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."

34 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: 5, Insightful

      deflect, deflect, deflect

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

    2. 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?
    3. Re:Not the first administration.. by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is a lie. The left has never made a claim of voter fraud. That particular accusation came from Donald Trump himself prior to the election. He had no proof of this then, and still hasn't.

      The claims the left made were that Russia influenced the elections. The hacking that went on as part of this influence campaign happened prior to the election (the email server). There is some evidence for this influence, as witnessed by the emails actually being released on Wikileaks and Donald Trump Jr's disclosure of his emails which spoke of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.

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

      I'm pretty sure they're claiming the interfered through social engineering, not literally hacking voting booths, although some attention was given to that possibility given Russia's actual cyber espionage on that front.

      Keep defending your boy though. Go team!

    5. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Republicans never stopped to ask themselves WHY the russians would support trump.

      You can't confront republicans with facts. Their brains completely shut down when you do. If they HAD asked themselves that question, they would have run as far and as fast as they could in the opposite direction from the candidate that putin prefers.

      trump was OBVIOUSLY the weaker candidate, but republicans fell for the trick. They fall for it every time.

    6. Re: Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Be angry at Obama for WHAT? The ONLY ones that were angry at Obama was the GOP who are racists and just want to hate for any and all reason.
      The fact that he kept us from depression, addressed a number of issues, has done nothing but piss off you GOP types that wanted him to fail.
      BUT you have to be a real fuck to defend trump and try to equate him to Obama.

    7. Re:Not the first administration.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Objectively, if you look back at the Nixon administration, he seemed well liked. He won two elections in a landslide, and his approval ratings were decent. What ultimately lead to his undoing was his own insecurity.

      The watergate investigators honestly believed Nixon had no involvement or knowledge of the burglary before it happened, which was based on the same recordings that ultimately got him into trouble. Where he got into trouble was when he found out that his own staff ordered it, and then he tried to cover it up.

    8. 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?

    9. Re:Not the first administration.. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No it was not the left or the so called liberal media.

      It was the intelligence agencies. I tend to happen to side with them.

      Why would you trust the intelligence agencies? Do you need a recap of their track record?

      Even if Hillary fucked up (she did with the email server as you and I would be thrown in jail if we did this) and Putin just shared information, it is still collusion with a foreign power and treason to a high degree.

      Are we at war with Russia? Or are they our ally? How is diplomacy with a foreign state we are not at war with treasonous?

      A nation should not be involved in another nation's election or internal affairs. I will say this hypocritically too as an American as we did evil in the name of good in South America to prevent evil communism with propping up Pinochet in Chile who murdered people!

      Why not? It's called diplomacy. The US does it all the time. And if you want to call out examples of when the US does bad things, why stop at one?

      It was wrong and Russia not only interfered but had counter intelligence agents whose job was sabotage and espionage during the cold war give the information to Trump Jr. Gee what is wrong with that???!!!

      Where's the evidence? It's been almost a year now since these allegations started.
      Further, was anything exposed false? If Putin himself "hacked" Hillary's emails (and remember - this was all due to a certain moran falling for a phishing email) and hand delivered it to Trump, so what? Putin should be given a damned medal for exposing Hillary's shit.

      You'll jump to believe some made up shit about prostitutes and water sports as long as Wolf Blitzer reads it out to you. But when faced with actual evidence of gross misbehavior and wrongdoing, you get into a tizzy about the way someone got caught.

      What's the evidence? Have you been watching the news? Let's say Isis and Iran met with an Hillary aide. THey share information to wikileaks just 4 days before the election. Hilary hires her daughter to speak with an Iranian national guard who did espionage work during the Reagan years against the US. Iran wants some sanctions lifted and Isis wants to be recognized.

      Boom! Hillary wins by a landslide and 4 more years of liberal rule after all the negative news about Trump suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

      Let me ask you this? Would you be somewhat bothered if this were true? I mean ask yourself if this is normal diplomacy and you wouldn't be upset one bit? Or would you be getting your torches and pitchforks and call for investigations and impeachment? We are not at war with Isis or Iran so that is ok right?

      I am a democrat so I will disclaim this. But if that were true I would be outraged! I would want her head on a block and have her tried for treason. I know you would too as I assume you are Republican of course. To me this is an American issue not political.

      If you support Putin and are not a troll and want to give a medal then you are un-American and a piece of shit as I would not if the reverse were true. I do not want a nation of supporting parties like football teams regardless of the consequences.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    10. Re:Not the first administration.. by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      Then why did Jill Stein request a recount in three states?

      Well they say the first stage is denial... or maybe it was just desperate hope that a manual recount would change the outcome. After all, why only do it in three states? If it was a real allegation of voter fraud, the she would not have said this:

      Stein has said she has no evidence of fraud going into a recount of ballots in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, but wants to ensure the integrity of the election.

      But it certainly wasn't a widespread belief of the entire group called "the Left".

    11. Re: Not the first administration.. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you are outraged now, but were not last year, then your outrage is dishonest political spectacle.

      Dammit Boris, Your post was too many levels of deflection. No rubles for you until you post better. Get back to work and do better work for the motherland.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re: Not the first administration.. by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      What past administrations did has no bearing on whether the current administration is doing good or bad. Calling "hypocrisy" is just a bullshit way of trying to shut down the conversation.

      Also, don't forget that the Obama were not a bunch of venal conmen, lying citrus fruits and traitors to their country.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    13. Re:Not the first administration.. by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the Russians have information that Hillary is trying to hide, the American people should be demanding to know what it is, and thanking the Russians for providing it.

      It's funny to hear this argument when every leak that is embarrassing to the Trump administration gets met with attempts by conservative pundits to redirect the discussion to finding and prosecuting the leakers. Apparently, demanding to know what Trump is trying to hide and thanking the leakers doesn't seem so important.

    14. 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.

    15. Re:Not the first administration.. by ZipK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Objectively, if you look back at the Nixon administration, he seemed well liked.

      In part because evidence of Nixon ordering Haldeman to monkey-wrench LBJ's Vietnam peace talks didn't surface until recently. Whatever positive qualities Nixon may have had as a statesman were completely undercut by his paranoia and treachery. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

    16. Re: Not the first administration.. by ChatHuant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Be angry at Obama for WHAT?

      For sweeping all the crimes of the Bush administration under the rug in the name of some Pollyannesque idea that Republicans will work with him for the good of America. That showed an amazing lack of awareness and judgement. The same Kumbaya approach was visible during the Obamacare negotiations and led to the Republicans' effective sabotage of the law.

      The first thing Obama should have done is start a hundred investigations - into the reasons why America was pushed into a catastrophic war by a lying administration, into the staggering incompetent way post-war Iraq and Afghanistan were handled (for example, investigate how the Republican governor of Iraq was named based on party loyalty, not on competence), on the incredible waste of money (billions of dollars, literally pallets of cash, were sent to Iraq and vanished). America needed and deserved this cleaning process, and it was Obama's duty, as president, to shine a light into all this morass. If the Republican party had been properly slapped at this time, if half of the Bush administration had been jailed as they so richly deserved, we would all have been better off.

    17. Re: Not the first administration.. by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 2

      Wow, since when have vehement posts on slashdot been spot on?

    18. Re:Not the first administration.. by drago177 · · Score: 3, Informative

      it is still collusion with a foreign power and treason to a high degree.

      Are we at war with Russia? Or are they our ally? How is diplomacy with a foreign state we are not at war with treasonous?

      This is beyond diplomacy, you do not have to be at war with a country.
      A federal law, Section 30121 of Title 52, makes it a crime for any foreigner to contribute or donate money or some “other thing of value” in connection with an American election, or for anyone to solicit a foreigner to do so. Previous court cases concerning similar related laws have held, that a “thing of value” can be something intangible, like information.

  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.
    1. Re:Reminder by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're making that up. The states don't have that information and everybody (but you) knows it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Reminder by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Voting ballots are anonymous.

      But otherwise great story bro.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Reminder by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're both right and wrong.

      How you voted in the general election is not, to the best of my knowledge, tracked. That you voted (or didn't) is.

      But, in many states, they track if you voted in a primary as well, and which one. Because in those states (the state I live in being one of them), you can either vote in the Republican primary or the Democratic primary. And notably, the primaries are not held on the same day.

      So, my state would have information that I voted in the Democratic primary in the last election cycle. From that, it can be assumed that if I voted (I did), I probably voted Democratic. (The percent of people who stink vote during primaries is remarkably small.)

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    4. Re: Reminder by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ballots contain zero personal information.

      Ever seen how an absentee ballot shows up? Vote by mail has been growing in every election over the past several decades. They absolutely have personal information.

      --
      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.
    1. Re:Passive Aggressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry. None of the Trump supporters are the sorts of vindictive people who would actually use this information to go harass people who didn't vote for Trump. A more stable group of concerned citizens you have never seen before and will never see again.

  5. Re:No... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Perhaps the Republicana should.look at the current t office holder for the source of most of their problems. Of late they could also look at the idiot eldest son of his

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. We’re technologically savvy by Picodon · · Score: 3

    I remember when, not so long ago, people were making fun of presidents and other politicians for being technologically illiterate, and perhaps not even knowing what a “mouse” was. Well, I have to give it to the current administration. Not only are they masters of the technology (databases, social media, etc.), they’ve now officially embraced one of the latest social trends: doxing!

    The times, they are a-changing...

  7. 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.

  8. Re: Why is this modded up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    We can't have an intellectual discussion because you won't see what is painfully obvious to the rest of us: Trump is an unmitigated dumpster fire, who will do serious damage to this nation at best, and will set us back 100 years or more at worst.

  9. Re:And the reality happened by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    The otter convient fact is that the voter roles are being looked into because there are wide scale voter fraud.

    When Kobach was Kansas Secretary of State, he made ferreting out voter fraud a centerpiece of his administration and conducted a two-year investigation. He found nine cases, mostly older Republicans.

    http://www.politico.com/magazi...

    There is no wide scale voter fraud. It doesn't exist.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. 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.

  11. Re: The summary is... by Vairon · · Score: 2

    The page you linked is concerning the 2008 election not the 2016 election. What proof or scientifically defensibly study do you have about 2016?

    The underlying study by Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest found only five non-citizens self reported as voting in 2008 that they could verify out of a study sample size of 32,800 people.

    If you are interested in reading the actual 2014 study concerning the 2008 election based on polling 32,800 people in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010 here is a link:
    https://ww2.odu.edu/~jrichman/...

    Here is a link to the lead author, Jesse Richman, of that study saying that the washingtontimes.com article is deceptive if anyone believes it's concerning 2016.
    https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2017/01/27/i-do-not-support-the-washington-times-piece/