Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Should The DHS Designate Elections As Critical Infrastructure? (politico.com)
The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly looking at designating elections as critical infrastructure, on par with the electricity grid or banking system, to help protect against cybersecurity threats. DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said during a breakfast with reporters on August 3rd, "We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure. There is a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others as critical infrastructure." Demerara writes: I'm fascinated to hear the opinions of Slashdotters on the practical implications of any decision to designate "elections" as critical national infrastructure. For those of you who have worked on systems that are already under this regime: given that there are just over 90 days to the November elections, what can be achieved with respect to elections and in particular to electronic voting machines (whether direct-recording electronic (DRE), touch screen etc., or precinct ballot scanning machines)? What might the designation require of state and county boards (the buyers of these systems) and what would the vendors have to do?
I have to say, I'm seriously worried about vulnerabilities in voting machines. The first line of defence, of course, is to make sure all voting machines have a permanent paper record of each vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/
https://followmyvote.com/us-electoral-process/voting-system-vulnerabilities/
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/16/399986331/hacked-touchscreen-voting-machine-raises-questions-about-election-security
Classifying it as "critical infrastructure" would mean the introduction of voter ID laws. Which is good. I mean for fucks sake, what kind of third world country is the US when it doesn't even know who's voting and if they're even citizens?
Take the choice of election technology, ballot design, and security out of the hands of 5,000 different jurisdictions, and replace it with well-designed, thought-out, and implemented hardware+software that a dedicated, concerned group of experts is responsible for -- that's what this would take. And is impossible.
Or, you know, do what Canada does. Keep the voting process pencil and paper and count ballots by hand. Canada typically has the results in from a general election within 4 or 5 hours of the polls closing, and recounts rarely change the results by more than one or two ballots. Every ballot is counted at the polling station, and every candidate has the right to have scrutineers present to witness that counting.
Yes, Canada has 1/10th the population of the US, but on the other hand this is a problem that scales linearly. You have 10x the population, so you have 10x the polling stations, 10x the returning officers, scrutineers, etc... It works, it's reliable, and is pretty resistant to any kind of interference. Any "attack" (in the computational sense) would have to be carried out on a widely distributed basis.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
It costs a whole ZERO dollars to go get a State ID in any state [...]
Under CA law, a state ID card cost $29. If you're on public assistance, it costs $8. Seniors can get a state ID card for free.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/dl/fees/idCard_fees
DHS is a big waste of taxpayer dollars as it is. No reason to go giving it more justification to continue to expand.
In my state all you have to do to get a photo ID is let them know and they'll come to your house (or other place of your choice) and make you a free photo ID. And people STILL claim it's a burden! Damn, how are you getting to the polls to vote anyway?
People without driver's licenses are the most likely to forget a special ID used only once very two years. And that tilts towards poor people more often than not, and towards urban core areas (rich or poor). And those people tilt more Democrat as well. So there's a bias built into the statistics that way too.
Are you kidding? I had a non-driver's license for ages. Try cashing a check without some form of legal ID. Try walking into a courthouse without that. Try getting a new copy of your social security card--so you can get a job--without one. (Most of the things they accept other than legal photo ID can't be obtained easily without it--and if you think keeping track of a card 'used only once very two years' might be hard for some people, most of those you will use even less...)
Oh, and you can totally use one of those things when buying beer & cigarettes, at the adult store, and at the pharmacy to pick up medicine. I'm not even sure it was noticed when I did do...parts of that list while using that ID that it wasn't a driver's license.
There's a lot of things you actually do need a legal ID for, and the thing you really ought to be concerned about is that nobody has complained about those requiring ID because it discriminates against the poor--and at least two of these I'd say are ultimately going to be more important to them than voting.
If nothing else? If you're registered to vote you can be called jury duty, and as far as I can tell it's your problem if you don't have the ID required to make it through security--but you can be in legal trouble for not showing up. That ought to have been enough to require the state make at least some extra effort to ensure everybody can obtain one...