Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Releases Sensitive Personal Info From Voters Concerned About Privacy (vox.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the public-policy dept.

Huge_UID shares an article from Vox: The White House just responded to concerns it would release voters' sensitive personal information by releasing a bunch of voters' sensitive personal information. Last month, the White House's "election integrity" commission sent out requests to every state asking for all voters' names, party IDs, addresses, and even the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, among other information. The White House then said this information would be made available to the public. A lot of people did not like the idea, fearing that their personal information could be made public. So some sent emails to the White House, demanding that it rescind the request. This week, the White House decided to make those emails from concerned citizens public through the commission's new website... It didn't censor any of the personal information -- such as names, email addresses, actual addresses, and phone numbers -- included in those emails.
Some of the emails also included the commenter's place of employment -- though at least one commenter helpfully informed the White House that their voter info was available at Goatse. But the voting comission is now also facing new lawsuits from the ACLU, Public Citizen, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, McClatchy reported on Monday, noting that "Trump's voting commission has told states to hold off on sharing the data until after a judge's ruling in a lawsuit."

14 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..to not give a fuck about your privacy.

    1. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, has there been one that has given a fuck?

    2. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      deflect, deflect, deflect

      and don't get me started on her emails!!1!

    3. Re:Not the first administration.. by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps, but this administration has raised not giving a fuck about America into an art form.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Arguably, that would have been Nixon, when the supreme court actually cared about human rights. For example: Roe vs. Wade.

      After the administration (and later apotheosis) of Saint Ronald, things went rapidly downwards.

    5. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, indeed. Nixon was mostly underrated. His objectification as the archetype "crook" doesn't help with understanding the history. As a career politician he was quite competent and he left many good deeds such as the EPA, severing the Bretton Woods exchange rate system (which had ran out of its historical usefulness), going to China, and nominating decent justices to the supreme court.

      Gosh, if we're now looking back at Richard fucking Nixon and missing him, what does that say about the current shitshow?

    6. Re: Not the first administration.. by TheMeuge · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I cannot support the current administration. But the amount of doublespeak I hear regarding Russia's "influence" on the last elections from Democrat mouths and their mouthpieces like CNN, WashPo, and NYT is simply astounding. They are both claiming that they only talk about influence rather than an actual conspiracy; and trying very hard to make every article imply that there's a full blown Manchurian candidate conspiracy... sometimes in the same paragraph. As a result the public perception is that Russia was literally responsible for the results of the least election... effectively rendering irrelevant the American voices of those who voted. Undoubtedly that's the actual intent, conscious or not.

      Finally let's consider Russia's position here, as well as our indignant stand of faux moral superiority. It's ok for us to topple numerous governments militarily or with outright financial support of the opposition... it's ok for us to start a civil war between Russia and it's closest neighbor culturally and politically for the past 1000 years, by supporting violent racists who aim to persecute a large percent of their population. But if Russia expresses support for a presidential candidate who thought a different diplomatic approach would be more fruitful after the disastrous foreign policy of the last 8 years (or so they thought), we all shake our heads in disbelief "how dare they". Has this country regressed into childhood this much?

      What's good for the goose...

      If we are so weak, we should regrow some balls, or we'll shortly be gone.

    7. Re: Not the first administration.. by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Be angry at Obama for WHAT?

      For watering down Obamacare at the insistence of Republicans.

      The reason Obamacare is a train wreck is because the Republicans made it that way. For all their talk of the Democrats ramming it through, the reality is that the Democrats let the Republicans be involved in shaping that bill. The original plan was to have a single-payer system with a base-level public option that would have effectively cut the insurance companies off at the knees.

      All of the failings of Obamacare—the insurance companies leaving the exchanges over cost, the insurance companies cranking up prices to extortionate levels, etc.—would not have happened under the original, Democrat plan. Had the Democrats rammed that through, the Republicans would still be pissing themselves, unable to find anything wrong with the plan. Instead, the Democrats chose to work across the aisle and created a bill that had fundamental structural problems, introduced by the Republicans so that that they would have cause to tear it down later.

      So no, I wasn't mad at the Obama administration or the Democrats when they were in power (for two years), because they have never acted the way Republicans have. Democrats have never refused to let Republicans have a seat at the table, even when the result was something demonstrably worse as a result. And the only times that the Democrats have "rammed a bill through" have occurred as a direct result of Republicans locking arms and voting the way their party leadership told them to vote rather than voting based on what was best for their states, even after the Democrats made huge concessions to try to get Republican votes.

      This is not to say that the Democrats don't engage in those sorts of politics to a limited degree, but arguing that they are equally bad in that regard is like saying that slapping somebody across the face is the same as shooting someone. The Republicans are much, much, much worse at outright rejecting the opinions of Democrats, they are much, much, much worse at compromise, and they are much, much, much worse when it comes to voting as a block of mindless drones instead of as individuals. So I'm mildly annoyed with the Democrats for their bad behavior, because it is mildly bad, and I'm furious at the Republicans for their bad behavior, because it is atrocious.

      And lest you think this comes from a rabid Democrat, I've voted for both parties over the years, and I think both of our Democrat senators are terrible, and have voted against both of them consistently for the past decade.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Re:The summary is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, it did happen. Calling things you don't like "bullshit" or "fake news" doesn't magically make them go away.

  3. Reminder by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted. They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents.

    Let that sink in for a second. Imaging the Slashdot comments section if a President Clinton or President Obama demanded this same information from the states. Remember, the Constitution gives the power over all US elections to the states.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Passive Aggressive by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure let's hear what you have to say. What did you say? You don't want people to have access to your private personal information? Let's see here... okay so we'll go ahead and just release some of that publicly for you. Don't complain. We haven't released EVERYTHING on you, just yet...

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  5. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WTF is wrong with your government? That sort of shit would bring down a government in any sane first-world democracy.

    True freedom.

  6. "voting record" means if you voted or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Voting record" simply means if you voted or not. It is a highly important data to determine if there is fraudulent voting going on. For instance the same person might be registered in two states. If the "voting record" for one state showed they voted in 8 of the last 10 elections, but not the last 2, and the "voting record" for the other state showed they only voted in the last 2 elections, that is a probable case of them moving and the registration for the first state not being purged. If they voted in the last 2 elections in BOTH states, then that is a sign they maintained their registration in one or the other states illegally.

  7. Re: Why is this modded up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hard? He's been in office for half a year and already made Bush look like Churchill.