgery measures and subornation within the ID issuing process

-- The Anome 07:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed need rewriting. The problem this article has is that it was conceived as a way of generating links to specific fake ID sites. This worked, and it is now attractive to the whole t'internet fake ID scene due to it's decent position in Google and Wiki's high PR. I would support an informative article concentrating on history and ignoring the current 'fake ID' marketplace completely.

[edit] no

this is way too foccused on how fake ids are frowned upon in society... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.187.189 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)