Senators Demand FCC Answer For Fake Comments After Realizing Their Identities Were Stolen (gizmodo.com) 185
Two US senators -- one Republican, one Democrat who both had their identities stolen and then used to post fake public comments on net neutrality -- are calling on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to address how as many as two million fake comments were filed under stolen names. From a report: Senators Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, are among the estimated "two million Americans" whose identities were used to file comments to the FCC without their consent. "The federal rulemaking process is an essential part of our democracy and allows Americans the opportunity to express their opinions on how government agencies decide important regulatory issues," the pair of lawmakers wrote [PDF].
"As such, we are concerned about the aforementioned fraudulent activity. We need to prevent the deliberate misuse of Americans' personal information and ensure that the FCC is working to protect against current and future vulnerabilities in its system. We encourage the FCC to determine who facilitated these fake comments," the letter continues. "While we understand and agree with the need to protect individuals' privacy, we request that the FCC share with the public the total number of fake comments that were filed."
"As such, we are concerned about the aforementioned fraudulent activity. We need to prevent the deliberate misuse of Americans' personal information and ensure that the FCC is working to protect against current and future vulnerabilities in its system. We encourage the FCC to determine who facilitated these fake comments," the letter continues. "While we understand and agree with the need to protect individuals' privacy, we request that the FCC share with the public the total number of fake comments that were filed."
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
haha, this just reminds me of judge saying it was okay to rifle through people's trash without permission, then was humiliated when people rifled through his trash
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Were their Identities REALLY stolen? (Score:2)
Or did someone just put their name in the name field and click submit?
I don't know of any commenting system that accurately connects a real person to a comment. You don't think people call me Sycodon, do you?
Well, maybe they do. But that's besides the point.
What do these Senators suggest be done? Force people to register and show ID?
Re: (Score:2)
Or did someone just put their name in the name field and click submit?
This.
This comment system is not part of our democracy. There is no voting here; there is nothing binding; there is nothing validated. Anyone can comment using any name they want, because it is simply too difficult under such a system to validate any identity information. Even if you validate, too many people have the same name to ever try to limit comments to only one "Tom Smith" or "sycodon" (ahhh, I get it now. Yes, I know a couple of people I would call sycodon (homonym).)
What do these Senators suggest be done? Force people to register and show ID?
OH NO, gasp, forcing people to
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the FCC comment form requires Full name and complete address, yes?
Do you mean like this?
Sen Schumer
123 Any Road
Wachington DC 90210
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that Americans have this weird fucked up insecurity that leads them to name their children after themselves? So you'll get three generations of William Jennings McFuckwit living at the same address.
Re: (Score:2)
> Were their Identities REALLY stolen? Or did someone just put their name in the name field and click submit?
What do you think "identity stolen" means?
Someone is getting money in my name, filing taxes in my name, and generally pretending to be me when dealing with other institutions. Not simply putting my name in a blank space on a web form.
Identities "stolen" (Score:5, Funny)
The comment form probably looked like this:
Comment: _______________________________________
Please enter your name: _____
Please enter your address: _____
[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.
Re:Identities "stolen" (Score:5, Informative)
The comment form probably looked like this:
Comment: _______________________________________
Please enter your name: _____
Please enter your address: _____
[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.
Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here [fcc.gov].
They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here [fcc.gov].
I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.
Re: (Score:3)
"Your winnings, Monsieur Pai."
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. As I've said repeatedly around here, the comment mechanism isn't a ballot box and comments aren't votes. The comment mechanism is a way for the FCC to get thoughtful, relevant input from the public that it hadn't previously considered.
The "RETAIN!!1!!" and "REPEEL!!!!" ballot stuffing comments at issue didn't meet that criteria (and in fact made it even more difficult for the FCC to wade through and find anything actually meaningful).
Re: (Score:2)
"Your winnings, Monsieur Pai."
Follow the money.
Re: (Score:2)
He will take a job with some Internet provider for a hundred million after he leaves office, and this will be legal. We can predict following the money and can't do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The comment form probably looked like this:
Comment: _______________________________________
Please enter your name: _____
Please enter your address: _____
[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.
Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here [fcc.gov].
They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here [fcc.gov].
I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.
I don't think anyone is surprised that there were lots of fake comments. What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones. They were very obvious. Millions of identical comments (all opposing net neutrality) submitted by people with names in alphabetical order.
Of course, Ajit Pai really had no interest in getting public comments, much less in seriously considering them.
Re: (Score:2)
What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones.
What makes you think they didn't weed out the fake ones? The fact that they were available to view by the public on the web doesn't mean anyone in the FCC paid any attention to them. They were filed public comments and as such became part of the public record. It would be very dangerous precedent for the FCC to start deleting public comments, because the next one it deletes might be yours.
They were very obvious.
Yes, they were. Obvious enough that there is no reason to believe that the FCC gave them any more weight than they deser
Re: (Score:2)
The ones all supporting net neutrality were just as obvious, if you were looking, or if you didn't just accept them at face value because they agree with your opinion. Fakes were coming in on both sides. They were obvious to anyone who wanted to see them, and there is no reason to think that either side carried any weight in any decision making.
False equivalence.
Several organizations undertook the effort of filtering the duplicates and the fakes, and while there were some pro-neutrality fakes they were swamped by the anti-neutrality fakes. And once both were cleaned out, public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of NN, a fact that was strongly supported by every competent poll on the subject.
The FCC absolutely should have listened to public sentiment on this one, and under any other administration, would have.
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalence.
Nonsense. If you're upset because the FCC accepted fake anti-neutrality comments, then you better be just as upset because they accepted fake pro ones. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
And once both were cleaned out, public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of NN
You mean there were more comments. Using whatever name the person posting them entered. This wasn't a vote. It was a public comment period. The number of comments is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.
No one's shocked. The background is that you need a hook to make a proper actionable complaint about it. What this news story is about is that now there's a hook that looks more actionable than previously discussed hooks.
Re: (Score:2)
The background is that you need a hook to make a proper actionable complaint about it.
What's to complain about? This wasn't a mechanism for voting -- it was a mechanism for members of the public to provide perspectives to the FCC that they might not have already considered. Given that, the names attached to the comments are, frankly, irrelevant. The only reason there was a kerfuffle about this at all is the pervasive urban legend that this was somehow a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
What's to complain about? This wasn't a mechanism for voting -- it was a mechanism for members of the public to provide perspectives to the FCC that they might not have already considered. Given that, the names attached to the comments are, frankly, irrelevant. The only reason there was a kerfuffle about this at all is the pervasive urban legend that this was somehow a vote.
The other reason is it's a basic part of democracy that the FCC should pay attention to what people think and should base its decisions on evidence; it enshrined part of this duty in its own rule-making process which requires it to attend to every comment. If it then says "we can't pay attention to the comments because there were too many of them and they were junk" then some think this exempts it from its duty, and others think it has to find other ways to fulfill its duty.
Re: (Score:2)
The other reason is it's a basic part of democracy that the FCC should pay attention to what people think and should base its decisions on evidence;
The FCC public comment period is NOT A VOTE. It is NOT A DEMOCRACY. They read the comments and consider them for what they contain -- not who makes them. The public comments may or may not contain this "evidence" which you think is so critical. They are not, by themselves, evidence.
it enshrined part of this duty in its own rule-making process which requires it to attend to every comment.
You have some twisted definition of "attend to" if you think it means they have to answer each and every comment.
If it then says "we can't pay attention to the comments because there were too many of them and they were junk"
Saying that they found the 8 million junk comments unconvincing is "attend[ing] to" them with one sentence. They wi
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC public comment period is NOT A VOTE. It is NOT A DEMOCRACY. They read the comments and consider them for what they contain -- not who makes them. The public comments may or may not contain this "evidence" which you think is so critical. They are not, by themselves, evidence.
I fully agree with this.
You have some twisted definition of "attend to" if you think it means they have to answer each and every comment.
I firmly believe they shouldn't answer each and every comment, and they shouldn't be expected to.
If it then says "we can't pay attention to the comments because there were too many of them and they were junk"
Saying that they found the 8 million junk comments unconvincing is "attend[ing] to" them with one sentence. They will, of course, not pay attention to the junk comments, in the sense that they will not change the outcome. Why would you expect them to? They're junk comments.
I agree they shouldn't pay attention to the junk comments. I think they should pay attention to important evidence (some of which may be raised in the non-junk website comments, much of which will come from elsewhere).
I think however that they've knowingly chosen a submission-and-evidence-receiving mechanism (the comments website) which is doomed to be unworkable. The high volume of junk
Re: (Score:2)
I firmly believe they shouldn't answer each and every comment, and they shouldn't be expected to.
Then what is the problem? They didn't do what you don't expect them to anyway. What is the "actionable hook" that we're creating by all of this? What do you mean by "attend to" that they didn't do, if you don't think they need to respond to every comment -- you did say it was their duty to "attend to every comment". If they don't need to attend to every comment, then what duty did they fail to perform?
I think however that they've knowingly chosen a submission-and-evidence-receiving mechanism (the comments website) which is doomed to be unworkable.
Except it has worked very well for many many other NPRM and regulatory issues. It gathered a lot of cruft
Re: (Score:3)
What is this "actionable hook", and what "action"?
The hook this time is a senior enough politician who has an eye-catching angle and is willing to pick up the fight.
What should the FCC do? ... There is no action to be taken here. People used fake names to post comments on a government website. Is that a crime? Who committed the crime, the government or the people using the fake names?
(1) Yes it looks like a crime to post fake comments here - 18 USC sec 1001, a felony for anyone to willfully make false or fictitious statements any any matter under the Executive Branch's jurisdiction.
(2) Yes it looks like a violation of FCC's own rulemaking process to fail to address all comments it receives
(3) I believe it's a duty (but can't find evidence to back this up) of the FCC to gath
Re: (Score:2)
The hook this time is a senior enough politician who has an eye-catching angle and is willing to pick up the fight.
The fight for what? Provable identities on every public comment the FCC receives?
(1) Yes it looks like a crime to post fake comments here - 18 USC sec 1001, a felony for anyone to willfully make false or fictitious statements any any matter under the Executive Branch's jurisdiction.
Define "real name".
(2) Yes it looks like a violation of FCC's own rulemaking process to fail to address all comments it receives
"Address" does not mean "give equal consideration to" or even "pay any attention to". It certainly does not mean "give individual response to each comment".
(3) I believe it's a duty (but can't find evidence to back this up) of the FCC to gather opinions and evidence to support the decisions it takes.
That's what the public comment process is for. Evidence. Opinions are opinions. FCC regulation is not done via popular vote.
It boils down to this: I think it's an existing duty of the FCC to get feedback
They did. That's what the public comment process is for.
it's current mechanisms have been shown inadequate to the task
Are you seriously trying to claim that the comments it got were not "feedba
Re: (Score:2)
Define "real name".
Why should I define it? There's a statue in place. Our system of law comes with built-in mechanisms for determining what they mean.
I keep asking this, and nobody has yet provided an answer I've seen: exactly WHAT MECHANISM do you want the FCC to use to validate the names on submitted comments? Before you answer, that mechanism has to WORK. It has to allow anonymous comments.
That's a strange question for you to be asking me. I see only these three questions at this stage: (1) do we have reason to believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE to gather feedback in a way that's compatible with the FCC's existing duties and rules? (2) if we don't yet have a definitive answer as to whether it's impossible, then what is the right way to develop new mechanisms and/or test
Re: (Score:2)
Define "real name".
Why should I define it?
Because you want to prosecute people for lying to the government on an FCC public comment website. That means you must think there is some definition of "real name" that has to be used or else there is some crime committed. If you can't define it, then stop pretending it's a crime not to use one, Mr. ljw1004.
There's a statue in place.
Heh.
That's a strange question for you to be asking me.
You're the one who is unhappy that people are using fake names on an FCC website to make public comments where real names are irrelevant to start with. Who else would I ask about validating those n
Re: (Score:2)
[Why should I define "real name"?] Because you want to prosecute people for lying to the government on an FCC public comment website.
No I don't want to prosecute people for that. (You were the one who asked if anyone broke any laws by using fake names, and I answered your question, but I said it wasn't the right thing to ask). As I've made clear, I want the FCC to be better fulfilling its duties.
The question you are avoiding is how they would possibly VALIDATE every name entered into the comment forms.
Avoid the question? Sure I haven't answered the question because -- as I've said explicitly -- I don't think it's important. You apparently think it's important but you haven't connected the dots as to why.
(If you do want an answer? I'd design a
Re: (Score:2)
No I don't want to prosecute people for that.
Then why bother trying to claim there are so many laws that prohibit it? If there is no reason to prosecute, who cares what laws you think exist (but don't actually prove.)
Avoid the question? Sure I haven't answered the question because -- as I've said explicitly -- I don't think it's important.
It is the critical question if you are going to keep harping about how the system isn't fulfilling the FCC requirements for accepting comments. The system accepts comments, so that can't be the broken part. It must be the part about identifying the commenter. How do you do that?
I'd design a very different feedback mechanism for the FCC.
It's not a FEEDBACK SYSTEM. It's not a vote. It's not a refer
Re: (Score:2)
This whole thing is a Pandora's box for both sides. Insisting that the comments should be verified leaves you vulnerable to questions about why you're ok with a lower standard of confirmation for voting. Insisting that verification is unnecessary leaves you vulnerable
Re: (Score:2)
This whole thing is a Pandora's box for both sides. Insisting that the comments should be verified leaves you vulnerable to questions about why you're ok with a lower standard of confirmation for voting. Insisting that verification is unnecessary leaves you vulnerable to questions about why then you think the voter registration needs to be verified.
Only for the side that maintains these comments were somehow supposed to be votes. For those that recognize they weren't votes and were never represented to be votes, there's no inconsistency at all advocating for strong identity verification requirements for actual votes.
Re: (Score:2)
The official form is even funner.... There's No Checkbox, AND You can type Multiple names into the "Your Name" field, And in addition they provide interfaces to Bulk-upload comments.
There is not even a superficial attempt to verify the commentator's identities and prevent robotic submissions.
Re: (Score:2)
There is not even a superficial attempt to verify the commentator's identities and prevent robotic submissions.
That's because the identities are impossible to verify in the first place, and irrelevant in the second. It's the comment that is relevant. The only people who care who makes a good point or a significant comment are those who rely on ad hominem.
If you think the people reading the comments at the FCC couldn't figure out that a 3000-name comment saying "netwerk nutraltie rocks, dude!" or 10,000 comments saying "ditch that network neutrality crap, it's socialism!" were meaningless, you're a loon.
Common Knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Common Knowledge (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon, you know that's how it works here. It could affect most of the population and they'll do nothing.
It affects a few of THEM, and yeah.. now it's a Thing.
Re:Common Knowledge (Score:4)
Just to be clear. This doesn't affect them. It's not like their credit card was stolen or their SSN plastered on the side of a billboard. If someone says "it shows here that you were AGAINST net neutrality in this FCC comment", they could say "I didn't write that". The end.
So if they are pursuing this, they are using their own "identity theft" as a means of forcing the issue into the light again so they can discuss the broader effect of millions of fake comments.
Re: (Score:2)
So if they are pursuing this, they are using their own "identity theft" as a means of forcing the issue into the light again so they can discuss the broader effect of millions of fake comments.
And what is the "broader effect" of millions of fake comments? Exactly what difference did they make in anything?
The only result is a tempest in a teapot over something that anyone who knew the process could have, and probably did, predict. Gee, hot-button issue combined with public record and easy comment submission resulted in floods of fake comments that everyone could examine for themselves. I'm shocked. It's never happened before. Ever. In the history of the world.
By using the term "identity theft"
Re: (Score:2)
An estimated 2 million American's stolen identities to post fake comments on an incredibly important issue doesn't matter -- until it's just 2 American Senators? What's wrong with this picture?
The idea that is it "identity theft" if someone who has the same name as you do uses it to post a public comment to the FCC, and that the name is relevant to begin with.
Also, the idea that there were 2 million comments means anything. It wasn't a vote. It wasn't a referendum.
Also, the idea that comments made in a public filing should be deleted. That's a really big thing wrong with this picture.
Re: Common Knowledge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a very rare last name,
And there is no law preventing anyone else from choosing to use that name for themselves, EXCEPT if they are doing it for the specific purpose of committing fraud in the legal sense. E.g., if I use your name to try to get a credit card expecting you to get the bill, that's legal fraud. If I use your name to subscribe to the local newspaper blog without any reference to you at all, that is not fraud in the legal sense.
Yet somehow a comment was left with her name and her address supporting net neutrality repeal,
So what is the FCC supposed to do to prevent that from happening? Be angry at someone who l
How much identity was stolen? (Score:2)
I've not filed a comment on the FCC website, nor read any. What is required in order to comment there? Just a name? Driver license number? Social Security number? How much of "Americans' personal information" was stolen and used?
Re: (Score:2)
Generally: the FCC asks for Name, City, State, Address, and E-mail address, and verifies None of them to post a comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much of "Americans' personal information" was stolen and used?
Clearly not much, given that comments were filed by George Washington [fcc.gov], Tinkerbell Snowflakes [fcc.gov], and Big Bird [fcc.gov], among many others.
Got it (Score:2)
One of the rulers gets their identity stolen and it's suddenly a big deal.
Too bad Trump is turbocharging the swamp, instead of draining it like he promised.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he drained it. There wasn't any room for new swamp.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he ever even define the swamp? It's easy to promise to 'drain the swamp' when you never identify anyone specific as part of it. Your supporters naturally assume that anyone with policies they oppose must be part of this swamp.
Oh, so NOW they're concerned. (Score:3)
Ajit Pai should be removed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, was that the text from one of the bulk-submitted comments?
How many fakes were posted using Ajit Pai's name? (Score:2)
Sometimes reading TFA pays off (Score:5, Informative)
Every now and then you get a nice little quote when you read TFA. This was my favorite from this one:
The FCC comment process is, in other words, a complete shitshow
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC comment process is, in other words, a complete shitshow
When vandals destroy something you like, do you blame the people who provided the nice thing for not being proactive enough to stop determined, technically proficient vandals, or do you blame the vandals?
The FCC public comment process, for the most part, works well, and provides the public a way to comment on proposed regulatory actions that impact it. I have participated before, and I have no reason to believe that the FCC pays significant attention to spammed or fake comments.
In THIS case, a computer-k
Re: (Score:2)
When vandals destroy something you like, do you blame the people who provided the nice thing for not being proactive enough to stop determined, technically proficient vandals, or do you blame the vandals?
Well, first, you hardly had to be technically proficient to spam the FCC comments form. It was pretty much built to make spamming it as easy as possible. Second, if the nice thing were a public comment box for a controversial issue, yes, I would entirely blame the people who put it up for thinking it would in any way be useful or indicative of public opinion. For all that people rail about misuse of tax funds for frivolous uses in the US, somehow this doesn't qualify?
Please tell me, sir, how you propose that the FCC validate the identity of every commenter, and why anonymous comments should never be allowed in response to a government request for comments.
If the comments are meant to be anony
Re: (Score:2)
Well, first, you hardly had to be technically proficient to spam the FCC comments form.
I didn't say you had to be. But you can expect that a topic dealing with the Internet will attract comments from a higher percentage of people who know how to do it in large volumes, and it is a hot-button topic for many of them. If you didn't expect fake comments, you weren't paying attention.
It was pretty much built to make spamming it as easy as possible.
It was built to make entering comments by the public easy. And it was built with the full knowledge that it is and was impossible to validate identity information. Not every regulatory action the FCC proposes is lim
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see what the point of the comments process was: The results were sure to be so full of fake submissions as to be completely meaningless, and it's pretty clear the FCC knew this from the start and the whole process was just a charade.
I just assumed that the public comment process was required by law - some law that pre-dated the internet, when commenting actually meant going to the trouble of writing in a letter.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see what the point of the comments process was: The results were sure to be so full of fake submissions as to be completely meaningless, and it's pretty clear the FCC knew this from the start and the whole process was just a charade.
Anyone who knows the process knew it would be filled with fake comments. From both sides. It was obvious. The only people who are shocked, shocked I say, are ignorant people who still don't understand what the public comment process is intended for, or that it is required, or that there are laws called "paperwork reduction acts" that try to move everything that can be to online systems.
The FCC has been very good about moving things online, which makes things a LOT easier for everyone. For example, when you
Ajit Pai is the wrong guy. They should ask... (Score:2)
While we understand ... (Score:3)
If it's only 2 million fake comments (Score:2)
Corruption is the norm. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
43 States require nothing more that a bank statement or student ID to register to vote. They show proof of residency, but not proof of citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that true? I'm reaching way back in my history classes, but I thought you had to be a citizen to vote... it's not a human right, it's a civil right.
Re: (Score:2)
"I think the question is a good indicator of whether someone is an open borders "let everyone in" advocate, whether publicly or not."
I disagree.
Voting is a constitutional right. You shouldn't need to prove anything to anyone before exercising it.
The state should have to prove you aren't a citizen, rather than you proving that you are. The burden should be on the state to prosecute fraudulent voting and fraudulent voters, and convict in the courts.
It should not on the citizens to establish to the states arb
Re: Mild shock (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, getting at the heart of the question, was the Constitution written for the United states, or the world? Does our constitution guarantee these rights for everyone regardless of their nationality? I guess what I'm asking is if the constitution is what provides the right, and the constitution doesn't cover all people, then at some level it seems to make sense to verify the potential voter is in fact covered by the constitution... otherwise you're the biggest bank in town leaving your vault wide open while loudly proclaiming "please don't come in to this open vault and take anything that isn't yours."
My admittedly not very educated opinion, is that the effort required to _effectively_ vote (i.e. researching the candidates and issues prior to casting your vote) requires so much more effort than registering to vote, that it doesn't seem a very high barrier to voting to ask someone to be registered, or else vote provisionally. I guess what I'm saying is that if it is your civic duty to vote, then is it not also your duty to educate yourself on the issues on which you cast your vote? Otherwise, what would be the point of voting? It seems to me like the democratic process elevates itself above mob rule by this very mechanism, namely, being educated on the issues rather than voting based on what your chatty neighbor over the fence told you?
I agree with you that voting is not like driving, and surely to deny anyone the right to legally vote is a grievous issue. However I also argue that voting does not start when you walk up to the voting machine.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with registered voting per se. The problem is in what may be required to register. Driver's license? Why would you have that if you don't drive? Unexpired ID? Wait, why would an ID expire?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mild shock (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't about due process (Due Process being a right described in the Constitution's fifth and fourteenth amendments in relation to being deprived of life, liberty, or property when accused of a crime), or evidence of wrong doing. It is about access control. Perhaps we should not require passwords on logon to operating systems unless we have evidence that people have been logging on fraudulently. Perhaps we should not require proof of ID to cash checks until we have evidence that people are cashing checks fraudulently. Perhaps we should not require ID or a permit to carry a firearm (another constitutional right). If the voting system was generally only accessible to citizens, then perhaps we wouldn't need such access control. But it is easily accessible to non-citizens, based on the number of non-citizens resident in the United States. If some states are registering to vote anyone who gets a driver's license, without guaranteeing citizenship first, then even being registered to vote doesn't guarantee citizenship. Try using a Voter Registration card to prove you are a citizen the next time you do business with the federal government...
If, in fact, only citizen's are supposed to be voting, then it is not depriving anyone of a right to make sure that they ARE a citizen before allowing them to vote, so long as the process of validating their citizenship isn't itself used to disenfranchise someone. And there is the rub, isn't it?
Re: Mild shock (Score:2)
You may not realize this but every one of your examples did start out that way. Way back, people just logged in with a userID.
It wasn't until much later that not only the potential but actual usage of logging in as others was noticed that it started to be locked down. Even then, remember the time that passwords were extremely simple? My hotmail account password was only 5 characters long! Again time, observation, and results resulted in what we see today. And now we debate how useless passwords are.
Same
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mild shock (Score:2)
Balances being the key word here. We shouldn't throw dollars chasing pennies just because we "feel" something maybe wrong.
Just look at all the other things in our nation from taxes, driving, infrastructure security, hunting/fishing permits, customs checks, etc. Note we don't go over board finding all incorrect tax filings, have a national standard for licenses but allow interstate driving, have copper stealing prevention measures, or check every bag that leaves a park/enters port, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If, in fact, only citizen's are supposed to be voting, then it is not depriving anyone of a right to make sure that they ARE a citizen before allowing them to vote, so long as the process of validating their citizenship isn't itself used to disenfranchise someone. And there is the rub, isn't it?
And there's the rub. My country has required ID to vote for the longest time, it was minimal ID to prove residency, not citizenship and there was the option of signing an affidavit if you had no ID.
Right wing government gets power and gets advice from the Republicans, they make the ID requirements way more onerous, which disenfranchised my son who only had a birth certificate, CARE (medical) card and student ID. Given more time he could have paid the $75 for ID after traveling close to a hundred mile round
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I provided my own narrative, and told a story. I'm not sure what else you think I *could* do, given that I didn't wiretap my conversation.
I think you missed my point, but by missing it, perhaps m
Re: (Score:2)
One of the founding principles of America is no taxes without representation. This points to anyone who pays taxes in America being able to vote. Federal taxes for Federal elections, particular State taxes for particular States etc.
Now it can be argued about how much taxes, I don't think I should be allowed to vote based on the couple of dollars of American sales tax I payed but for someone who is resident (perhaps with a few years requirement) and paying income tax and/or property tax, why shouldn't they b
Re: (Score:2)
I wanted to have a discussion. I asked a question of someone because I was genuinely interested in the answer (i.e., whether or not they believed someone needed to be a citizen to vote in a federal election). I got an answer that had relatively little to d
Re: (Score:3)
In other news: there's no reason to ask for ID when voting in federal elections.
There really isn't, you should have had your identity determined when you registered to vote.
Or, following the lead of countries with much higher voter turnout, get rid of the requirement to register to vote, and auto-register all citizens. Voter registration is just a bottleneck designed to make it harder for the destitute to vote.
Re: (Score:3)
get rid of the requirement to register to vote, and auto-register all citizens.
Thus creating a much larger pool of people who have no interest in the process and have no intention of voting, but are registered to do so. In other words, everyone because a target for identity theft by people who cast multiple votes.
Voter registration is just a bottleneck designed to make it harder for the destitute to vote.
Registering to vote costs nothing, so your asinine excuse is just that. Registration is how you validate that each person who votes is authorized to do so. Unless your goal is to allow people who have no right to vote access to the polls, then you have no reason not to suppor
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, then how would you know the person voting is the person who registered?
Because the person who is registered will either have voted already, or will complain about being denied because their name was crossed out already.
Re: (Score:2)
If they vote at all. If they don't, nobody notices.
Re: (Score:2)
You just pointed out why voter impersonation doesn't work, you dingbat. You have to know with very high accuracy who isn't going to vote, or else there will be evidence to track you down.
That's why virtually all known incidents of voter impersonation were family members voting for other family members.
Meatbag fraud is the least effective fraud, but double-district voting is the most common method, and voter ID does nothing to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
You just pointed out why voter impersonation doesn't work, you dingbat.
Name calling, check.
You have to know with very high accuracy who isn't going to vote, or else there will be evidence to track you down.
Someone who is dead is unlikely to vote. Someone who is on vacation is unlikely to vote. Someone who you know isn't going to bother to vote is unlikely to vote.
But, since you are giving SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME, there is little evidence to "track you down".
Meatbag fraud is the least effective fraud,
Given that nobody ever bothers to ask anyone after an election if they did actually vote, so there will be little chance of detecting votes cast under someone else's name, it is highly effective. It is most effective at the local level, o
Re: (Score:2)
Let me put it this way. When you assess different methods of trying to sway the votes in an election, and compare the costs, risks, and benefits, any kind of fraud that involves getting meatbags into polling places is going to be dead last, including legitimate c
Re: (Score:3)
Which takes less effort, rigging the voting machines or physically impersonating voters?
Which has greater risk, rigging the voting machines, which have no real audit trail, or physically impersonating voters, where the likelihood of getting cause increases drastically with every single vote?
Which has greater reward, rigging the voting machines, allowing you to control all of the votes, or paying someone at least minimum wage to vote and travel?
If meatbag impersonation is anywhere near the top of your li
Re: (Score:2)
Which takes less effort,
We're not talking about what takes less effort, we're talking about what works. And has been used for generations.
If meatbag impersonation is anywhere near the top of your list of electoral concerns,
I got it. You think that only the very tip top of any list of concerns should be dealt with. Ignore everything but what you think is the easiest.
Some of us can multi-task. It's a handy talent. You should google it.
Re: (Score:2)
And it DOES NOT WORK. That's the point, and if you had bothered to respond to ALL of my questions, you'd have to acknowledge that. From a business perspective, this form of fraud would be a less for more position, which is a niche that guarantees failure.
No, it hasn't. The meatbag trick that's been used in modern election is voting in multiple jurisdictions, and even that is pretty rare, be
Re: (Score:2)
And it DOES NOT WORK.
That explains why it has been used for decades in some places. It doesn't work, so they keep doing it. Hmmm.
You can deny it all day, but that doesn't change anything.
This type of fraud is so rare that for all practical purposes,
Except where it has been used, it isn't used. Check. If it makes you feel more secure to deny it, ok.
This is an attempt to disenfranchise voters under the guise of election integrity.
Yeah, keeping dead people from voting is such a disenfranchisement. Really. The dead have rights, too!
Re: (Score:3)
You're damn fucking right I'm nasty. Politics is inherently on a scale beyond what our brains can intuitively understand. Civility has no place in politics, otherwise manipulative cunts like you hide behind someone saying mean words.
As for why you can't pull off voter impersonation, it's for the same reason that cleaning a football stadium with a toothbrush is ineffective. It's mathematically absurd. Plus, the risk of getting caught grows exponentially with every single vote cast. Any other method of
Re: (Score:2)
This is slashdot, so we know better. If you seriously think that the best attack vector by far isn't the voting machines, fucking kill yourself.
That escalated quickly...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the UN standards for free and fair elections requires positively identifying voters:
So you're advocating a voting system that doesn't meet UN standards?
You're jumping to conclusions here. Positively identifying voters isn't the only way of ensuring that. Different countries use different measures - all from indelible ink to mark voters with, voter cards that must be handed over to be allowed to enter the booth, and all the way up to centralized computer systems that register that a certain hash has already voted that day.
Re: (Score:2)
Different countries use different measures - all from indelible ink to mark voters with,
Putting ink on someone's finger doesn't identify them, it only shows that they might have voted. You want to stop your spouse from voting in tomorrow's election? Dip his finger in ink while he's sleeping. Bingo, he VOTED!
and all the way up to centralized computer systems that register that a certain hash has already voted that day.
And that "by computer" special process stops one person from voting as five different people exactly how?
Re: (Score:2)
You want to stop your spouse from voting in tomorrow's election? Dip his finger in ink while he's sleeping. Bingo, he VOTED!
But you better know the right color of ink and that they're not going to mark the back of your hand this time. And be careful, divorce is expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually a lot about our government processes that aren't very secure at all. Getting an ID like a drivers license actually issued to you by the state, under another persons name, is really just a matter of filing the right paperwork. First you file a request for a new copy of the birth certificate, depending on where you get it from they might want a photo copy of a state ID card, which anyone can fake using ms paint. Similarly fake a DD-214, and a W2 with accompanying previous year tax return pap
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've worked the polls for two elections here in South Carolina. Sad thing is that even though I'm nearly forty, I think I was less than half of the age of any of the other volunteers. I wish more young people would decide to be involved with this important task. We can't ask for ID or a voter registration card. We can only ask for a name that we then match with a voting record in a fanfold printout then ask if that is the correct address. There's a lot of church buses that drop off a load of African Am
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should film voters going in and follow tbe bus to the second place and film there too. Then release the film edited for only the duplicate voters.