Slashdot Mirror


Info on 1.8M Chicago Voters Was Publicly Accessible, But Now Removed From Cloud Service (chicagotribune.com)

A file containing the names, addresses, dates of birth and other information about Chicago's 1.8 million registered voters was published online and publicly accessible for an unknown period of time, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners said this week. From a report: The acknowledgment came days after a data security researcher alerted officials to the existence of the unsecured files. The researcher found the files while conducting a search of items uploaded to Amazon Web Services, a cloud system that allows users to rent storage space and share files with certain people or the general public. The files had been uploaded by Election Systems & Software, a contractor that helps maintain Chicago's electronic poll books. Election Systems said in a statement that the files "did not include any ballot information or vote totals and were not in any way connected to Chicago's voting or tabulation systems." The company said it had "promptly secured" the files on Saturday evening and had launched "a full investigation, with the assistance of a third-party firm, to perform thorough forensic analyses of the AWS server." State and local officials were notified of the existence of the files Saturday by cybersecurity expert Chris Vickery, who works at the Mountain View, Calif. firm UpGuard.

27 comments

  1. Can you mine this data ? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    People love to bash on Chicago as allegedly being overrun with illegitimate voting. Now there is some data they can parse through to try to see if they can support it. How many people on this list are dead? What precincts can you put them in?

    There is pretty good data on how Chicago voted in the 2016 presidential election, and we see only 1.02M votes cast (out of the 1.8M voters on the rolls). Go ahead and get more granular though, can you find precincts with more votes cast than expected?

    The people who claim to be so highly knowledgeable on fraudulent voting - if they are as intelligent as they claim - should be able to resolve this pretty quickly. Go ahead, show us how bad it is there.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Can you mine this data ? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      What part of TFS makes you think this data has been made publicly available?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Can you mine this data ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd have to go with the first 8 words of the title

      Info on 1.8M Chicago Voters Was Publicly Accessible | But Now Removed From Cloud Service

    3. Re:Can you mine this data ? by dyfet · · Score: 2

      As they say in Chicago; vote early, vote often ;).

      Yea, I was wondering this too. It is said Chicago achieved greater than 100% turnout for the Kennedy election ;).

    4. Re:Can you mine this data ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because something's on the web doesn't mean the people you're concerned with have downloaded it.

    5. Re: Can you mine this data ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is said the moon landing was faked.

      It is said the earth is flat.

    6. Re:Can you mine this data ? by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Go ahead, show us how bad it is there.

      Seriously? I did a Google search on "Chicago dead voters" and this was the first hit:
      http://chicago.cbslocal.com/20...

      In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade.

      That's just the ones they found so far.

      I went to check more recent news on voter ID laws and perhaps you've been busy like I have the last couple days and were unaware that Trump and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel have been going back and forth the last few days over voter fraud problems in Chicago. I didn't know this until today but it's apparently been on the news a bit for a week now.

      People don't know how bad it is in Chicago because no one has taken the time to take a good look at it. We won't know how bad it is until we look either. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel seems pretty adamant on keeping the federal government from looking too. Why would that be?

      I know that "if you have nothing to hide then we should be free to look" is not how the government should treat people. That is how people should deal with the government though.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Can you mine this data ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead, show us how bad it is there.

      Seriously? I did a Google search on "Chicago dead voters" and this was the first hit:
      http://chicago.cbslocal.com/20...

      In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade.

      That's just the ones they found so far.

      So far, then, you found next to nothing then. 119 people. 229 times. Some of which are likely not actual problems. Over 10 years. In a county with 5 million people. Go find us a real problem instead.

      I went to check more recent news on voter ID laws and perhaps you've been busy like I have the last couple days and were unaware that Trump and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel have been going back and forth the last few days over voter fraud problems in Chicago. I didn't know this until today but it's apparently been on the news a bit for a week now.

      People don't know how bad it is in Chicago because no one has taken the time to take a good look at it.

      People have been complaining about Chicago for decades now. Yet they haven't taken a good look? Seems like there's a problem there. Maybe people just want something to complain about, rather than actually find real problems,

      We won't know how bad it is until we look either. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel seems pretty adamant on keeping the federal government from looking too. Why would that be?

      He knows how incompetent Donald Trump is?

      I know that "if you have nothing to hide then we should be free to look" is not how the government should treat people. That is how people should deal with the government though.

      Indeed, the government has been at fault.

  2. Clouds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've looked at clouds from both sides now From up and down, and still somehow It's cloud illusions I recall I really don't know clouds at all

  3. Holy last week Batman! by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> Saturday

    Nice job on the prompt reporting, Slashdot.

    1. Re:Holy last week Batman! by darkain · · Score: 1

      TFA was published today. Just because a security violation is reported to the violator at a particular date doesn't mean the news of such event went public on the same day.

    2. Re:Holy last week Batman! by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> TFA was published today.

      Get better articles then. The was posted at least 24 hours ago. Here's an LA times story from yesterday afternoon:
      http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-chicago-voter-data-20170817-story.html ...and an earlier one from Gizmodo:
      http://gizmodo.com/us-voting-machine-supplier-leaks-1-8-million-chicago-vo-1797947510

  4. dead voters by siamesevodka · · Score: 1

    How many in that database were dead voters?

  5. Correction - alleged voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the world of Trump, we want to make sure there isn't fake news being spread. These are alleged voters. They might be fake voters.

  6. This is almost always publicly available. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most states provide voter data for a small fee to nearly anyone, or sometimes just a registered voter. I myself have this for my home state sitting on my laptop, in a database. I'd bet this is the case for Illinois as well.

    It's really not a big deal.

  7. An example to stop with so many gov't databases by blindseer · · Score: 1

    It's real hard to argue against a voter registry, it's hard to enforce that no one is voting multiple times without it. What of the other government databases? Can't they also be leaked and/or abused? Should we be using Social Security numbers everywhere?

    A couple examples. Licenses to drive, do we really need those? Maybe a license for minors that lack the legal authority for things like signing an insurance contract, would be difficult to sue in court if caught violating the law or doing damage, etc. The license for a minor is much about an adult, presumably the parent, agreeing that they take responsibility for the behavior of the minor as it is about making sure the minor has a minimum understanding of how to drive. An adult though is always legally responsible, licensed or not. Every day is a driving exam by police officers looking for bad drivers.

    We don't need gun licenses either, and for much the same reason as driving licenses. If you own and carry a gun then you are assumed responsible for anything that happens if it is discharged, licensed or not. These have been abused by law enforcement and by the public. Get rid of them.

    Some licenses we probably need though are things like hunting and fishing, building repair and construction, or anything where there is a need to manage quantity. Can't have too many hunters hunting at once, that's bad for managing the wildlife. Can't have a building without knowing who owns it, that's a matter of managing taxes, census, and so forth.

    We don't need marriage licenses. Marry who you want to marry. Have kids with whomever you choose. Might need record of who is responsible for the actions of a minor, like the driving license example, but that's what birth certificates are for. In cases of adoption, guardianship, whatever, there's existing means to record that.

    In cases like this I believe we should think more about whether we need these records in the first place, rather than how to keep them secure. Voter registration is perhaps not the greatest example, again we do need to assure one person gets only one vote. Perhaps we can not record so much on the voter registration, like Social Security numbers, or party affiliation. A political party is at it's core just a club membership. There's no reason a person can only be a member of one club or the other. Why can't I join both clubs?

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:An example to stop with so many gov't databases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's real hard to argue against a voter registry, it's hard to enforce that no one is voting multiple times without it.

      That isn't why we have a voter registry.

      What of the other government databases? Can't they also be leaked and/or abused?

      Is there anything that can't be leaked or abused? Anything at all?

      Should we be using Social Security numbers everywhere?

      Oh? Objecting now? You're a bit too late on that one. You should have thought on how to secure it properly, instead of the haphazard crap-pile of a system we have now.

      A couple examples. Licenses to drive, do we really need those?

      Do you have an alternative?

      Maybe a license for minors that lack the legal authority for things like signing an insurance contract, would be difficult to sue in court if caught violating the law or doing damage, etc. The license for a minor is much about an adult, presumably the parent, agreeing that they take responsibility for the behavior of the minor as it is about making sure the minor has a minimum understanding of how to drive. An adult though is always legally responsible, licensed or not. Every day is a driving exam by police officers looking for bad drivers.

      Well, actually, no, you should figure out what the most common usages are for those licenses, actually. If it were simply a matter of testing, they could simply perform that, and then give you a certificate. But that's not the entire or even major purpose at all. Which has its own share of problems, but it is convenient what with the importance to many people of driving.

      We don't need gun licenses either, and for much the same reason as driving licenses. If you own and carry a gun then you are assumed responsible for anything that happens if it is discharged, licensed or not.

      Firearms licenses are not used primarily for that purpose either.

      These have been abused by law enforcement and by the public. Get rid of them.

      So have guns! Get rid of them!

      Some licenses we probably need though are things like hunting and fishing, building repair and construction, or anything where there is a need to manage quantity. Can't have too many hunters hunting at once, that's bad for managing the wildlife.

      You could just issue a certain number of bullets.

      Can't have a building without knowing who owns it, that's a matter of managing taxes, census, and so forth.

      The census has nothing to do with owning of buildings. And actually, you'll find property records ARE generally public.

      We don't need marriage licenses. Marry who you want to marry. Have kids with whomever you choose.

      Those aren't why we have marriage licenses.

      Might need record of who is responsible for the actions of a minor, like the driving license example, but that's what birth certificates are for. In cases of adoption, guardianship, whatever, there's existing means to record that.

      And...other forms of contracts, explicitly including the very significant one of marriage. Sure, there are places that still do it under common-law. Most do not. That was a deliberate choice. Recording things has a value. PS, birth certificates ARE a database too.

      In cases like this I believe we should think more about whether we need these records in the first place, rather than how to keep them secure.

      Ok, when are you planning on starting to think? So far you just seem to be blithering the usual half-conceived ideas of somebody who hasn't given real consideration to something.

      Voter registration is perhaps not the greatest example, again we do need to assure one person gets only one vote. Perhaps we can not record so m

    2. Re:An example to stop with so many gov't databases by blindseer · · Score: 1

      You could just issue a certain number of bullets.

      How do you get hunters to practice their marksmanship? They need "bullets" (I'm pretty sure you mean "cartridge" or "shell" but whatever) to practice. Do you want wildlife control or not? You do know that over population of deer create road hazards, can spread diseases (even among the deer, it's for their good too), and other problems. With "bullet control" you'll have a lot of hunters missing their mark and creating a lot of wounded animals. Why do you hate wildlife?

      Also, how does bullet control work for a musket? People still hunt with those you know. They are cast of lead easily. What of bird hunting? They use shot, not bullets.

      I believe you didn't think this through and got this crazy idea from the Brady Campaign or some comedy routine, I get those two confused.

      Those aren't why we have marriage licenses.

      I know why they were created. The Democrats created them in the Jim Crow era to enforce a ban on interracial marriages. Up until that time marriages were solely a religious matter. Why do you think we have them now? Whatever purpose they served in the past they serve no purpose now.

      Do you have an alternative?

      Yes, let people do what they want and be responsible for their actions when they fuck up. You know, this concept called "liberty"? Don't they teach that in school any more?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:An example to stop with so many gov't databases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple examples. Licenses to drive, do we really need those?

      Do you have an alternative?

      Yes, let people do what they want and be responsible for their actions when they fuck up. You know, this concept called "liberty"? Don't they teach that in school any more?

      I don't see your alternative working, as it doesn't provide for all the utility which driver's licenses fulfill, and people doing what they want, well, that's contradictory to responsibility. After all, they are opposing concepts, did they not teach you that in school? Well, obviously not, or you'd not say half of what you did.

      How do you get hunters to practice their marksmanship?

      Are we requiring hunters to practice now? Interesting. Is it a certification program then?

      They need "bullets" (I'm pretty sure you mean "cartridge" or "shell" but whatever) to practice.

      Then I submit, they should expect to pay for it. Can't certify them for free.

      Do you want wildlife control or not?

      I've no interest in it whatsoever.

      You do know that over population of deer create road hazards, can spread diseases (even among the deer, it's for their good too), and other problems.

      You do know that hunting of deer creates road hazards, can spread diseases (even among people who don't have anything to do with the deer), and other problem, don't you?

      With "bullet control" you'll have a lot of hunters missing their mark and creating a lot of wounded animals.

      Oh? Why? Are you assuming a condition that you know you can't guarantee anyway today? Because you're now arguing for that certification program for practicing.

      Why do you hate wildlife?

      A better question is, why don't you?

      Also, how does bullet control work for a musket? People still hunt with those you know. They are cast of lead easily.

      You're the one who has to deal with that, not me. You're the one who wants to rid ourselves of licenses.

      What of bird hunting? They use shot, not bullets.

      What of it?

      I believe you didn't think this through and got this crazy idea from the Brady Campaign or some comedy routine, I get those two confused.

      I know you didn't think your ideas through, and got your crazy ideas from the AM Radio that plays through your dental fillings.

      Those aren't why we have marriage licenses.

      I know why they were created.

      Obviously not, or you wouldn't be putting forth an explanation that is untrue and that reeks of partisan bias and misinformation.

      Not only are you promulgating an ignorant story regarding religion (in reality, it was the churches that sought to co-opt marriage for its own purposes), you're adding a pointlessly false recrimination to it.

      The Democrats created them in the Jim Crow era to enforce a ban on interracial marriages.

      You seem to have been misinformed. Marriage licenses were issued, before the American Revolution, most, if not all, of the colonies routinely issued marriage licenses, Pennsylvania being one example. Not only that, but Anti-miscegenation laws also predated the American Revolution, though in many cases, they were also repealed before the Civil War, due to opposition from abolitionists.

      Therefore, your claim is logically impossible on both points.

      Do be sure to stop passing forth these errors, you're only hurting your own case, however little legitimacy it may have, by such needless mistakes.

      Up until that time marriages were solely a religious matter.

      Also untrue, since Common-Law marriages existed(and still do, in a few states), and furthermore, there were numerous pre

  8. Most are probably dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a Chicagoan I'm not bothered as I assume there's a large chance that the data is basically garbage because 77% of those voters are dead already.

  9. Re: An example to stop with so many gov't database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government getting things right is more the exception than the rule

  10. Complicit with PACE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this is just a way to comply with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity without looking complicit. A lot of people are saying that even the Blue states want to sell us down the river. This provides a great cover. There's nothing this administration is good at but plausible deniability.

  11. Njiggers too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a lot if them in that city, since they self-decided to improve the South by moving to Chicago.

  12. How meny dead people are on that list? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    How meny dead people are on that list?

  13. Public info in Florida by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    It is interesting to see people shocked by this. The sunshine laws in Florida are so strong that all of this is openly sold. Check out this site that puts it all online by zip - http://flvoters.com/by_zip.htm...

  14. Non story -Info already publically availalbe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The name, address, party affiliation and various other items of voter information is already. public information in most areas usually for a nominal price. Why do think you are bombarded with junk political mailers and phone calls at election time? There is a an entire industry of political operatives who pore over this data for their clients.

  15. Questionable Matching Criteria by ssufficool · · Score: 1

    Whenever I see "analysis" like this, I always question the matching criteria. Quite often it is naive and not validated.

    If you use first name, last name and birth date you can produce THOUSANDS of _false_ matches. Throw in the address, maybe a few hundred. But then if the address is not correct on either side, you miss the match.

    A good brief: http://www.brennancenter.org/a...