To Deter Foreign Hackers, Some States May Also Be Deterring Voters (npr.org)

A number of states are blocking web traffic from foreign countries to their voter registration websites, making the process harder for some U.S. citizens who live overseas to vote, despite the practice providing no real security benefits. From a report: On its face, the "geo-targeting" of foreign countries may seem like a solid plan: election officials around the country are concerned about foreign interference after Russia's efforts leading up to the 2016 election, so blocking traffic to election websites from outside the United States might seem like an obvious defense starting point. But cybersecurity experts and voting rights advocates say it's an ineffective solution that any hacker could easily sidestep using a virtual private network, or VPN, a commonly-used and easily-available service. Such networks allow for a computer user to use the Internet and appear in a different location than they actually are.

Comments

Won't hackers just use a VPN?

[cshark]

Seems like the only thing something like this would do is deter voters. Hackers know better. This is a perfect case and point as to why people who don't understand computers, networks, or the internet shouldn't be making rules that govern it.

It isn't what but how.

[jellomizer]

Yes we want to be sure people who are allowed to vote should be able to vote. We don't want people who are not allowed to vote to be able to vote.
However the current trend of interference in the election isn't hacking the system and casting fake votes. But from foreign groups working hard to make us distrust our neighbor, who happens to have a different view of politics. And Radicalize you and them to prevent consensus to actually move forward.

If you are left of center, anyone right of you are racist bible thumping bigots who will avoid all science, and would let the world die just as long the GDP stays positive.
If you are right of center, anyone left of you are spoiled brats who just want freebees without contributing to society. Who would let society collapse just to save a tree.

We should know that both depictions isn't true for either group, while they may have some people who may go to those levels. However most people will be more reasonable when faced with the actual issues. But the media combined with other groups trying to egg on these differences really cause people to take sides, once they take sides, they will move from near the center and more firmly into the stupid Territory of their particular political leanings.
 

Re: It isn't what but how.

[Uberbah]

Jill Stein being in the race and taking more votes in 3 states than Hillary lost by is how you got Trump.

That's also wrong, as more Republicans voted for Johnson and McMullen than Democrats did for Stein. Take third parties out of the race and Clinton would have done worse, not better. In fact she would have lost at least Minnesota, as she was ahead of Trump by only 45,000 votes in that state - Johnson and McMullen put together had more than three times that many.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner

[rsilvergun]

once again, this is just good 'ole fashion voter suppression.

For my money I want to see voting made mandatory, like Jury Duty. That would be the best way to end voter suppression. Also move voting to Saturday or Sunday and/or make it a national holiday with mandatory pay. Oh, and I don't care if you're convicted of a crime or even currently in prison. _Everyone_ gets to vote. If America has so many Ax Murders and child molesters they can swing an election maybe we should fix that first before worrying about who gets to vote...

Of course, our ruling class isn't going to allow that. Sad thing is there's a portion of Americans who really believe we should stop the "wrong" people from voting. I get the racists and why they feel that way, I even get the nutters who want to repeal the 19th amendment. But then you get regular folk who just have some vague notion of who the "wrong" people are that they can't put it in words that I can't explain. Maybe they get it from right wing talk radio, I don't know. Either way it's messed up.

Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner

[XxtraLarGe]

For my money I want to see voting made mandatory, like Jury Duty.

Nothing says freedom like compulsion! Have you ever considered that many people who don't vote do so consciously because they don't like any of the available choices? Or that they don't believe in government in the first place (i.e. anarchists, Amish, some pacifists)? Or how about sortitionists, who don't even believe in elections?

Then there's Jury Duty. I think jury duty would be better if they allowed people to voluntarily sign up. There's probably no shortage of retirees and unemployed that wouldn't mind making a few extra bucks.

Re:Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner

[cayenne8]

For my money I want to see voting made mandatory, like Jury Duty.

Well, Jury duty isn't truly mandatory....

If you don't register to vote, then you are not put into the pool of possible jurors.

I"m not sure I like mandatory.

I understand your feelings behind it, and I would applaud more people participating in general, HOWEVER, I don't like a free country forcing the citizens to do something...maybe they don't like any of the choices, you know?

And also...if someone isn't interested enough in utilizing their right as a citizen to vote, to go register, and show up at the polling place, etc...I'm guessing they are likely also too un-interested to be an INFORMED voter.

If someone is un-informed, then I would posit they are likely to be more readily swayed by foreign propaganda as we have seen the Russians do, and I"m sure other state actors do (surely this isn't first attempt by foreign states)....

So, while I agree with your intentions on that, I disagree in that it might not be the best idea.

I'd rather have few voters that were better informed on what and who they are voting for, rather than a larger voter pool filled with many or most who don't know the issues or the candidates.

The uninformed are much easier to be swayed by exteral forces that might not have the US's best interest in mind.

At least those are some of my thoughts on it...

Poor skilled security experts.

[will_die]

How do you know you have security experts who have not kept up their skills and craft? They agree with the above report.
As has been shown in many reports and presentation in security conferences that yes it is easy to get around but it is one of the best way of dropping the number of scans, script kiddies, basic attack attempts, etc done against a system. That small cost is still a barrier, it will not stop some state run APT but it stop a large amount of those people running armitage against you and fillin up your logs and requiring some time to deal with. It also has no negative consequences if you are not doing business to those countries.

Re:Your prudence is irrelevant

[the_skywise]

He didn't say "Obama" - he said Homeland Security and they DID attempt to infiltrate their systems along with several other states.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/0...
Ostensibly it could be argued that they were "testing" the security but that's not been confirmed one way or the other or why they didn't bother notifying the states when they got in that their security was compromised.
Interesting also that this story just went away after the election.

Keeping telling yourself that about Trump

[MikeRT]

This is how we wound up with Trump.

No, you ended up with Trump for a few simple reasons:

1. Republican voters were so sick of establishment politicians who routinely stab us in the back that we were willing to flip the coin and say "heads we win, tails we burn your house down" to the GOPe.
2. The Democrats ran a candidate who could lose a popularity contest to Elizabeth Bathory at an all female middle school.

Re:Do you want a secure election or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

No ID required: Australia, Denmark, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland)

That's not true. As a Dane, I have to show ID when voting and know my date of birth. On top of that I have to hand in a "voting card", which on top of containing some data for me (like name and address), it has a barcode and a serial number. The barcode is scanned and everything has to match to be allowed to vote. Also it blocks the serial number from voting again, ensuring one person can only vote once in each election. Before the barcode approach, I had to go to a specific table at the polling station because the tables where they handed out ballots had printed lists of voters. Not only did you have to be in the list, they marked when a person voted, meaning you had to be in their list without a mark to get the ballot. Even with the barcode approach, they have a person to marks people on paper to verify the computer and fallback in case the computer stops working (like power outage).

If you know a way to get around the checks, then I would like to know about it. I also believe the politicians and police would want to know how that could be possible.