Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senators Demand FCC Answer For Fake Comments After Realizing Their Identities Were Stolen (gizmodo.com)

Posted by msmash on from the waking-up-to-reality dept.

Two US senators -- one Republican, one Democrat who both had their identities stolen and then used to post fake public comments on net neutrality -- are calling on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to address how as many as two million fake comments were filed under stolen names. From a report: Senators Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, are among the estimated "two million Americans" whose identities were used to file comments to the FCC without their consent. "The federal rulemaking process is an essential part of our democracy and allows Americans the opportunity to express their opinions on how government agencies decide important regulatory issues," the pair of lawmakers wrote [PDF].

"As such, we are concerned about the aforementioned fraudulent activity. We need to prevent the deliberate misuse of Americans' personal information and ensure that the FCC is working to protect against current and future vulnerabilities in its system. We encourage the FCC to determine who facilitated these fake comments," the letter continues. "While we understand and agree with the need to protect individuals' privacy, we request that the FCC share with the public the total number of fake comments that were filed."

6 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Re:New CPU exploit discovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was posted yesterday.

  2. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They need to know how it feels.

  3. Common Knowledge by sirsky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It has been common knowledge that millions of comments were forged and faked from day one. An estimated 2 million American's stolen identities to post fake comments on an incredibly important issue doesn't matter -- until it's just 2 American Senators? What's wrong with this picture?

    1. Re:Common Knowledge by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      C'mon, you know that's how it works here. It could affect most of the population and they'll do nothing.

      It affects a few of THEM, and yeah.. now it's a Thing.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  4. Re: Mild shock by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, getting at the heart of the question, was the Constitution written for the United states, or the world? Does our constitution guarantee these rights for everyone regardless of their nationality? I guess what I'm asking is if the constitution is what provides the right, and the constitution doesn't cover all people, then at some level it seems to make sense to verify the potential voter is in fact covered by the constitution... otherwise you're the biggest bank in town leaving your vault wide open while loudly proclaiming "please don't come in to this open vault and take anything that isn't yours."

    My admittedly not very educated opinion, is that the effort required to _effectively_ vote (i.e. researching the candidates and issues prior to casting your vote) requires so much more effort than registering to vote, that it doesn't seem a very high barrier to voting to ask someone to be registered, or else vote provisionally. I guess what I'm saying is that if it is your civic duty to vote, then is it not also your duty to educate yourself on the issues on which you cast your vote? Otherwise, what would be the point of voting? It seems to me like the democratic process elevates itself above mob rule by this very mechanism, namely, being educated on the issues rather than voting based on what your chatty neighbor over the fence told you?

    I agree with you that voting is not like driving, and surely to deny anyone the right to legally vote is a grievous issue. However I also argue that voting does not start when you walk up to the voting machine.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  5. Re: Mild shock by anegg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But due process should be followed. Citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And to deny someone's birthright and essential right of citizenship? By default? Without any evidence of wrong doing? Is that who we are?

    This isn't about due process (Due Process being a right described in the Constitution's fifth and fourteenth amendments in relation to being deprived of life, liberty, or property when accused of a crime), or evidence of wrong doing. It is about access control. Perhaps we should not require passwords on logon to operating systems unless we have evidence that people have been logging on fraudulently. Perhaps we should not require proof of ID to cash checks until we have evidence that people are cashing checks fraudulently. Perhaps we should not require ID or a permit to carry a firearm (another constitutional right). If the voting system was generally only accessible to citizens, then perhaps we wouldn't need such access control. But it is easily accessible to non-citizens, based on the number of non-citizens resident in the United States. If some states are registering to vote anyone who gets a driver's license, without guaranteeing citizenship first, then even being registered to vote doesn't guarantee citizenship. Try using a Voter Registration card to prove you are a citizen the next time you do business with the federal government...

    If, in fact, only citizen's are supposed to be voting, then it is not depriving anyone of a right to make sure that they ARE a citizen before allowing them to vote, so long as the process of validating their citizenship isn't itself used to disenfranchise someone. And there is the rub, isn't it?