If the vote you rocked, your personal info can be grokked

Your voter data could be used against you. A foreign intelligence service that wished to identify the family members of deployed military personnel could do so by cross-referencing public voter record data and social media posts. An employer who only wanted to hire employees with a specific political affiliation could do so by …

[Korev]

Which country?

Yet another article on here that's about the USA, but doesn't make it clear...

[david 12]

Re: Which country?

The article clearly makes it clear that the examples chosen are from the United States, and that variable amounts of information are available from different areas.

However, the headline, and the content of the article, apply equally to the UK (where companies can buy a copy of the Open Register, historical data is available online from a number of sources, and https://www.192.com/people/electoral-roll/ has everything from 2022-2026.) as well as to individual counties in the USA,

[druck]

Re: Which country?

You have to get 6 paragraphs in before it mentions Texas.

"US" should appear in the headline, subhead or, at the very least, the first paragraph.

[Gary Stewart]

Re: Which country?

I guess that means you should always read the article before commenting. There are numerous examples that make in obvious where this article is talking about.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Which country?

The article makes it pretty clear that this is a fundamental flaw with putting personal information online, especially in an era where cross-source correlation is getting easier and easier. Hardly a US-only thing.

Those of us old enough to remember the nuisances known as phone books can recall when names, home addresses, and telephone numbers were published by telcos unless the customer paid extra for the privacy option.

At least with phone books, customers had a clear idea how privacy worked and what the options were. I doubt most voters know that registration spills their personal information all over the Internet. If voter rolls are to remain open, then registration should probably come with a bold faced privacy warning so each individual can choose whether it's worth it or not.

Hell, I wonder how many Reg readers knew that voter registration leaks personal information.

[Dan 55]

Re: Which country?

The only fields on the UK electoral roll are names, current address, previous addresses, and co-residents, the US roll has far more information on theirs. People in the UK who are bothered about their privacy can already opt out of the open roll.

Political donations below £500 and £11,180/yr are anonymous.

So in the UK you preserve your anonymity if you stay off the open roll and stick to small donations.

[doublelayer]

Re: Which country?

But, since they were using two specific areas and demonstrating a problem that applies to everywhere which has public information about voting data, which includes multiple countries including the UK, it wasn't actually only about Texas. Therefore, the fact that you had to read more than you wanted to to see the word Texas is irrelevant.

Theoretically, if you only consider the examples from the research in this article, the only places where you're vulnerable are the states of Texas and North Carolina in the USA. In fact, the entire point of the research is that you're vulnerable to some extent nearly everywhere, including outside the USA, and in order to figure out how much, you need to determine how much data is available to the public and how much effort the people collecting it need to go to to get it. If you've taken the lesson that this doesn't apply to you as a nonresident of the USA, you've got it very wrong, as, just like residents of 48 of their 50 states would after reading this, you have some looking up to do to determine how closely these warnings apply to your voting data.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Which country?

Here in the UK the results are declared by a returning officer, I don't know what other information is available publicly, apart from the electoral roll, which registered voters can decide to have their details omitted from the published version. We get told the number of votes case for each candidate and the number of spoilt ballots.

Of course each voter gets a card with their Electoral Register number in it, which is recorded with the number of the ballot paper you receive when you go to vote. The authorities can therefore determine how each person voted, if they really want to. This is to enable the investigation of illegal acts, such as selling your vote, or other shenanigans, I think.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Which country?

I don't know what other information is available publicly, apart from the electoral roll, which registered voters can decide to have their details omitted from the published version.

Details from the unpublished closed register in the UK can be leaked by those who have access to it - and it frequently is.

I know this because I am on the closed register under an alias which has only been used there. I frequently get marketing mailshots using that alias which could not have come from anywhere else. In addition their references include details which update as the register does which means leaking is ongoing and a systemic problem.

There are obstacles in the way of obtaining closed register details but it's easy enough to get a full copy - You can pay a political party or candidate to give you theirs, or guess which waste bin to look in, when an election is over. Some candidates may only be standing to get that closed register so they can profit from selling it.

[Martin an gof]

Re: Which country?

The authorities can therefore determine how each person voted, if they really want to.

But only by finding your specific paper ballot by ID. Not impossible, not terribly difficult if they know your ward, but not something that can be done without physical access to the ballot papers. This information is not automatically collected and made available in a public database.

M.

[Barry Patterson]

Have you seen https://www.ohioresidentdatabase.com/ ?

No secrets in Ohio.

[Anonymous Coward]

Analyzing for control

This is why the Trump Administration is trying to get its hands on voter rolls from the states (many Republican controlled states already have, Democrat controlled states are suing to prevent it). Why red states are pushing back on Trump administration’s request for voter data.

There is a theory that Trump was so upset about losing the 2020 elections because it should not have happened according to their plans. They couldn't control the postal vote because the Covid Pandemic had increased mail in voting whereas they can influence machine voting. That would be why they want to limit postal votes and now control Dominion Voting Systems that makes voting machines. One Republican Now Controls a Huge Chunk of US Election Infrastructure

[SundogUK]

Re: Analyzing for control

But when a Democrat owned Dominion it wasn't a problem? Hypocrite.

[An_Old_Dog]

Speedbumps

and prohibiting commercial resale of these records

I expect such potential prohibitions will have no useful effect.

[Gary Stewart]

Not to worry

Texas has voluntarily turned over its unredacted voter roles to the Department of Justice (well what passes for justice in this regime) after it was asked for them. In other states that the DOJ demanded and then sued to get their voter roles most of them, even several Republican states, sued the DOJ because it is constitutionally none of their business. The entire "voter fraud" and stolen elections BS was and is an obvious ploy by Trump and his gaggle of babbling idiots to get what he doesn't deserve or what he fairly and legally lost ("We have lots of theory's but no actual evidence to enter your Honor", Rudy Giuliani in one of the 60+ trials that Trump and his henchmen lost because of just that after the 2020 election). The current blitzkrieg of outright lies and DOJ's blatantly illegal and unconstitutional maneuverings is an attempt to keep the mid-terms from becoming a republican (sic) bloodbath, electorally speaking of course lest the DOJ indict me for threatening the entire MAGA crowd with bodily harm.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Not to worry

The current blitzkrieg of outright lies and DOJ's blatantly illegal and unconstitutional maneuverings is an attempt to keep the mid-terms from becoming a republican (sic) bloodbath, electorally speaking of course lest the DOJ indict me for threatening the entire MAGA crowd with bodily harm.

There is a blitzkrieg of lies, but mostly from people like yourself who sees conspiracy theories everywhere. DoJ wants the rolls to investigate election integrity and how accurate electoral rolls are. Democracy 101 means that only qualified votes should count.

"We have lots of theory's but no actual evidence to enter your Honor",

Well, if the Demorats are refusing to co-operate with investigations and hand over evidence, one could wonder what they're trying to hide. Data hygiene should benefit both parties and ensure free & fair outcomes, but one side doesn't seem interested in fairness. Maybe the DoJ isn't the right entity to investigate, and the US should create a neutral (don't laugh) version of the UK's Election Commission to oversee things.. Which is very much constitutionally the goverment's business given state voter rolls are used to elect Presidents..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not to worry

Voter fraud is a virtually nonexistent "problem."

Trump's goons are manufacturing scary headlines to mislead people who aren't looking at the numbers for how rarely it happens.

Integrity is a worthwhile goal, but that is better served through better administration and data security procedures.

The public discourse on voter fraud is nothing but a smokescreen to justify changes which make it much harder to cast a ballot. When it's harder to vote, the poor and the young vote at significantly lower rates. When excessive documentation is required, people who don't have a passport or access to their birth certificate give up. When strict name matching is used, far more women than men find themselves disenfranchised by paperwork due to post-marriage name changes.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Not to worry

Trump's goons are manufacturing scary headlines to mislead people who aren't looking at the numbers for how rarely it happens.

Well, I'd respond with t'other partie's goons, but the Demorats are still in headless chicken mode and don't seem to have settled on a candidate for the next election. Plus it's easier to mislead people by refusing to allow anyone to actually look at the numbers. Again you may wonder why this would be.

Integrity is a worthwhile goal, but that is better served through better administration and data security procedures.

Kinda the point. How many dead people are in current election rolls? How many people that aren't actually entitled to vote? Investigations might show a clean bill of health and election integrity is assured. Not investigating, or obstructing investigations makes one wonder why. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear and all that.

The public discourse on voter fraud is nothing but a smokescreen to justify changes which make it much harder to cast a ballot. When it's harder to vote, the poor and the young vote at significantly lower rates. When excessive documentation is required, people who don't have a passport or access to their birth certificate give up.

Uhuh.. The public discourse on that is that the poor, uneducated are too stupid to vote. But then that's long been a Demorat tactic to keep people disenfranchised. But your response is rather telling. Many Americans don't have passports, and I don't think any VoterID proposal requires a passport to vote. What the US does have are state ID cards and driving licences, and it can be very difficult to access services in the US without one. Sanctuary cities have, of course complicated matters by handing those out to illegal immigrants, who need ID but don't have any entitlement to vote.. Which is back to ensuring data hygiene and election integrity, which the Demorats don't seem to want.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not to worry

> "Plus it's easier to mislead people by refusing to allow anyone to actually look at the numbers."

MAGA Republicans did release their data, which found voter fraud to be a vanishingly small fraction of total votes cast. Much of what gets labeled as "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud, in which someone paid to register voters makes up fictitious names to look more productive. The phantom voters never cast ballots and the apps themselves are usually disqualified before even being added based on current data hygiene procedures.

> "How many dead people are in current election rolls?"

Too many. But those registrations aren't being used to cast ballots. It's easy to show that a ballot was cast after a voter died. The investigations have been tried. There's no headline number because it's minuscule.

> "How many people that aren't actually entitled to vote?"

They aren't voting in any appreciable number. People get added to the rolls for all sorts of things, like clicking next when renewing their driver's license but not ticking the opt-out box.

It's not rational for felons or illegal immigrants to take that risk. They know it. The chance of their vote making a difference is practically zero. Why risk going back to prison or being deported over it?

> "The public discourse on that is that the poor, uneducated are too stupid to vote. But then that's long been a Demorat tactic to keep people disenfranchised."

Low-information voters are a huge net benefit to MAGA Republicans. If only educated people vote, Trump loses bigly. What these restrictions are about is disenfranchising the poor and the young, which are Democratic blocs.

> "I don't think any VoterID proposal requires a passport to vote"

Wrong. Proof of citizenship requires a passport or birth certificate. MAGA Republicans have clear evidence that disenfranchises far more Democratic voters than Republican voters. Only half of Americans have a passport. 1 in 5 Americans don't have their birth certificate anymore. Birth certificates frequently list a non-current last name.

> "What the US does have are state ID cards and driving licences, and it can be very difficult to access services in the US without one."

Many Americans don't have an unexpired state-issued photo ID which meets all the requirements, one of which is that it list a voter's current name. That's a much bigger problem for women than men. Do you actually expect people to carry their marriage license or divorce paperwork to the polls?

> "Sanctuary cities have, of course complicated matters by handing those out to illegal immigrants, who need ID but don't have any entitlement to vote"

Illegal immigrants don't try to vote and generally avoid interacting with the government whenever possible. Not worth risking deportation.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Not to worry

MAGA Republicans did release their data, which found voter fraud to be a vanishingly small fraction of total votes cast. Much of what gets labeled as "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud,

citation needed. Where's the Demorat's data? Why are they refusing to co-operate with investigations? Again it's a simple election integrity issue and that elections should be fair, and seen to be fair. Investigate, show that they were fair. Don't investigate and you get Al Gore with his 'hanging chads', or Clinton, who's still ranting about how the Russians cost her her chance at the throne. But if you look at the Heritage report I cited, you'll see a lot of the frauds were falsifying absentee ballots. That report goes into more elections than just 2020, and with a variety of risks. So one from Alabama was a woman using her sisters ballot to vote, and most votes aren't close enough for a single vote to make a difference.

Too many. But those registrations aren't being used to cast ballots. It's easy to show that a ballot was cast after a voter died. The investigations have been tried. There's no headline number because it's minuscule.

citation needed How many? How do you know the number of dead voters? How do you know the 'investigations have been tried' when cities, or states either refuse to co-operate or refuse to investigate entirely? Trust me bro isn't exactly a good way to ensure election integrity.

They aren't voting in any appreciable number.

How do you know this?

It's not rational for felons or illegal immigrants to take that risk.

They're not taking the risk. That's taken by anyone who does ballot harvesting or stuffing. So cases where 'community helpers' have collected ballot papers & filled them in. Or sometimes just stolen them, which is only discovered if/when legitimate voters turn up to vote and get told they've already voted..

If only educated people vote, Trump loses bigly. What these restrictions are about is disenfranchising the poor and the young, which are Democratic blocs.

Again you make my point about the Demorat's casual discrimination. Not the way the Demorats use and abuse the system. So as an example, sanctuary cities again and potential abuses of the congressional apportionment system. So US does a regular census, then the 435 seats are carved up based on population.. Not voters. So places like California or NYC that have been depopulating due to their mismanagement can stack the decks and keep their congresscritters, rather than losing them to places like Texas or Florida.

But it also doesn't explain why you think poor, uneducated don't have a state photo ID..

Wrong. Proof of citizenship requires a passport or birth certificate.

Wrong. That's proof of citizenship, not proof of ID. Ok, so that's a lil simplified, ie to get a Cali state ID, you need-

Identity Document: (Original/Certified copy) e.g., US Passport, birth certificate, or lawful permanent resident card.Social Security Number: Provide your Social Security Number (card, W2, or paystub).Residency Documentation: Two proofs of California residency (e.g., utility bill, bank statement, or lease agreement).

Then pop to your friendly DMV, pay up and get an ID.. Or if you've been given say, a Minnesota ID card, use that and say you've moved. But again it's one of those things where although ID isn't mandatory in the US, it can make life a lot more complicated, if you're asked to present it. Like, say, a traffic stop where failure to identify might just mean being detained until your identity can be confirmed. But also where the current system is kinda broken with ID and voting entitlement being de-coupled.

That's a much bigger problem for women than men. Do you actually expect people to carry their marriage license or divorce paperwork to the polls?

Why would they need to? Cali again-

In California, you are legally required to notify the DMV of a change of address for your driver's license or ID card within 10 days of moving. Failure to do so is a violation of CA Vehicle Code 14600(a), which can result in fines and, in some cases, a misdemeanor charge if it prevents you from receiving a notice to appear in court.

And most states have similar requirements to keep ID & driving licences up to date with address or name changes. Plus some other oddities, like I saw a traffic stop with a trans person that had two driving licences, one with their male name and one with their female.. And having 2 driving licences can be illegal.

Illegal immigrants don't try to vote and generally avoid interacting with the government whenever possible.

So what you seem to be saying is that illegal immigrants are the least likely to have ID? So then if they don't, they wouldn't be able to vote.. Or they're just ripe for exploitation..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not to worry

> "citation needed. Where's the Demorat's data? Why are they refusing to co-operate with investigations?"

Because the investigators are trafficking in conspiracy theories using the "just asking questions" technique to try and discredit opponents who can't disprove the negative. They also have no evidence that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

> "Again it's a simple election integrity issue and that elections should be fair, and seen to be fair."

Elections aren't seen as fair when intentionally-excessive red tape causes eligible voters to give up on trying to cast a ballot. Some quick math suggests that tens of thousands of voters are discouraged for each documented instance of voter fraud or voter registration fraud.

> "But if you look at the Heritage report I cited, you'll see a lot of the frauds were falsifying absentee ballots."

Yes, and the offenders are disproportionately campaign staff engaging in paid ballot trafficking. Look at the cases closer. When dozens of absentee ballots are sent to one address, and nobody investigates, that's a back office problem with election administrators, not a justification for smothering voters in red tape. When candidates who live outside their district vote absentee, that's the fault of election administrators for not verifying a candidate's eligibility. It's still a tiny fraction of votes cast.

> "That report goes into more elections than just 2020, and with a variety of risks."

Yeah, the Heritage database goes all the way back to 1982.

> "citation needed How many? How do you know the number of dead voters? How do you know the 'investigations have been tried' when cities, or states either refuse to co-operate or refuse to investigate entirely? Trust me bro isn't exactly a good way to ensure election integrity."

Identifying ballots cast by dead voters is the easiest form of investigation. Death records are public. Voter rolls are public. Election-level participation data is public. Investigators, both in legislatures and think tanks like Heritage, have tried very hard to find it and can't turn up more than a token number of examples.

> "They're not taking the risk. That's taken by anyone who does ballot harvesting or stuffing. So cases where 'community helpers' have collected ballot papers & filled them in. Or sometimes just stolen them, which is only discovered if/when legitimate voters turn up to vote and get told they've already voted.."

Then target that, not legitimate voters. Why didn't election administrators flag dozens of absentee ballots mailed to one address? Ballot harvesting is still a drop in the ocean.

> "But it also doesn't explain why you think poor, uneducated don't have a state photo ID.."

Because when you're poor and struggling to make ends meet, spending an entire afternoon and paying fees to get an updated ID to cast a ballot which probably won't matter is an exceedingly poor use of time and money.

> "Wrong. That's proof of citizenship, not proof of ID."

What do you think the proposed requirements are about?

> "Then pop to your friendly DMV, pay up and get an ID.. Or if you've been given say, a Minnesota ID card, use that and say you've moved. But again it's one of those things where although ID isn't mandatory in the US, it can make life a lot more complicated, if you're asked to present it."

Yeah, that's easy for people with a moderate-to-high household income, free time, good health, and a car. That's much harder when you take the bus to your minimum wage job. That's much harder when you're elderly, in poor health, and live with your family.

> "Why would they need to?"

Because these restrictive voting laws require it.

> "And most states have similar requirements to keep ID & driving licences up to date with address or name changes."

And many people don't do that, or don't even drive. The US doesn't have a national ID system and people aren't required to maintain current ID or residency registration just to exist like in many other countries. That doesn't mean they forfeit voting rights.

> "So what you seem to be saying is that illegal immigrants are the least likely to have ID? So then if they don't, they wouldn't be able to vote"

Illegal immigrants aren't able to vote because they almost never register in the first place. When they end up on the rolls, it's typically an unassociated paperwork mistake, like when applying for benefits for their US-born children, and they aren't casting ballots.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Not to worry

Because the investigators are trafficking in conspiracy theories using the "just asking questions" technique to try and discredit opponents who can't disprove the negative. They also have no evidence that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

Again with the conspiracy theories and projection. DoJ is looking for evidence. Demorats are denying that evidence, or proof. So they have Bigfoot captive in their petting zoo and claim he doesn't exist. Again, if there's nothing to hide, what is there to fear? Data is handed over, it's examined, and yep, Biden won fair & square. Conspiracy theory finally put to bed, Americans can finally have confidence that their vote counts, democracy is assured.. Or Democrats obstruct investigations and carry on trying to discredit opponents who can't disprove the negative.

Yes, and the offenders are disproportionately campaign staff engaging in paid ballot trafficking. Look at the cases closer. When dozens of absentee ballots are sent to one address, and nobody investigates, that's a back office problem with election administrators, not a justification for smothering voters in red tape.

So what you seem to be saying is investigations should be permitted to detect those irregularities. And there is no red tape given the real need to posses ID to do just about anything in the US, existing laws require US citizens to maintain accurate ID else fines follow. The missing link is voter eligibility and election integrity, which the Demorats seem determined to obstruct.

Why?

Ballot harvesting is still a drop in the ocean.

But you don't know this. It might be a tiny drop, it might be a Bigfoot sized drop. Demorats don't seem to want to know the answer. Why? Could it be because they already know the answer, and like the ability to control the outcome of elections? That's rather.. unconstitutional, no?

That's much harder when you take the bus to your minimum wage job. That's much harder when you're elderly, in poor health, and live with your family.

None of the family members have a car? Or you seem to be making an argument for better public transport and perhaps scrapping charges for ID. Doing things about DMV waiting times are a different question. Or as an outside potentially looking to cross the pond, allowing people to become American, rather than having important aspects of ID tied to states. Then again, that allows Americans to flee states like California, NYC etc and their tax grabs and mismanagement.

And many people don't do that, or don't even drive. The US doesn't have a national ID system and people aren't required to maintain current ID or residency registration just to exist like in many other countries.

And yet they need ID to bank, rent, take out utility contracts, access health care, buy booze or cigarettes, get an EBT card or most other welfare services. And you contradict yourself by saying voters will need passports, which of course are natonal ID documents.

But the constitution is pretty clear. You're supposed to be a US citizen to vote. That is one of the most fundamental principles of US democracy. Yet you, along with many other Demorats seem to be looking for any excuse to not uphold those laws, principles and the Constitution. Curious, no?

When they end up on the rolls, it's typically an unassociated paperwork mistake, like when applying for benefits for their US-born children, and they aren't casting ballots.

Yet again, you do not know this. You don't know whether Bigfoot has been enrolled, or voted. As a naturalised American, they probably should be entitled to vote. But whilst the electoral rolls are a jealously guarded secret, you or I have no idea just how bad the data & election integrity issues might be, and have nothing but whataboutery & conspiracy theories to offer in response. Republicans might be engaging in widespread voter fraud, but without investigations, we'll never know.

[AVR]

Re: Not to worry

If your source is the Heritage Foundation you just lost the argument - they're some of the people who are fine with alternative facts, not just different opinions. Basically they're liars.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Not to worry

If your source is the Heritage Foundation you just lost the argument

Just as predicted, the loony left leap straight into denial mode. So there was a claim of no election fraud, I cite evidence of over a thousand cases, you deny it. As you're convinced they're liars, I'm sure you can identify which of the cases they cite are 'fake news'? They even provide links to the cases they cite.

Meanwhile, the DoJ can investigate cases of fake, or straw donations by the likes of ActBlue that may have used electoral roll data to launder donations. Person is a registered Demorat, so they wouldn't mind if a $20 donation is made on their behalf.. Except for that being illegal.

But then as the article says, US electoral rolls contain too much PII, is too easily obtained and thus generates too much spam & probably fraud.

[dmesg]

Re: Not to worry

"DoJ wants the rolls to investigate election integrity and how accurate electoral rolls are. Democracy 101 means that only qualified votes should count."

Not only disingenuous but false. What the DOJ says it wants doesn't matter. The power to conduct elections is given to the states by the Constitution. I for one have not heard of a "Democracy 101" document that overrides the Constitution.

You also give yourself away by stating only "qualified" votes count. Again, what "qualified" means is up to the individual states, subject of course to not depriving any citizen of their Constitutional rights. But anyone who's paying any attention knows that "qualified", in the words of a Trump administration mouthpiece, is a euphemistic filter meant to deny voting rights to demographic blocs likely to vote against Trump.

[DS999]

Re: Not to worry

one could wonder what they're trying to hide

Ah the latest example of the fascist trope "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" that is no more true in this instance than it has ever been.

This article does a pretty good job of laying out the risks from this sort of information, but what Trump is trying to grab skips all the steps about inferring data and just hands everything over directly. I suppose you think that despite all the evidence to the contrary that a man who has demonstrated time and again that he would love nothing more than to screw over everyone who doesn't support him that Trump's government wouldn't use data showing for instance that someone had voted in a democratic primary as an excuse to deny them government benefits, audit them, refuse to hire them for any government jobs, etc.

If you think "my orange god would never do that because its wrong and he's a good man" are you willing to bet that republicans will ALWAYS control the government, and trust that democrats when they have their hands on that same information wouldn't misuse it at all against you?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Not to worry

This article does a pretty good job of laying out the risks from this sort of information, but what Trump is trying to grab skips all the steps about inferring data and just hands everything over directly.

And how else is the DoJ supposed to investigate?

.. that Trump's government wouldn't use data showing for instance that someone had voted in a democratic primary as an excuse to deny them government benefits, audit them, refuse to hire them for any government jobs, etc.

And now you're drifting merrily into conspiracy land. Plus you don't appear to understand how the process works, which being the US, varies-

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists

So picking on California.. Who can access electoral rolls?

Candidates, parties, ballot measure committees, and to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State. All voter information is confidential except for those listed above that may request lists.

What could I, as a scholar, journalist or political activist get?

Name, DOB, registration date, residential and mailing address, precinct, contact information (telephone number and email address), political party preference.

So I could get a list of Californian registered Demorats (or Republicans) and use it to hire or fire.. Which would be illegal, if my victim could prove it. Or picking on Arizona-

Full name, party preference, date of registration, residence address, mailing address, zip code, phone number, birth year, occupation, voting history, early voting information.

They make it even easier to target deplorables. But also demonstrates the point the article makes, namely that these lists can contain too much information, which leads to widespread abuse by data rapists. Some states allow exemptions from the lists, or where states like Arizona are very free with people's data, it might lead to disenfranchising. People might decide to surrender their right to vote by opting out of having phone numbers, addresses etc made public & spammed or abused.

.. and trust that democrats when they have their hands on that same information wouldn't misuse it at all against you?

I wouldn't trust either party, and neither should any American. Especially when this happens-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActBlue#Fraud_allegations

And some Republicans were surprised to discover they'd apparently donated to the Demorats. But US politics is weird like that. The Southern Poverty Law Centre caught giving money to the KKK & Aryan Brotherhood. Or this oopsie-

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bluesky-goes-full-panic-after-exposed-api-unveils-anti-ice-army-18000-leftists

Thousands signed up. In fact, a total of 17,662 users were exposed through a public REST API with no real authentication or rate limiting, leaving full records accessible, including timestamps, according to DOGE-aligned investigative journalist, DataRepublican.

The man who ran the third-largest federal department (250,000 employees, $60 billion budget) who oversaw election security architecture and led counterterrorism operations, then served as Google's Head of National Security Policy...

...can't secure a sign-up form.

Oh.. Dear. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about his previous work overseeing the election security architecture. But the fixes are still relatively straightforward, ie limiting the amount of PII available in voter rolls, and preferably massive fines for anyone trading or abusing that data. If people want to share PII with activist entities like ActBlue or GTFOICE, then they do so at their own risk.

[Tron]

So what?

We keep seeing this. Researchers discover that it is physically possible to do something bad.

The solution is not to make everything more complicated, excluding ever more people from accessing tech, restricting tech and increasing costs. The solution is the same one we have had for centuries. You make something malign a crime, and if someone does it, you lock them up and take away their cash. It works for physical stuff like assault, and it works for tech stuff too.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: So what?

You make something malign a crime, and if someone does it, you lock them up and take away their cash. It works for physical stuff like assault, and it works for tech stuff too.

Some of that already exists, ie there were cases of voting fraud and elelection irregularities prosecuted during the 2020 US elections.. But that assumes prosecuters willing to investigate and prosecute those cases, and given the way the US judiciary has become politicised, that may never happen. Shocking news from Texas where J.Eel Esq was elected as the state Attorney General in an unexpected landslide. Calls for an investigation were met by a statement saying "Suck it up, losers!"

But there are alternatives, like this from the article-

Last week, House Republicans introduced the Secure Data Act in an effort to create federal privacy rules. But Kenney says that it's significantly weaker than a lot of state regulations and he doesn't expect it will pass.

Data brokers and the tech bros that rely on monetising PII and often have little respect for people's privacy and security. And as most of those operate inter-state, maybe a federal privacy law would be a GoodThing(tm). Like the article says, the problem really only exists because of the way data rapists hoover up every scrap of data, aggregate and then flog it. Plus if there's to be a minimally invasive set of public data in electoral rolls, then it would seem to need mandating at the federal, rather than state level.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So what?

> "ie there were cases of voting fraud and elelection irregularities prosecuted during the 2020 US elections"

Care to put a number on that?

> "And as most of those operate inter-state, maybe a federal privacy law would be a GoodThing(tm)."

Careful what you wish for. Unless the feds actually care about privacy as a virtue, a federal law would end up preempting tougher state privacy laws.

> "Plus if there's to be a minimally invasive set of public data in electoral rolls"

Anything "minimally invasive" contains too little data to be fit for purpose, and thus shouldn't be released at all. Even things like address or date of birth can be invasive, and that problem compounds when the records are available in bulk.

> "seem to need mandating at the federal, rather than state level."

One set of incumbent politicians controlling all election infrastructure is a terrible idea, which is why the US Constitution gives primary election administration duties to the states.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: So what?

Care to put a number on that?

I knew someone was going to ask that. But yep, obviously I care, hence why I think this should be investigated, not simply denied. Luckily someone's already done this-

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/108824/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20190129-SD020.pdf

Which although a link from Congress, is a report put together by the Heritage Foundation, so will be instadismissed by people of a certain persuasion. But the oft-repeated suggestion that there was no fraud is obviously a lie. It happened, it just didn't seem to happen to any extent that would affect the outcome of the Presidential election.

Careful what you wish for. Unless the feds actually care about privacy as a virtue, a federal law would end up preempting tougher state privacy laws.

You're assuming the feds don't. But the US is a constitutional republic, and states can and do already enact tougher laws.. which is why the US can be confusing to people from other countries when stuff is legal in on part of the 'United' States, but not others.

Anything "minimally invasive" contains too little data to be fit for purpose, and thus shouldn't be released at all. Even things like address or date of birth can be invasive, and that problem compounds when the records are available in bulk.

Sure. Hence why the UK has 2 electoral rolls, both public to an extent, one abbreviated. Restrict access to PII in any bulk data supplied to 3rd parties via electoral rolls and call it good. Or good-ish. The US has 350m people +/- a few million, so DoB or other metadata might be required to uniquely identify a person, but that data doesn't automatically need to be shared with data rapists.. And it's those aggregators that are the problem.

One set of incumbent politicians controlling all election infrastructure is a terrible idea,

So make a US Election Commission 'neutral', or as neutral as can be in the current US political system. But the US Constitution has already granted the Federal government control over a wide slew of infrastructure. So again it's why the Demorats are picking this hill to die on. They seemingly aren't interested in election integrity because perhaps that's the way they keep blue states blue..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So what?

> "Which although a link from Congress, is a report put together by the Heritage Foundation, so will be instadismissed by people of a certain persuasion."

I cited Heritage in my past post. The biggest supporters of voting restrictions spent millions of dollars investigating it in a decade-long project and they can't turn up more than a handful of examples. They made their best argument and it missed.

Did you even read it? The distinction between voter fraud and voter registration fraud (or autoprocessed registrations of the ineligible) is a rather important one.

> "It happened, it just didn't seem to happen to any extent that would affect the outcome of the Presidential election."

Hence why people who understand the issue pay attention to the classic challenge of false positives versus false negatives. Heritage knows the false positive rate far exceeds the false negative rate. That's the point.

> "Restrict access to PII in any bulk data supplied to 3rd parties via electoral rolls and call it good. Or good-ish."

If no PII is disclosed outside government then what's the point of releasing anything at all? We've heard similar before in so many other privacy fights. Usually, that's a pretty clear clue that private information will be released by those who just deny that it's private. As the article notes, name plus postal code plus date of birth is identifying for nearly everyone. Thus, addresses and dates of birth would need to be kept private. There's literally nothing other than name which can be released without creating a privacy problem in 2026.

> "So make a US Election Commission 'neutral', or as neutral as can be in the current US political system."

Neutral? Hahahahaha.

> "But the US Constitution has already granted the Federal government control over a wide slew of infrastructure."

And the US Constitution explicitly grants control of elections to the states. Feds trying to administer an election is just as unconstitutional as states trying to sign treaties or declare war.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: So what?

The biggest supporters of voting restrictions spent millions of dollars investigating it in a decade-long project and they can't turn up more than a handful of examples. They made their best argument and it missed.

You must have big hands. But-

This is not an exhaustive list but simply a sampling that demonstrates the many different ways in which fraud is committed.

And still turned up 1,176 proven instances of voter fraud. DoJ wants to investigate further, Demorats are obstructing those investigations and just going 'trust us, bro'..

Heritage knows the false positive rate far exceeds the false negative rate. That's the point.

No, the point is Heritage can just point at the Demorat's obstruction efforts and say "See! They're hiding something!". Which they might be, or they might not. But if they co-operated, we might not have to put up with decades more conspiracy theories involving Russian chads hiding under ordinary American beds, and preventing the Clinton dynasty's rightful place on the throne..

If no PII is disclosed outside government then what's the point of releasing anything at all?

Kind of the point. Government needs my PII, any of the thousands of data rapists do not. So that data should not be made available, and it should be up to individuals how much PII to reveal, and importantly, who that gets shared with.

Feds trying to administer an election is just as unconstitutional as states trying to sign treaties or declare war.

But they're not. So the current spat is mostly about data hygiene and integrity. If states aren't doing this, then perhaps the federal goverment needs to step in to make sure states are behaving with integrity. After all, it's those state elections that elect a President, who then forms a government. Plus the states elected representatives can instruct federal agencies like the DoJ to investigate, as they have done.

Again it's pretty simple. If electoral rolls are in good order, Demorat cities and states shouldn't mind the DoJ having a look. If they're a mess, then it's understandable why they might be so desperately trying to hide this.

Plus it's all a bit bizarre anyways. Suppose the DoJ does actually identify enough irregularities to overturn the Trump-Biden result. What then? Absent a time machine, that won't affect the outcome, other than maybe being a way to eject Trump because he actually won the last election and thus is barred by term limits.. Which could be entertaining.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So what?

> "And still turned up 1,176 proven instances of voter fraud."

How many votes have been cast since 1982?

> "DoJ wants to investigate further, Demorats are obstructing those investigations and just going 'trust us, bro'.."

Trump's DoJ wants a pretext to make it much harder to vote, hoping people just say "fuck it" and give up.

> "No, the point is Heritage can just point at the Demorat's obstruction efforts and say "See! They're hiding something!". Which they might be, or they might not."

Bigfoot might exist, or might not, and I can't prove he doesn't.

> "So the current spat is mostly about data hygiene and integrity."

No, the spat is over Trump trying to tilt an election by weaponizing red tape against the opposition.

> "Plus the states elected representatives can instruct federal agencies like the DoJ to investigate, as they have done."

No, they can't. States can only instruct state agencies to investigate. MAGA states have done this, and have failed to turn up evidence showing it's more than a token problem.

> "If electoral rolls are in good order, Demorat cities and states shouldn't mind the DoJ having a look. If they're a mess, then it's understandable why they might be so desperately trying to hide this."

They already have the voter rolls. They're public. Remember the problem highlighted by the article?

What they want is a combative investigation conducted for show, like how the DoJ is prosecuting a Trump opponent for spelling out "8647" in seashells on the beach.

[Someone Else]

Re: So what?

Which although a link from Congress, is a report put together by the Heritage Foundation, so will be instadismissed [sic] by people of a certain persuasion.

Wait. Is that the same Heritage Foundation that authored Project 2025? It was? Really?!?

So, "instadismissed" then.

_covfefe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So what?

It also works very well for voter fraud.

Voter fraud carries stiff penalties and is easy for prosecutors to prove after the fact. We're fine asking people to affirm they're eligible under penalty of law.

The penalties for voter fraud just aren't worth casting an ineligible vote which probably changes nothing. That's why people almost never do something that stupid. If someone wants to risk that much time in prison, they're the risk/reward ratio favors cheating on their taxes or something else that has some tangible personal benefit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So what?

The penalties for voter fraud just aren't worth casting an ineligible vote which probably changes nothing.

The easier way to do that is to cast a vote for someone legitimately registered who isn't going to vote. It is not easy to tell a vote wasn't cast by the registered voter and then determine who did cast that vote pretending to be the registered voter.

It is generally not worth doing but it can be in a swing state or district where every vote may count.

But, as we now know, it's easier to claim an election was stolen and have idiots believe that than actually steal an election.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So what?

...which rarely happens, because it's more efficient (and legal) to find eligible voters who already agree with you, and get them registered to vote, or encourage registered voters who rarely vote to cast a ballot.

Doing things the right way is more efficient, doesn't risk prison, and doesn't risk a campaign scandal. The handful of examples presented to justify weaponizing red tape against eligible voters represent the morons whose illegal votes were never more than a drop in the bucket. Americans have cast multiple billions of ballots since that database started tracking things in 1982, and the number of cases of voter fraud is in the low single-digit thousands.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: So what?

..and the number of cases of voter fraud is in the low single-digit thousands.

Another example of the low intelligence of the typical Demorat. Don't go looking for Bigfoot, don't find Bigfoot. Don't investigate potential election fraud, don't find evidence of it, or prosecute the perpetrators. But fraud happens, and can sometimes be significant, eg-

The Supreme Court of Alabama overturned the mayoral election results for the City of Guntersville, Alabama after finding that absentee ballots cast without proper identification should have been excluded.

Guntersville, population 8,553 at the last census. Mayor became !Mayor after the election was investigated. The Demorat approach to democracy is to prevent the Alabama SC from investigating.. It's quite odd that a party named after an important democratic principle seems so determined to obstruct investigations into that democracy.. The greatest threat to democracy isn't Trump or the Republicans, it's the people who don't want free & fair elections.

[DMcDonnell]

Voter registrations is just the tip of the iceberg

Voter registrations is just the tip of the iceberg.

Here in the US anyway...

Mortgages, Tax Rolls, Marriage licenses, Divorces decrees, Property deeds, Occupational licenses, Professional certifications, Private investigators licenses, Landlord licenses, D/B/A (Doing business as), Business incorporations, Legal personal name changes, Using a rented mailbox for business purposes is considered a public record, prison inmate records, arrest records, property liens.

And you have things like periodicals subscribers lists (magazines, etc).

Banks also circulated lists of people who passed bad cheques to their business account holders)

I actually have all the voter registrations for the county i live in going back to 1890 to 2020 (Buy a copy on CD from the state capital for all registrants for just $4.00 US). At one time it was required that they be published in the local newspaper each October prior to the up-coming November election (every 2 yrs).

[Anonymous Coward]

It always amazes me

In doing family research stuff online, it’s amazing how much data is publicly available for Americans. This includes both the living and the dead. As for myself, here in Oz. I’ve never found more than past electoral listings (name address) and a public notice relating to winning a minor competition prize. But then, I’ve no social media at all.