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

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."

Comments

Re:New CPU exploit discovered

[Anonymous Coward]

It was posted yesterday.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to know how it feels.

Re:Good

[iggymanz]

haha, this just reminds me of judge saying it was okay to rifle through people's trash without permission, then was humiliated when people rifled through his trash

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it had happened. Personally, I was reminded of how video rental records were not protected until some congresscritters were embarrassed by their own video rental records.

Re:Good

[Stolovaya]

Oh yeah, in Oregon, if it's the same thing I'm thinking: http://www.wweek.com/portland/...

Re:Good

[Stolovaya]

http://www.wweek.com/portland/...

Mild shock

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing! People are spamming comments using names that aren't theirs! Only Russians are capable of such dishonesty.

In other news: there's no reason to ask for ID when voting in federal elections.

Re: Mild shock

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news: there's no reason to ask for ID when voting in federal elections.

There really isn't, you should have had your identity determined when you registered to vote.

Re: Mild shock

[Q-Hack!]

43 States require nothing more that a bank statement or student ID to register to vote. They show proof of residency, but not proof of citizenship.

Re: Mild shock

[techno-vampire]

OK, in those states that do require proof of citizenship, what kind of proof do they require?

Re: Mild shock

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news: there's no reason to ask for ID when voting in federal elections.

There really isn't, you should have had your identity determined when you registered to vote.

Umm, then how would you know the person voting is the person who registered?

You do realize that the UN standards for free and fair elections requires positively identifying voters:

(2) In addition, States should take the necessary policy and institutional steps to ensure the progressive achievement and consolidation of democratic goals, including through the establishment of a neutral, impartial or balanced mechanism for the management of elections. In so doing, they should, among other matters:

  - Ensure that those responsible for the various aspects of the election are trained and act impartially, and that coherent voting procedures are established and made known to the voting public;
  - Ensure the registration of voters, updating of electoral rolls and balloting procedures, with the assistance of national and international observers as appropriate;
  - Encourage parties, candidates and the media to accept and adopt a Code of Conduct to govern the election campaign and the polling period;
  - Ensure the integrity of the ballot through appropriate measures to prevent multiple voting or voting by those not entitled thereto;
  - Ensure the integrity of the process for counting votes.

So you're advocating a voting system that doesn't meet UN standards?

OK.

Re: Mild shock

[Green Mountain Bot]

Umm, then how would you know the person voting is the person who registered?

Because the person who is registered will either have voted already, or will complain about being denied because their name was crossed out already.

Re:Mild shock

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked the polls for two elections here in South Carolina. Sad thing is that even though I'm nearly forty, I think I was less than half of the age of any of the other volunteers. I wish more young people would decide to be involved with this important task. We can't ask for ID or a voter registration card. We can only ask for a name that we then match with a voting record in a fanfold printout then ask if that is the correct address. There's a lot of church buses that drop off a load of African Americans that don't even look at the book when asked if that's the correct record. They just give a common name and say yes and don't even verify the address when asked. We can't legally ask for an ID or keep them from voting even if we know they're lying. We also aren't allowed to ask them to verify the address. That's a huge problem here since there's so fewer last names on average than in the rest of the country that isn't the South.

Re: Mild shock

[suutar]

If they vote at all. If they don't, nobody notices.

Re:Mild shock

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Someone should film voters going in and follow tbe bus to the second place and film there too. Then release the film edited for only the duplicate voters.

Re: Mild shock

[Lab Rat Jason]

Is that true? I'm reaching way back in my history classes, but I thought you had to be a citizen to vote... it's not a human right, it's a civil right.

Re: Mild shock

[king neckbeard]

You just pointed out why voter impersonation doesn't work, you dingbat. You have to know with very high accuracy who isn't going to vote, or else there will be evidence to track you down.

That's why virtually all known incidents of voter impersonation were family members voting for other family members.

Meatbag fraud is the least effective fraud, but double-district voting is the most common method, and voter ID does nothing to stop it.

Re: Mild shock

[arth1]

In other news: there's no reason to ask for ID when voting in federal elections.

There really isn't, you should have had your identity determined when you registered to vote.

Or, following the lead of countries with much higher voter turnout, get rid of the requirement to register to vote, and auto-register all citizens. Voter registration is just a bottleneck designed to make it harder for the destitute to vote.

Re:Mild shock

[Anonymous Coward]

They just give a common name and say yes and don't even verify the address when asked.

So, what happens when the person with the common name comes by later, and is told that they aren't allowed to vote because they already did?

You'd think these people would be pissed and it'd be a big stinky story, but I don't remember hearing of it.

Re: Mild shock

[arth1]

You do realize that the UN standards for free and fair elections requires positively identifying voters:

- Ensure the integrity of the ballot through appropriate measures to prevent multiple voting or voting by those not entitled thereto;

So you're advocating a voting system that doesn't meet UN standards?

You're jumping to conclusions here. Positively identifying voters isn't the only way of ensuring that. Different countries use different measures - all from indelible ink to mark voters with, voter cards that must be handed over to be allowed to enter the booth, and all the way up to centralized computer systems that register that a certain hash has already voted that day.

Re: Mild shock

[Obfuscant]

You just pointed out why voter impersonation doesn't work, you dingbat.

Name calling, check.

You have to know with very high accuracy who isn't going to vote, or else there will be evidence to track you down.

Someone who is dead is unlikely to vote. Someone who is on vacation is unlikely to vote. Someone who you know isn't going to bother to vote is unlikely to vote.

But, since you are giving SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME, there is little evidence to "track you down".

Meatbag fraud is the least effective fraud,

Given that nobody ever bothers to ask anyone after an election if they did actually vote, so there will be little chance of detecting votes cast under someone else's name, it is highly effective. It is most effective at the local level, of course. Why do you think the Daley machine in Chicago relied on it for so many years?

and voter ID does nothing to stop it.

To vote someone else's ballot when voter ID is requires means you have to forge an ID for each person you are voting as. That's a pretty low bar to preventing it, but since it's more than we're doing now it will have a positive effect. Claiming that voter ID would do nothing to stop fraud is just ridiculous.

Re: Mild shock

[Anonymous Coward]

This. If this is so prevalent, why hasn't it been documented?

Re: Mild shock

[Obfuscant]

Different countries use different measures - all from indelible ink to mark voters with,

Putting ink on someone's finger doesn't identify them, it only shows that they might have voted. You want to stop your spouse from voting in tomorrow's election? Dip his finger in ink while he's sleeping. Bingo, he VOTED!

and all the way up to centralized computer systems that register that a certain hash has already voted that day.

And that "by computer" special process stops one person from voting as five different people exactly how?

Re: Mild shock

[Obfuscant]

get rid of the requirement to register to vote, and auto-register all citizens.

Thus creating a much larger pool of people who have no interest in the process and have no intention of voting, but are registered to do so. In other words, everyone because a target for identity theft by people who cast multiple votes.

Voter registration is just a bottleneck designed to make it harder for the destitute to vote.

Registering to vote costs nothing, so your asinine excuse is just that. Registration is how you validate that each person who votes is authorized to do so. Unless your goal is to allow people who have no right to vote access to the polls, then you have no reason not to support registration and identification.

Re: Mild shock

[king neckbeard]

Given that nobody ever bothers to ask anyone after an election if they did actually vote, so there will be little chance of detecting votes cast under someone else's name, it is highly effective. It is most effective at the local level, of course.

Let me put it this way. When you assess different methods of trying to sway the votes in an election, and compare the costs, risks, and benefits, any kind of fraud that involves getting meatbags into polling places is going to be dead last, including legitimate campaigning.

Mathematically, voter impersonation is the stupidest way to rig an election.

Re: Mild shock

[Whorhay]

There is actually a lot about our government processes that aren't very secure at all. Getting an ID like a drivers license actually issued to you by the state, under another persons name, is really just a matter of filing the right paperwork. First you file a request for a new copy of the birth certificate, depending on where you get it from they might want a photo copy of a state ID card, which anyone can fake using ms paint. Similarly fake a DD-214, and a W2 with accompanying previous year tax return paperwork. Then take your documents down to the DMV and get your Drivers License. For extra credit you can use your shiny new license to get a new SSN card direct from the SSA.

Re: Mild shock

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for grins, ask a hardcore liberal whether being a citizen is a requirement in order to vote in a federal, state, or local election. I asked this of an NPR news director of the Baltimore NPR station (no knowledge of his political affiliation, just an semi-educated guess on my part). The response that I got was along the lines that there is no problem with the voting system, there is no credible proof that there is any kind of fraud with voting, and all of these questions have been answered before. (This is NOT an exact quote). I did not get an responsive answer to the question that I asked.

So basically you are providing your own narrative account, and telling a story. So what? You think people haven't asked a dozen screaming "Voter ID" firebreathers and don't have their own stories about how someone like Kris Kobach totally frazzled the question of why he can't provide proof of his allegations?

Some of them might even be on video.

Yours? For all we know, it's a total fabrication, or maybe the person just didn't hear your question because he wasn't listening to you since all of the notes clamoring for "voter ID" tend to get tedious at times.

I think the question is a good indicator of whether someone is an open borders "let everyone in" advocate, whether publicly or not. I believe one clearly has to be a citizen to vote in a federal election, and to deny that reality is, well, to be in denial. But I'm not so clear on whether you need to be a citizen of the US in order to vote in a US state or local election. Perhaps being a resident is enough.

Here's the truth: There's no legal requirement of citizenship to vote in the Constitution. There is a requirement that citizens are allowed to vote, but it does not exclude non-citizens from voting. That's the reality. Deny it all you like, but you do not have constitutional backing for your false beliefs. There is a federal law that covers it, but only federal elections, because arguably Congress does have the authority to do it in regards federal elections, but when it comes to their own elections, states and local governments are free to set their own parameters, and some have even explicitly required residents or in some cases, mere property owners, to be allowed to vote in certain elections. Particularly tax assessments.

Of course, you might say this has no merit, but it's a fact-based interpretation, and more valid than those wags who emphatically point out the technicality that the voting age of 18 does not forbid those under 18 from being allowed to vote.

However, in practical terms, you're totally wasting your time fretting over nonsense, the real problems of the US voting system are in other directions, including the current miserable turnout, the egregious gerrymandering problem, and the lack of true representation due to WTA and FPTP systems.

So wave your hands over nonsense, and ignore the true issues.

Re: Mild shock

[vux984]

"I think the question is a good indicator of whether someone is an open borders "let everyone in" advocate, whether publicly or not."

I disagree.

Voting is a constitutional right. You shouldn't need to prove anything to anyone before exercising it.

The state should have to prove you aren't a citizen, rather than you proving that you are. The burden should be on the state to prosecute fraudulent voting and fraudulent voters, and convict in the courts.

It should not on the citizens to establish to the states arbitrary satisfaction that they are in fact citizens before they can exercise their voting right.

Otherwise, you are denying citizens their most basic constitutional right without any evidence. This is appalling.

Voting is not like driving.

And If the state thinks voter fraud is a big problem, then start investigating suspected cases. Get evidence that someone voted fraudulently -- arrest them for it, deport them for it.

Add legislation to force recounts or even re-elections if voter fraud is discovered in amounts sufficient to have swung the election. Voter fraud should not be tolerated.

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?

Re: Mild shock

[anegg]

So basically you are providing your own narrative account, and telling a story. So what? You think people haven't asked a dozen screaming "Voter ID" firebreathers and don't have their own stories about how someone like Kris Kobach totally frazzled the question of why he can't provide proof of his allegations?

Yes, I provided my own narrative, and told a story. I'm not sure what else you think I *could* do, given that I didn't wiretap my conversation.

I think you missed my point, but by missing it, perhaps made it for others. I actually wanted to have a discussion about whether one needed to be a citizen to vote. I happen to believe that one clearly has to be a citizen, because to allow non-citizens to vote would be madness, whether or not the US Constitution says anything about it. But I didn't get to have the discussion, because of a knee-jerk reaction to my question that apparently assumed I had an agenda other than having that discussion. Unlike the person in my story, though, you went on to put words in my mouth that I didn't say, and then attacked those words. Clearly it is difficult to have a discussion with someone who thinks that they can anticipate your points, and responds to what they have anticipated, rather than working with what has actually been said. Sigh.

Re: Mild shock

[Lab Rat Jason]

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.

Re: Mild shock

[king neckbeard]

Which takes less effort, rigging the voting machines or physically impersonating voters?
Which has greater risk, rigging the voting machines, which have no real audit trail, or physically impersonating voters, where the likelihood of getting cause increases drastically with every single vote?
Which has greater reward, rigging the voting machines, allowing you to control all of the votes, or paying someone at least minimum wage to vote and travel?

If meatbag impersonation is anywhere near the top of your list of electoral concerns, you need to take a goddamn remedial statistics class, and burn your fucking nerd card, because nobody with a functioning brain would use that kind of method alone. The machines you mentioned had bribery as their core mechanism, with voter fraud being occasionally used a supplement, only practical because they CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE ELECTION APPARATUS in the first place, and that was the important part.

Re: Mild shock

[anegg]

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?

Re: Mild shock

[anegg]

I think you missed my point, but by missing it, perhaps made it for others. I actually wanted to have a discussion about whether one needed to be a citizen to vote.

Seems like you could have had one, if you'd tried, but for some reason, you avoided it.

I wanted to have a discussion. I asked a question of someone because I was genuinely interested in the answer (i.e., whether or not they believed someone needed to be a citizen to vote in a federal election). I got an answer that had relatively little to do with my question. How is it that you think I was avoiding the discussion?

I used hyperbole when I said it would be "madness" to allow non-citizens to vote, but I can expand upon that. If non-citizens could vote in US federal elections, then the elected representatives of the US population, making laws and carrying out those laws, could be chosen by persons other than those bound under those laws, there being far more non-citizens in the world than US citizens. To my mind, that would be madness. I am of the opinion that the original framers of the Constitution did not expect to be governed by representatives chosen by people outside of the country.

Of course, it wouldn't be all bad, I guess. We could stop being concerned about how much influence the Russians had in the recent federal elections. If non-citizens can vote, surely non-citizens can take part in the debate leading up to the election as well.

Re: Mild shock

[sjames]

I have no problem with registered voting per se. The problem is in what may be required to register. Driver's license? Why would you have that if you don't drive? Unexpired ID? Wait, why would an ID expire?

Re: Mild shock

[sjames]

You want to stop your spouse from voting in tomorrow's election? Dip his finger in ink while he's sleeping. Bingo, he VOTED!

But you better know the right color of ink and that they're not going to mark the back of your hand this time. And be careful, divorce is expensive.

Re: Mild shock

[Anonymous Coward]

To deny you the right to vote, the state should be required to produce evidence of your disqualification.

Re: Mild shock

[anegg]

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.

Please tell me you don't believe that particular misrepresentation that runs rampant through right-wing media. Voter disenfranchisement is a real and documented problem. Registration of noncitizens who get drivers licenses is not, with few examples and far outnumbered by even those citizens who aren't able to prove their citizenship.

I don't know whether to believe the claim or not, unfortunately. It seems far-fetched for it to be true, but I don't have the resources to visit the jurisdictions in question and establish what their processes are myself. I also thought it was far-fetched for a state government to pass a law forbidding people from cooperating with federal law enforcement.

I also thought that it was far-fetched for a county/ state that had a votable-verifiable paper ballot that was electronically counted (but could be verified through a manual recount) to switch to an all-electronic system that removed voter verification and just about all auditing capabilities, but that is exactly what happened in my last state of residence (Maryland).

I know that I currently live in a state for which I had to get an "enhanced" driver's license in order for it to be used as a federal ID (something that is required in my work, as well as to board civil aircraft) because the ordinary driver's license did not meet the US governments citizenship or basic proof of identity needs. I also know that my daughter, who was recently licensed to drive, was automatically registered to vote at the same time that she received her license. I do not know specifically which part of the driver's licensing process checked her citizenship (not necessary for a driver's license) before registering her to vote.

I've seen enough stupidity to stop believing that just because something is far-fetched it isn't possible.

I am against disenfranchising voters. I am not necessarily willing to give up ensuring only authorized voters are voting, and then only voting once per election, in order to prevent all disenfranchising of any voter, however. I think both needs can be met. Perhaps we can do statistical testing (such as is used for quality control to establish whether a lot should be accepted or not based on sampling items in the lot) using randomly chosen voters, which can be tuned for both false acceptance and false rejection rates.

Re: Mild shock

[orlanz]

You may not realize this but every one of your examples did start out that way. Way back, people just logged in with a userID.

It wasn't until much later that not only the potential but actual usage of logging in as others was noticed that it started to be locked down. Even then, remember the time that passwords were extremely simple? My hotmail account password was only 5 characters long! Again time, observation, and results resulted in what we see today. And now we debate how useless passwords are.

Same with your other examples. We are a nation built on trust. Until we prove there is fraud warranting measures of mitigation, we shouldn't burden the society with such.

Re: Mild shock

[dog77]

I thought we were a nation of checks and balances.

Re: Mild shock

[king neckbeard]

You're damn fucking right I'm nasty. Politics is inherently on a scale beyond what our brains can intuitively understand. Civility has no place in politics, otherwise manipulative cunts like you hide behind someone saying mean words.

As for why you can't pull off voter impersonation, it's for the same reason that cleaning a football stadium with a toothbrush is ineffective. It's mathematically absurd. Plus, the risk of getting caught grows exponentially with every single vote cast. Any other method of influencing an election would be more effective and less risky.

This is slashdot, so we know better. If you seriously think that the best attack vector by far isn't the voting machines, fucking kill yourself.

Re: Mild shock

[orlanz]

Balances being the key word here. We shouldn't throw dollars chasing pennies just because we "feel" something maybe wrong.

Just look at all the other things in our nation from taxes, driving, infrastructure security, hunting/fishing permits, customs checks, etc. Note we don't go over board finding all incorrect tax filings, have a national standard for licenses but allow interstate driving, have copper stealing prevention measures, or check every bag that leaves a park/enters port, etc.

Re: Mild shock

[dryeo]

One of the founding principles of America is no taxes without representation. This points to anyone who pays taxes in America being able to vote. Federal taxes for Federal elections, particular State taxes for particular States etc.
Now it can be argued about how much taxes, I don't think I should be allowed to vote based on the couple of dollars of American sales tax I payed but for someone who is resident (perhaps with a few years requirement) and paying income tax and/or property tax, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote on what is done with the tax money that was collected from them?
My country is simple, Constitution says all citizens of age have the right to vote. There is still on going legal battles about whether long term non-resident citizens are allowed to vote.
My other country is more complicated, basically lots of permanent residents have the right to vote as well as citizens

Re: Mild shock

[dog77]

Can we agree to tie voting with filing taxes since you do have any issue with the checks and balances for paying taxes?

Re: Mild shock

[dryeo]

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?

And there's the rub. My country has required ID to vote for the longest time, it was minimal ID to prove residency, not citizenship and there was the option of signing an affidavit if you had no ID.
Right wing government gets power and gets advice from the Republicans, they make the ID requirements way more onerous, which disenfranchised my son who only had a birth certificate, CARE (medical) card and student ID. Given more time he could have paid the $75 for ID after traveling close to a hundred mile round trip to the government office but he wasn't motivated enough. It's a long walk or 2 day Greyhound trip.
For my wife it was even worse. She'd always voted under her maiden name, all her ID was in her maiden name, and we checked the government web site the day before the election to make sure we were both registered, her in her maiden name. Upon going to vote, her registration had mysteriously changed to my name, which she had no ID for. Fun of being a minority who the government expects to vote against that government.

Re: Mild shock

[houghi]

In many countries being an adult means you are "registered to vote".

Re: Mild shock

[Obfuscant]

Which takes less effort,

We're not talking about what takes less effort, we're talking about what works. And has been used for generations.

If meatbag impersonation is anywhere near the top of your list of electoral concerns,

I got it. You think that only the very tip top of any list of concerns should be dealt with. Ignore everything but what you think is the easiest.

Some of us can multi-task. It's a handy talent. You should google it.

Re: Mild shock

[king neckbeard]

We're not talking about what takes less effort, we're talking about what works.

And it DOES NOT WORK. That's the point, and if you had bothered to respond to ALL of my questions, you'd have to acknowledge that. From a business perspective, this form of fraud would be a less for more position, which is a niche that guarantees failure.

And has been used for generations.

No, it hasn't. The meatbag trick that's been used in modern election is voting in multiple jurisdictions, and even that is pretty rare, because using meatbags to cheat is for suckers.

I got it. You think that only the very tip top of any list of concerns should be dealt with. Ignore everything but what you think is the easiest.

No, let me spell it out for you. This type of fraud is so rare that for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist. Hanging chads had more of an effect on elections than voter impersonation in the last 40 years.

It's not an election integrity issue, because if you care about the integrity of elections, this is effectively last on your list. This is an attempt to disenfranchise voters under the guise of election integrity. Nobody who understands ANYTHING about modern elections is concerned about voter impersonation, but they are concerned about rigged primaries, political duopolies, voter disenfranchisement, and voting machine vulnerabilities, because those actual hurt democracy.

Re: Mild shock

[Areyoukiddingme]

This is slashdot, so we know better. If you seriously think that the best attack vector by far isn't the voting machines, fucking kill yourself.

That escalated quickly...

Re: Mild shock

[king neckbeard]

There's no need to be kind to trolls making facile arguments that fly in the face of a basic understanding of technology.

Re: Mild shock

[Brockmire]

Yes, I want my 18 year old picture still! Fuck that I look different than 20 years ago. Were you actually fucking seriously asking? Your SIN card doesn't have picture ID and doesn't expire. For the rest of us plebs, we age. Just look at Jet Li.

Re: Mild shock

[Brockmire]

Wtf? Are you confusing registering with voting? You don't make sense.

Re: Mild shock

[Obfuscant]

And it DOES NOT WORK.

That explains why it has been used for decades in some places. It doesn't work, so they keep doing it. Hmmm.

You can deny it all day, but that doesn't change anything.

This type of fraud is so rare that for all practical purposes,

Except where it has been used, it isn't used. Check. If it makes you feel more secure to deny it, ok.

This is an attempt to disenfranchise voters under the guise of election integrity.

Yeah, keeping dead people from voting is such a disenfranchisement. Really. The dead have rights, too!

Re: Mild shock

[king neckbeard]

The first part of the post is you claiming without evidence that this is a common practice, while every study on the matter has concluded the very opposite.

Yeah, keeping dead people from voting is such a disenfranchisement. Really. The dead have rights, too!

Don't plead ignorance here. It's well known that these are methods to disenfranchise the living voters in the state. Alabama passes a voter ID law, and then they almost immediately shut down all the DMVs in predominantly black counties. It's pretty clear what they were doing.

As for dead voters, that's primarily a problem of voter rolls, and fixing voter roll problems also fixes the other actual form of meatbag fraud.

Re: Mild shock

[Obfuscant]

The first part of the post is you claiming without evidence that this is a common practice, while every study on the matter has concluded the very opposite.

Anyone who lives anywhere near Chicago knows the truth, and Chicago isn't unique. The names change but the machine stays the same. You can trot out a thousand "studies" by groups that have no interest in fixing the system as proof that it doesn't happen; watching it happen proves otherwise.

Don't plead ignorance here. It's well known that these are methods to disenfranchise the living voters in the state.

Yeah, purging the roles of dead people is just a way to disenfranchise the living. No bias in THAT claim, is there?

As for dead voters, that's primarily a problem of voter rolls, and fixing voter roll problems also fixes the other actual form of meatbag fraud.

Yeah, if the system were perfect there would be no fraud. But it isn't, and claiming there is no fraud is just sticking your head in the sand. You might notice, the same people who claim there is no vote fraud are also the ones who don't want to fix the voter rolls. And when someone shows up who does want to fix the rolls, the ones who don't want them fixed cry "racism!". We haven't seen that in THIS discussion, have we?

Re: Mild shock

[king neckbeard]

Anyone who lives anywhere near Chicago knows the truth, and Chicago isn't unique. The names change but the machine stays the same. You can trot out a thousand "studies" by groups that have no interest in fixing the system as proof that it doesn't happen; watching it happen proves otherwise.

Then catch some motherfuckers and provide some actual proof. Out of billions of votes, we've only seen about 30 somewhat credible claims, and they were pretty much all family members.

Yeah, purging the roles of dead people is just a way to disenfranchise the living. No bias in THAT claim, is there?

I don't even know what your deluded ass is even trying to claim. I cited the specific example of Alabama shutting down DMVs only in areas that are mostly black after passing a voter ID law.

Yeah, if the system were perfect there would be no fraud. But it isn't, and claiming there is no fraud is just sticking your head in the sand.

I'm not claiming that there is no fraud. I'm claiming that a very specific kind of fraud does not exist, and that people who claim it does are either lying to cover the fraud and other tricks they do, or is an uniformed imbecile parroting their bullshit rhetoric.

You might notice, the same people who claim there is no vote fraud are also the ones who don't want to fix the voter rolls.

Nobody in power wants to fix the voter rolls. Neither Dems nor the GOP.

And when someone shows up who does want to fix the rolls, the ones who don't want them fixed cry "racism!". We haven't seen that in THIS discussion, have we?

I'm not aware of anybody in power trying to do that, or claiming that such actions are racist. They've claimed that completely unrelated voter ID laws are racist, but there's empirical evidence to support that claim, unlike yours.

Identities "stolen"

[RobinH]

The comment form probably looked like this:

Comment: _______________________________________

Please enter your name: _____

Please enter your address: _____

[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

The comment form probably looked like this:

Comment: _______________________________________

Please enter your name: _____

Please enter your address: _____

[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.

Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here.

They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here.

I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Chris Mattern]

I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.

"Your winnings, Monsieur Pai."

Re:Identities "stolen"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Nah. As I've said repeatedly around here, the comment mechanism isn't a ballot box and comments aren't votes. The comment mechanism is a way for the FCC to get thoughtful, relevant input from the public that it hadn't previously considered.

The "RETAIN!!1!!" and "REPEEL!!!!" ballot stuffing comments at issue didn't meet that criteria (and in fact made it even more difficult for the FCC to wade through and find anything actually meaningful).

Re:Identities "stolen"

[mysidia]

The official form is even funner.... There's No Checkbox, AND You can type Multiple names into the "Your Name" field, And in addition they provide interfaces to Bulk-upload comments.

There is not even a superficial attempt to verify the commentator's identities and prevent robotic submissions.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[mnemotronic]

I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.

"Your winnings, Monsieur Pai."

Follow the money.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

He will take a job with some Internet provider for a hundred million after he leaves office, and this will be legal. We can predict following the money and can't do anything.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[swillden]

The comment form probably looked like this:

Comment: _______________________________________

Please enter your name: _____

Please enter your address: _____

[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.

Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here.

They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here.

I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.

I don't think anyone is surprised that there were lots of fake comments. What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones. They were very obvious. Millions of identical comments (all opposing net neutrality) submitted by people with names in alphabetical order.

Of course, Ajit Pai really had no interest in getting public comments, much less in seriously considering them.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[ljw1004]

I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.

No one's shocked. The background is that you need a hook to make a proper actionable complaint about it. What this news story is about is that now there's a hook that looks more actionable than previously discussed hooks.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Obfuscant]

What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones.

What makes you think they didn't weed out the fake ones? The fact that they were available to view by the public on the web doesn't mean anyone in the FCC paid any attention to them. They were filed public comments and as such became part of the public record. It would be very dangerous precedent for the FCC to start deleting public comments, because the next one it deletes might be yours.

They were very obvious.

Yes, they were. Obvious enough that there is no reason to believe that the FCC gave them any more weight than they deserved.

Millions of identical comments (all opposing net neutrality)

The ones all supporting net neutrality were just as obvious, if you were looking, or if you didn't just accept them at face value because they agree with your opinion. Fakes were coming in on both sides. They were obvious to anyone who wanted to see them, and there is no reason to think that either side carried any weight in any decision making.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

The background is that you need a hook to make a proper actionable complaint about it.

What's to complain about? This wasn't a mechanism for voting -- it was a mechanism for members of the public to provide perspectives to the FCC that they might not have already considered. Given that, the names attached to the comments are, frankly, irrelevant. The only reason there was a kerfuffle about this at all is the pervasive urban legend that this was somehow a vote.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Obfuscant]

There is not even a superficial attempt to verify the commentator's identities and prevent robotic submissions.

That's because the identities are impossible to verify in the first place, and irrelevant in the second. It's the comment that is relevant. The only people who care who makes a good point or a significant comment are those who rely on ad hominem.

If you think the people reading the comments at the FCC couldn't figure out that a 3000-name comment saying "netwerk nutraltie rocks, dude!" or 10,000 comments saying "ditch that network neutrality crap, it's socialism!" were meaningless, you're a loon.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[ljw1004]

What is this "actionable hook", and what "action"?

The hook this time is a senior enough politician who has an eye-catching angle and is willing to pick up the fight.

What should the FCC do? ... There is no action to be taken here. People used fake names to post comments on a government website. Is that a crime? Who committed the crime, the government or the people using the fake names?

(1) Yes it looks like a crime to post fake comments here - 18 USC sec 1001, a felony for anyone to willfully make false or fictitious statements any any matter under the Executive Branch's jurisdiction.

(2) Yes it looks like a violation of FCC's own rulemaking process to fail to address all comments it receives

(3) I believe it's a duty (but can't find evidence to back this up) of the FCC to gather opinions and evidence to support the decisions it takes. But rather than investigating how to obtain opinions and evidence, it seems to have used the deluge of fake comments as a kind of smokescreen and distraction from this duty.

Well those are three answers to your questions, but I don't think they're the right ones to ask. It boils down to this: I think it's an existing duty of the FCC to get feedback (a duty both in terms of its own rules and to follow the general constitutional principle of "for the people"); it's current mechanisms have been shown inadequate to the task, and I think the FCC is cavalier and/or negligent in its duty by failing to address the defects in its mechanisms.

Actually I believe it serves the FCCs ulterior purposes to leave the defective mechanisms in place, since it makes it easier for FCC to ignore its duties where it finds them inconvenient.

Re: Identities "stolen"

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they didn't carry any weight. The whole thing was a legally mandated formality / charade. The decision had already been made.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[ljw1004]

What's to complain about? This wasn't a mechanism for voting -- it was a mechanism for members of the public to provide perspectives to the FCC that they might not have already considered. Given that, the names attached to the comments are, frankly, irrelevant. The only reason there was a kerfuffle about this at all is the pervasive urban legend that this was somehow a vote.

The other reason is it's a basic part of democracy that the FCC should pay attention to what people think and should base its decisions on evidence; it enshrined part of this duty in its own rule-making process which requires it to attend to every comment. If it then says "we can't pay attention to the comments because there were too many of them and they were junk" then some think this exempts it from its duty, and others think it has to find other ways to fulfill its duty.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Obfuscant]

The hook this time is a senior enough politician who has an eye-catching angle and is willing to pick up the fight.

The fight for what? Provable identities on every public comment the FCC receives?

(1) Yes it looks like a crime to post fake comments here - 18 USC sec 1001, a felony for anyone to willfully make false or fictitious statements any any matter under the Executive Branch's jurisdiction.

Define "real name".

(2) Yes it looks like a violation of FCC's own rulemaking process to fail to address all comments it receives

"Address" does not mean "give equal consideration to" or even "pay any attention to". It certainly does not mean "give individual response to each comment".

(3) I believe it's a duty (but can't find evidence to back this up) of the FCC to gather opinions and evidence to support the decisions it takes.

That's what the public comment process is for. Evidence. Opinions are opinions. FCC regulation is not done via popular vote.

It boils down to this: I think it's an existing duty of the FCC to get feedback

They did. That's what the public comment process is for.

it's current mechanisms have been shown inadequate to the task

Are you seriously trying to claim that the comments it got were not "feedback"?

and I think the FCC is cavalier and/or negligent in its duty by failing to address the defects in its mechanisms.

I keep asking this, and nobody has yet provided an answer I've seen: exactly WHAT MECHANISM do you want the FCC to use to validate the names on submitted comments? Before you answer, that mechanism has to WORK. It has to allow anonymous comments. And it has to be relevant (as in, why is it relevant that a comment pointing out a significant issue with a proposed rule be identifiable to a specific person?).

Actually I believe it serves the FCCs ulterior purposes to leave the defective mechanisms in place, since it makes it easier for FCC to ignore its duties where it finds them inconvenient.

It makes no difference to the rule making process if 10,000 comments saying "don't do that, it's socialist! and we hate Comcast!" are all identifiable to 10,000 specific people or are all from one person. It is trivial to "address" that comment as 1 or 10,000. I've read FCC responses to public comments, and they've had no problem in the past saying "many submitters said X, which we found irrelevant to the rule as proposed" or using some other language dismissing irrelevant comments.

There is no good solution to the identification issue and no reason to solve it. The only people who think it is an issue now are those who think that the FCC is supposed to add up all the yeas and nays and make the rules based on that "vote". That is the only reason either side tried to flood the system -- an incorrect belief that quantity is more important that quality in the public comment system. That is the only reason why either side is now trying to have all the "fraudulent votes" on the opposing side thrown out.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[swillden]

The ones all supporting net neutrality were just as obvious, if you were looking, or if you didn't just accept them at face value because they agree with your opinion. Fakes were coming in on both sides. They were obvious to anyone who wanted to see them, and there is no reason to think that either side carried any weight in any decision making.

False equivalence.

Several organizations undertook the effort of filtering the duplicates and the fakes, and while there were some pro-neutrality fakes they were swamped by the anti-neutrality fakes. And once both were cleaned out, public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of NN, a fact that was strongly supported by every competent poll on the subject.

The FCC absolutely should have listened to public sentiment on this one, and under any other administration, would have.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[ljw1004]

Define "real name".

Why should I define it? There's a statue in place. Our system of law comes with built-in mechanisms for determining what they mean.

I keep asking this, and nobody has yet provided an answer I've seen: exactly WHAT MECHANISM do you want the FCC to use to validate the names on submitted comments? Before you answer, that mechanism has to WORK. It has to allow anonymous comments.

That's a strange question for you to be asking me. I see only these three questions at this stage: (1) do we have reason to believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE to gather feedback in a way that's compatible with the FCC's existing duties and rules? (2) if we don't yet have a definitive answer as to whether it's impossible, then what is the right way to develop new mechanisms and/or test their plausibility? (3) if we do believe it's impossible, how are we going to adjust its existing duties?

For (1) I think that remains to be seen. We haven't seen discussion either way. (Such a discussion would start with a requirements spec that pinpoints precisely what are those duties according to legal interpretations of USC and FCC's own rulemaking process).

For (2), who are you asking for an answer? random people on slashdot? me personally? the news media? They're all very strange places to ask. I think the right way to develop new mechanisms is for the GAO to find that the current mechanisms are flawed (the GAO is already investigating), and then the FCC to bring in experts to develop new mechanisms, and then if those aren't persuasive then it needs some kind of congressional or senate smackdown to get it back on track.

There is no good solution to the identification issue and no reason to solve it. The only people who think it is an issue now are those who think that the FCC is supposed to add up all the yeas and nays and make the rules based on that "vote".

Personally I don't care about identification. I don't think it's the important issue. I think the important issue is numerous pieces of corroborating evidence which together paint picture of an FCC that willfully ignored all evidence that disagreed with its vision. I want my government to be more evidence-based than that.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Solandri]

That's not much different from what info is required to register to vote. Name, address, DOB, a state-issued ID (which can be obtained with just the previous three), and a signature swearing that you're a U.S.citizen and allowed to vote.

This whole thing is a Pandora's box for both sides. Insisting that the comments should be verified leaves you vulnerable to questions about why you're ok with a lower standard of confirmation for voting. Insisting that verification is unnecessary leaves you vulnerable to questions about why then you think the voter registration needs to be verified.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

This whole thing is a Pandora's box for both sides. Insisting that the comments should be verified leaves you vulnerable to questions about why you're ok with a lower standard of confirmation for voting. Insisting that verification is unnecessary leaves you vulnerable to questions about why then you think the voter registration needs to be verified.

Only for the side that maintains these comments were somehow supposed to be votes. For those that recognize they weren't votes and were never represented to be votes, there's no inconsistency at all advocating for strong identity verification requirements for actual votes.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Obfuscant]

False equivalence.

Nonsense. If you're upset because the FCC accepted fake anti-neutrality comments, then you better be just as upset because they accepted fake pro ones. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

And once both were cleaned out, public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of NN

You mean there were more comments. Using whatever name the person posting them entered. This wasn't a vote. It was a public comment period. The number of comments is irrelevant.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Obfuscant]

Define "real name".

Why should I define it?

Because you want to prosecute people for lying to the government on an FCC public comment website. That means you must think there is some definition of "real name" that has to be used or else there is some crime committed. If you can't define it, then stop pretending it's a crime not to use one, Mr. ljw1004.

There's a statue in place.

Heh.

That's a strange question for you to be asking me.

You're the one who is unhappy that people are using fake names on an FCC website to make public comments where real names are irrelevant to start with. Who else would I ask about validating those names?

I see only these three questions at this stage: (1) do we have reason to believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE to gather feedback in a way that's compatible with the FCC's existing duties and rules?

Nobody is debating that. Of course it is not impossible, they are doing it all the time. I've participated in the process before, and I chose not to waste my time this time. Everything that I would have said was said by many other people, so my comment would not add new information.

The question you are avoiding is how they would possibly VALIDATE every name entered into the comment forms. Tell us all how you think that can be done. I'll wait while you think something up.

I think the important issue is numerous pieces of corroborating evidence which together paint picture of an FCC that willfully ignored all evidence that disagreed with its vision.

Oh, poppycock. You have no such evidence. You don't know what comments they did and did not consider fully, you only know that you see ALL of the public comments that are on the public record. Yes, you see ALL the comments on the public record because that's how the public record works.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Obfuscant]

The other reason is it's a basic part of democracy that the FCC should pay attention to what people think and should base its decisions on evidence;

The FCC public comment period is NOT A VOTE. It is NOT A DEMOCRACY. They read the comments and consider them for what they contain -- not who makes them. The public comments may or may not contain this "evidence" which you think is so critical. They are not, by themselves, evidence.

it enshrined part of this duty in its own rule-making process which requires it to attend to every comment.

You have some twisted definition of "attend to" if you think it means they have to answer each and every comment.

If it then says "we can't pay attention to the comments because there were too many of them and they were junk"

Saying that they found the 8 million junk comments unconvincing is "attend[ing] to" them with one sentence. They will, of course, not pay attention to the junk comments, in the sense that they will not change the outcome. Why would you expect them to? They're junk comments.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[ljw1004]

[Why should I define "real name"?] Because you want to prosecute people for lying to the government on an FCC public comment website.

No I don't want to prosecute people for that. (You were the one who asked if anyone broke any laws by using fake names, and I answered your question, but I said it wasn't the right thing to ask). As I've made clear, I want the FCC to be better fulfilling its duties.

The question you are avoiding is how they would possibly VALIDATE every name entered into the comment forms.

Avoid the question? Sure I haven't answered the question because -- as I've said explicitly -- I don't think it's important. You apparently think it's important but you haven't connected the dots as to why.

(If you do want an answer? I'd design a very different feedback mechanism for the FCC. It'd start with interest groups with spokespeople, and they would provide submissions, and the FCC would provide some form of public record which implied it had understood those submissions and had analyzed the data provided in an evidence-based way. It would publish metrics/criteria by which it would judge its right course of action. The question of whether it had competently set metrics and competently assessed the evidence would be challengeable, either by the public or by ombuds or by congress; I'm not sure what would be the right check+balance here. For the wider public including anonymous submissions, I expect the bulk of folks would be satisfied that at least one of the interest group submissions had articulated their own ideas well. If not there'd be a second round of submissions with some lower barrier to entry. I'd have to work further on precisely what the barriers of entry should be. However I bet that the transparency and objectivity of earlier rounds would mean that a large enough majority feels their voice has been fairly heard that we could deem the FCC's duties fulfilled.)

Oh, poppycock. You have no such evidence [that combined together paints a picture of an FCC that willfully ignored all evidence that disagreed with its vision]. You don't know what comments they did and did not consider fully, you only know that you see ALL of the public comments that are on the public record. Yes, you see ALL the comments on the public record because that's how the public record works.

I'm not talking about comments submitted to the website. I'm talking about what I've read of its public consultation process, and how it characterized the responses it got from industry responses.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[ljw1004]

The FCC public comment period is NOT A VOTE. It is NOT A DEMOCRACY. They read the comments and consider them for what they contain -- not who makes them. The public comments may or may not contain this "evidence" which you think is so critical. They are not, by themselves, evidence.

I fully agree with this.

You have some twisted definition of "attend to" if you think it means they have to answer each and every comment.

I firmly believe they shouldn't answer each and every comment, and they shouldn't be expected to.

If it then says "we can't pay attention to the comments because there were too many of them and they were junk"

Saying that they found the 8 million junk comments unconvincing is "attend[ing] to" them with one sentence. They will, of course, not pay attention to the junk comments, in the sense that they will not change the outcome. Why would you expect them to? They're junk comments.

I agree they shouldn't pay attention to the junk comments. I think they should pay attention to important evidence (some of which may be raised in the non-junk website comments, much of which will come from elsewhere).

I think however that they've knowingly chosen a submission-and-evidence-receiving mechanism (the comments website) which is doomed to be unworkable. The high volume of junk there doesn't absolve them of the duty to gather important and relevant submissions in some form or other. I think they're pointing to junk comments and saying basically that they've fulfilled their duty via the website and there's nothing they can usefully do with the responses.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Obfuscant]

No I don't want to prosecute people for that.

Then why bother trying to claim there are so many laws that prohibit it? If there is no reason to prosecute, who cares what laws you think exist (but don't actually prove.)

Avoid the question? Sure I haven't answered the question because -- as I've said explicitly -- I don't think it's important.

It is the critical question if you are going to keep harping about how the system isn't fulfilling the FCC requirements for accepting comments. The system accepts comments, so that can't be the broken part. It must be the part about identifying the commenter. How do you do that?

I'd design a very different feedback mechanism for the FCC.

It's not a FEEDBACK SYSTEM. It's not a vote. It's not a referendum. It's not a poll. It's not an opinion gatherer. It's a PUBLIC COMMENT system. What things do the FCC need to consider that they already haven't. It doesn't matter if 8 million people all say the same thing, it's ONE THING overall. It doesn't matter if one person says it, if it is relevant.

It'd start with interest groups with spokespeople,

"Interest groups" with "spokespeople" are allowed to comment in the existing system. You don't need to redesign anything.

I'm not talking about comments submitted to the website. I'm talking about what I've read of its public consultation process,

Which is the public comment process via the web or other media.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Obfuscant]

I firmly believe they shouldn't answer each and every comment, and they shouldn't be expected to.

Then what is the problem? They didn't do what you don't expect them to anyway. What is the "actionable hook" that we're creating by all of this? What do you mean by "attend to" that they didn't do, if you don't think they need to respond to every comment -- you did say it was their duty to "attend to every comment". If they don't need to attend to every comment, then what duty did they fail to perform?

I think however that they've knowingly chosen a submission-and-evidence-receiving mechanism (the comments website) which is doomed to be unworkable.

Except it has worked very well for many many other NPRM and regulatory issues. It gathered a lot of cruft for THIS ONE because of the heat and deliberate misrepresentation and politics of THIS ONE. There is no public comment system that would have done better, except one that was heavily censored and had strict identity validation mechanisms. I've yet to hear anyone suggest a validation method, yet it's the crux of "solving" this "problem".

The high volume of junk there doesn't absolve them of the duty to gather important and relevant submissions in some form or other.

They did that. The fact that there were a lot of junk comments doesn't negate all the valid ones they got.

I think they're pointing to junk comments and saying basically that they've fulfilled their duty via the website and there's nothing they can usefully do with the responses.

They fulfilled their duty to have a public comment, via the website and all the other mechanisms. They can point to the junk comments and honestly say that there is nothing they can usefully do with them because they are junk. We all admit that they are junk. What should they do with them otherwise?

The system did what it was supposed to do. The fact that some people tried to overwhelm it with crap doesn't change the basic system or the honest comments.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[ljw1004]

Then why bother trying to claim there are so many laws that prohibit it?

Because you flat-out asked asked "is this a crime?" (look it up in the post history). I answered your literal question and then said why I thought it was the wrong question.

It is the critical question if you are going to keep harping about how the system isn't fulfilling the FCC requirements for accepting comments. The system accepts comments, so that can't be the broken part. It must be the part about identifying the commenter. How do you do that?

You're conflating some very different things.

(1) The FCC has a duty implied by "for the people" to respect them in some way. This is pretty wishy-washy which is why people came up with more concrete rules.

(2) The current concrete rules say it has to respond to comments. Those are clearly poor rules. Nevertheless it's in violation of them.

(3) I think it should come up with a better mechanism for "respecting the people in some way". It's arguable whether its response to the problems it has in part (2) should be to dilute how it aims to fulfill (1), or find a more effective way to fulfill (1). I personally think it should be the latter. I don't know if it's within the remit of the FCC to unilaterally decide between the two options, but I don't think it should be.

It's not a FEEDBACK SYSTEM. It's not a vote. It's not a referendum. It's not a poll. It's not an opinion gatherer. It's a PUBLIC COMMENT system. What things do the FCC need to consider that they already haven't.

I don't know what the "it" in that paragraph refers to. I agree with you that there shouldn't be a vote, referendum, poll or opinion gatherer, as was made clear by my post. I also don't think there's much merit in a public comment system for fulfilling the duty in (1). As for the term "feedback system", I think you and I likely have different definitions of the term. I mean it just in the broadest possible sense of some information flow into the FCC from outside.

"Interest groups" with "spokespeople" are allowed to comment in the existing system. You don't need to redesign anything.

I agree that "interest groups" and "spokespeople" are allowed to comment in the existing system. However, the existing system doesn't satisfy the major points I put forward. It's not very productive for you to to snip to just this one isolated clause in my proposal.

Re:Identities "stolen"

[Obfuscant]

I don't know what the "it" in that paragraph refers to.

The existing public comment system.

I agree that "interest groups" and "spokespeople" are allowed to comment in the existing system. However, the existing system doesn't satisfy the major points I put forward.

It allows anyone who wants to comment to do so. There is nothing disrespectful in the current system. The current rules do NOT say that the FCC has to respond to every comment. That's your major points 1 and 2. Since the FCC is not violating the rules, then your major point 3 is moot.

It's not very productive for you to to snip to just this one isolated clause in my proposal.

It's not very productive to just keep repeating claims that aren't true. It's also not very productive to ignore the issue that is the heart of this discussion: "identity theft" and the ability of people to use fake names when making public comments on FCC NPRM.

You keep talking about the FCC "attend[ing] to every comment" but they aren't required to do that. You want "more respect", but I can't figure out what "actionable hook" has been created regarding that or how to achieve your goal. There needs to be "a different system" that has "more respect", but you don't explain how a different system would solve the problem with this one: inability to validate identities of commenters. That's a problem for ANY system.

I "snipped" to that one part of your proposal because the implication was that the current system was flawed in this area. Why do we need a different, new system to allow spokespeople from "interest groups" to comment if you think the current system already allows that?

Do you have solid, actionable proposals for solving the issue with the current system or just repeated calls for a new system that does the same things the current one already does?

Didn't Matter Sooner?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this the obvious mass fake account usage didn't matter for shit when it was brought up to the senate, _until fucking senators had their shit stolen_. https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/03/24-senators-introduced-bill-let-telecoms-sell-private-internet-history/ https://digg.com/2017/comcast-net-neutrality-fake-comments https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2017-05-25-victims-whose-stolen-names-and-addresses-were-used/ Just as some basic examples from first hits in Google.

> Victims of a campaign that spammed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with over 450,000 fake anti-net neutrality comments have sent a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai asking him to remove the fraudulent comments from the public docket and demanding an investigation into who is behind the identity theft.

Did that every happen? No. Did the FOIA request get completed? No. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-stonewalled-investigation-of-net-neutrality-comment-fraud-ny-ag-says/

Common Knowledge

[sirsky]

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?

Re:Common Knowledge

[Mnemennth]

Just business as usual in the Corporate States of America.

mnem
Justice is for those who can pay.

Re:Common Knowledge

[TigerPlish]

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.

Re:Common Knowledge

[AvitarX]

Because the:
1) have the power to do this relatively cost free
2) can say that "This comment is 100% definitely false".

Re:Common Knowledge

[Obfuscant]

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?

The idea that is it "identity theft" if someone who has the same name as you do uses it to post a public comment to the FCC, and that the name is relevant to begin with.

Also, the idea that there were 2 million comments means anything. It wasn't a vote. It wasn't a referendum.

Also, the idea that comments made in a public filing should be deleted. That's a really big thing wrong with this picture.

Re: Common Knowledge

[Nidi62]

I have a very rare last name, several hundred at most in the US with my exact spelling of my last name. I can literally count on one 1 hand the number of people with my last name living in my state. None of them have the same first name as my mom. Yet somehow a comment was left with her name and her address supporting net neutrality repeal, that she says she did not submit. How do you explain that?

Re:Common Knowledge

[Hodr]

Just to be clear. This doesn't affect them. It's not like their credit card was stolen or their SSN plastered on the side of a billboard. If someone says "it shows here that you were AGAINST net neutrality in this FCC comment", they could say "I didn't write that". The end.

So if they are pursuing this, they are using their own "identity theft" as a means of forcing the issue into the light again so they can discuss the broader effect of millions of fake comments.

Re: Common Knowledge

[Obfuscant]

I have a very rare last name,

And there is no law preventing anyone else from choosing to use that name for themselves, EXCEPT if they are doing it for the specific purpose of committing fraud in the legal sense. E.g., if I use your name to try to get a credit card expecting you to get the bill, that's legal fraud. If I use your name to subscribe to the local newspaper blog without any reference to you at all, that is not fraud in the legal sense.

Yet somehow a comment was left with her name and her address supporting net neutrality repeal,

So what is the FCC supposed to do to prevent that from happening? Be angry at someone who lied in her name, and be angry at those on both sides that did it, but if you want to be angry at the FCC then explain what steps they should take to prevent that from happening. How do they validate the identity of the person who did that so they could have prevented it?

How do you explain that?

It's pretty obvious. Someone lied on a comment form.

Re:Common Knowledge

[Obfuscant]

So if they are pursuing this, they are using their own "identity theft" as a means of forcing the issue into the light again so they can discuss the broader effect of millions of fake comments.

And what is the "broader effect" of millions of fake comments? Exactly what difference did they make in anything?

The only result is a tempest in a teapot over something that anyone who knew the process could have, and probably did, predict. Gee, hot-button issue combined with public record and easy comment submission resulted in floods of fake comments that everyone could examine for themselves. I'm shocked. It's never happened before. Ever. In the history of the world.

By using the term "identity theft" for this, these two Senators (who should know better) are diluting the term for the times when there is real identity theft.

How much identity was stolen?

[willoughby]

I've not filed a comment on the FCC website, nor read any. What is required in order to comment there? Just a name? Driver license number? Social Security number? How much of "Americans' personal information" was stolen and used?

Re:How much identity was stolen?

[mysidia]

Generally: the FCC asks for Name, City, State, Address, and E-mail address, and verifies None of them to post a comment.

Re:How much identity was stolen?

[ole_timer]

zip.zer0 was stolen - you can put any name you want and there's no checking

Re:How much identity was stolen?

[SlaveToTheGrind]

How much of "Americans' personal information" was stolen and used?

Clearly not much, given that comments were filed by George Washington, Tinkerbell Snowflakes, and Big Bird, among many others.

Got it

[Snotnose]

My identity gets stolen, or account hacked, or whatever and it's "meh, use better passwords dumass".

One of the rulers gets their identity stolen and it's suddenly a big deal.

Too bad Trump is turbocharging the swamp, instead of draining it like he promised.

Re:Got it

[omnichad]

Of course he drained it. There wasn't any room for new swamp.

Re:Got it

[SuricouRaven]

Did he ever even define the swamp? It's easy to promise to 'drain the swamp' when you never identify anyone specific as part of it. Your supporters naturally assume that anyone with policies they oppose must be part of this swamp.

Oh, so NOW they're concerned.

[roc97007]

...And then a politician gets his identity stolen, and suddenly it's a big deal. Ok, got that.

Ajit Pai should be removed

[FudRucker]

and net neutrality restored and all of Ajit Pai's work inspected for any other improprieties, and if things look worse prosecute Ajit Pai for anything worthy of prosecution

Re:Ajit Pai should be removed

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Sorry, was that the text from one of the bulk-submitted comments?

Would have gotten away with it, too, if not for .

[The Snazster]

Why does it feel like the good senators might not be taking so much interest in this if it were just two million people that got misrepresented, not two million people plus two senators.

How many fakes were posted using Ajit Pai's name?

[darthsilun]

And then how many real ones? That's what we really want to know.

Were their Identities REALLY stolen?

[sycodon]

Or did someone just put their name in the name field and click submit?

I don't know of any commenting system that accurately connects a real person to a comment. You don't think people call me Sycodon, do you?

Well, maybe they do. But that's besides the point.

What do these Senators suggest be done? Force people to register and show ID?

Re:Were their Identities REALLY stolen?

[Obfuscant]

Or did someone just put their name in the name field and click submit?

This.

This comment system is not part of our democracy. There is no voting here; there is nothing binding; there is nothing validated. Anyone can comment using any name they want, because it is simply too difficult under such a system to validate any identity information. Even if you validate, too many people have the same name to ever try to limit comments to only one "Tom Smith" or "sycodon" (ahhh, I get it now. Yes, I know a couple of people I would call sycodon (homonym).)

What do these Senators suggest be done? Force people to register and show ID?

OH NO, gasp, forcing people to identify themselves in a democracy is just dog whistle racism. You can't force anyone to provide ID before exercising any democratic right.

Re:Were their Identities REALLY stolen?

[I'm New Around Here]

> Were their Identities REALLY stolen? Or did someone just put their name in the name field and click submit?

What do you think "identity stolen" means?

Someone is getting money in my name, filing taxes in my name, and generally pretending to be me when dealing with other institutions. Not simply putting my name in a blank space on a web form.

Re: Were their Identities REALLY stolen?

[Brockmire]

What? Pretending (key word) to be president is a fucking career by actors, comedians and impersonators. Oh wait, are you referring to Putin?

Re: Were their Identities REALLY stolen?

[Archangel_Azazel]

First of all :
"OH NO, gasp, forcing people to identify themselves in a democracy is just dog whistle racism. You can't force anyone to provide ID before exercising any democratic right."
Well except the most fundamental one of all of them.. or were you unaware of the recent push for VOTER ID laws?

On a different track, I noticed that suspiciously lacking was any call to reverse the decision mad that used those comments as an excuse... AND that something was said only AFTER two Congress idiots saw their name. How very typical.

Sometimes reading TFA pays off

[Sumus Semper Una]

Every now and then you get a nice little quote when you read TFA. This was my favorite from this one:

The FCC comment process is, in other words, a complete shitshow

Re:Sometimes reading TFA pays off

[Obfuscant]

The FCC comment process is, in other words, a complete shitshow

When vandals destroy something you like, do you blame the people who provided the nice thing for not being proactive enough to stop determined, technically proficient vandals, or do you blame the vandals?

The FCC public comment process, for the most part, works well, and provides the public a way to comment on proposed regulatory actions that impact it. I have participated before, and I have no reason to believe that the FCC pays significant attention to spammed or fake comments.

In THIS case, a computer-knowledgeable group of vandals (on both sides) did everything they could to turn the process into the shitshow it became.

Please tell me, sir, how you propose that the FCC validate the identity of every commenter, and why anonymous comments should never be allowed in response to a government request for comments.

In my opinion, if there is one place that anonymous comments must be allowed it is in dealings with the regulatory agencies of our government.

Re:Sometimes reading TFA pays off

[Sumus Semper Una]

When vandals destroy something you like, do you blame the people who provided the nice thing for not being proactive enough to stop determined, technically proficient vandals, or do you blame the vandals?

Well, first, you hardly had to be technically proficient to spam the FCC comments form. It was pretty much built to make spamming it as easy as possible. Second, if the nice thing were a public comment box for a controversial issue, yes, I would entirely blame the people who put it up for thinking it would in any way be useful or indicative of public opinion. For all that people rail about misuse of tax funds for frivolous uses in the US, somehow this doesn't qualify?

Please tell me, sir, how you propose that the FCC validate the identity of every commenter, and why anonymous comments should never be allowed in response to a government request for comments.

If the comments are meant to be anonymous, why require a name on the form? If they aren't anonymous, why even bother with such easily fake-able forms?

Re:Sometimes reading TFA pays off

[SuricouRaven]

I can't see what the point of the comments process was: The results were sure to be so full of fake submissions as to be completely meaningless, and it's pretty clear the FCC knew this from the start and the whole process was just a charade.

I just assumed that the public comment process was required by law - some law that pre-dated the internet, when commenting actually meant going to the trouble of writing in a letter.

Re:Sometimes reading TFA pays off

[Obfuscant]

Well, first, you hardly had to be technically proficient to spam the FCC comments form.

I didn't say you had to be. But you can expect that a topic dealing with the Internet will attract comments from a higher percentage of people who know how to do it in large volumes, and it is a hot-button topic for many of them. If you didn't expect fake comments, you weren't paying attention.

It was pretty much built to make spamming it as easy as possible.

It was built to make entering comments by the public easy. And it was built with the full knowledge that it is and was impossible to validate identity information. Not every regulatory action the FCC proposes is limited to technically competent computer users. Sometimes it's Mom and Pop who want to comment.

yes, I would entirely blame the people who put it up for thinking it would in any way be useful or indicative of public opinion.

That's not what it was put up for. It's a website for public comment on proposed regulatory matters.

If the comments are meant to be anonymous, why require a name on the form?

Jesus, you're good at trying to put words in my mouth, aren't you? I didn't say they were meant to be anonymous. I said that anonymous comments are allowed.

Re:Sometimes reading TFA pays off

[Obfuscant]

I can't see what the point of the comments process was: The results were sure to be so full of fake submissions as to be completely meaningless, and it's pretty clear the FCC knew this from the start and the whole process was just a charade.

Anyone who knows the process knew it would be filled with fake comments. From both sides. It was obvious. The only people who are shocked, shocked I say, are ignorant people who still don't understand what the public comment process is intended for, or that it is required, or that there are laws called "paperwork reduction acts" that try to move everything that can be to online systems.

The FCC has been very good about moving things online, which makes things a LOT easier for everyone. For example, when you pass your amateur radio test, you can go to the FCC website and find out your callsign without having to wait for a paper copy of your license to appear in the mail. You can file renewals for free online. You can comment on proposed rules online. You want to find out the frequency your local cop shop uses, you can search online. You want to find the frequencies for every business in a 20 mile radius -- online search. Don't berate the FCC for putting everything it can online, including the public comment process. Do you REALLY want to have to send ten copies of a letter by USPS if you want to comment on something?

It's not a charade because it is part of the process of all FCC actions. Every proposed rule goes through this. It's required. Would you have preferred that the FCC declare "we know this is going to be a waste of time, so we're not doing it this time"? There would be tons of people jumping up and down berating the FCC for not doing it, even though everyone with at least half a brain knew how it was going to turn out.

Ajit Pai is the wrong guy. They should ask...

[TheZeitgeist]

...the NSA.

While we understand ...

[hAckz0r]

"While we understand and agree with the need to protect individuals' privacy," Note this does not include those that are impersonating real people whom you are actually required to protect. The scoundrels that posted many times using our names using several fake addresses around the country can be drawn and quartered and then boiled in oil on the spot. -- your Senator

Re: LOLS

[Anonymous Coward]

ID? Like my state issued voter registration certificate? Itâ(TM)s not like the 87 year old poll worker is going to be able to spot a fake concealed carry permit* anyway.

* - yes my state accepts gun permits

If it's only 2 million fake comments

[Solandri]

And that's a big If, but if it was only 2 million fake comments out of 23 million submitted, then that's pretty close to the fake signature threshold used for ballot initiatives in California. If the initiative gathers more than 110% of the required minimum signatures, it's assumed that only 10% are fake and the ballot qualifies without further verification. The 10% figure is based on the number of fake signatures which turn up in a random sample of initiatives which gather less than 110% the required minimum.

Considering it was an online form, and you didn't have to lie to someone's face to "sign" it, I'm surprised the rate of fake comments wasn't higher.

Re:What about people who share names?

[I'm New Around Here]

You are aware that the FCC comment form requires Full name and complete address, yes?

Do you mean like this?

Sen Schumer
123 Any Road
Wachington DC 90210

Corruption is the norm.

[bjwest]

It's all bribes and kickbacks until the issue affects the lawmakers.

Re:What about people who share names?

[Cederic]

You do realise that Americans have this weird fucked up insecurity that leads them to name their children after themselves? So you'll get three generations of William Jennings McFuckwit living at the same address.

Re: What about people who share names?

[Brockmire]

So far, dumbest thing I've read today.

Re:What about people who share names?

[I'm New Around Here]

Try like this; https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

(Note: Link is "Safe For Work".)

That's great. I wonder what that guy thinks of Obamacare.