If the ballot itself has a unique id that is correlated to the voters request... that means that Oregon lacks a secret ballot.
More so, even if we assume it's difficult to print identical looking ballots for some stuffing operations... there are cases when it is legitimate to print your own ballot, say you are overseas in the military, hell, our own federal government has a page for doing this, here is the one for Oregon: https://www.fvap.gov/oregon
Tell me, in Oregon, what do you do about those who cannot reliably sign their name? Say you've got a broken hand on election day, or worse, have no hands? Do they have to show ID to prove themselves later? Or don't they get to have their ballot counted?
Here in Washington, in such a case the envelop contains an option at the bottom to have two people 'witness' your mark.
Care to guess how much validation is done regarding those witness signatures? Hint: It's exactly how much suspicion the ape-descendant Arthur Dent had that one of his closest friends was not descended from an ape, but was in fact from a small planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse and not from Guildford as he usually claimed. (ie none at all).
At least in Washington, you seal your your ballot in to a privacy envelop which has no PII, which in turn goes into the mailing envelope which contains your name, mailing address & signature.
Come election day, after they verify your signature they remove the privacy envelop from the mailing one and separate them into rather large piles for later opening & counting.
If you do not use the privacy envelop then the person doing the first opening could put 2+2 together, but otherwise it's not as easy to figure out who voted for what.
EVERYBODY knows that to tamper in an election all you have to do is find a million people that will sell their vote for $100 or so
Maybe some people, know things you don't as you incorrectly assume you need to target the voters and not simply their ballot.
How hard would it be for a malicious actor to say... request 10,000 absentee ballots, likely for targeted individuals who they believe will vote 'the other way' or not likely to vote (maybe recently deceased), then cast those ballots on their behalf.
10k not enough? That's just from one small crew. Need to say... swing Florida to Romney in 2012? Just need 8 crews doing 10 ballots each to hit the margin... which isn't all that many people.
oh and hide a $100M paper trail...oh and the big one, keep a million people quiet who's loyalty is for sale
Really? So simply getting a bus full of dedicated party loyalists of want to be criminals together to drive from polling place to polling place wouldn't work? http://projectveritas.com/2016...
There are plenty of ways to commit massive voter fraud under all systems in place in the US today, most just don't want to see how easy it really is.
And yet somehow they don't seem to have any problems with voter fraud,
How do you know that?
How do they know that?
Even if they did know it... you assume they care.
Didn't we just see news out of New York City this week of election commissioner describing fraud there? http://projectveritas.com/2016...
I can't speak specifically to Oregon, but up here in Washington I know there exists several vulnerabilities in our election system which could be used to cast hundreds, if not thousands of votes from ones own basement. Even if the county or state figured out what was going on, it'd be near impossible for them to finger who did it.
I've a hard time believing that I'm the only one who noticed these issues here, I'm just ethical enough not to use it, but also know (given state politics) I've I disclosed it, I'd more or less get a "we don't care".
Why would you make just one web site? All of the shell companies & websites should appear to be as independent as possible so that if one does get shut down, you don't have the time & energy cost to spin up another.
Admitting sexual assault is not "joshing around guy talk",
Do you by chance know the who/what/when & where of this 'admitted' sexual assault? No? Neither do I.
I hate having to defend Trump, but yes, at this point it was just "joshing around guy talk" as we don't have any other evidence of a crime.
You can claim rather easily that you raped and killed a young girl in 1990... and absent any other evidence (a confession alone is worth very little), that doesn't mean the event happened, only that you made a claim that may or may not be true.... though I remain surprised the Clinton campaign hasn't brought someone out yet who claims to be one of Trump's victims yet.
Yup, though given the 4473's remain with the FFL, the ATF would need to spend a good bit of time 'inspecting' and scanning the bound books to build such a thing, regardless of where it is stored.
Easier to work with states which require reporting of all transactions.
so I think the only real option is to require a background check for all sales, whether they're "private" or not.
Which becomes impractical automatically because how to you show a month, a year or a decade from now that the firearm you have was legally purchased? You either require the buyer keep their 'receipt' to prove it (god help you if you ever lose that piece of paper (which of course could never be counterfeited)) or you require some sort of database to be implemented which tracks all legal transactions after the start of the DB... which still doesn't account for the hundreds of millions of firearms already in circulation.
Again, how do you prove or disprove ownership a week or decade ago?
The ATF is prohibited from creating a searchable DB from 4473 data, so in order to know if you recently purchased, you'd have to ask a few FFLs to go through their bound books... or rely on a state based DB which may contain this info (some states collect data on all purchases, some on only certain kinds of arms, most simply don't exist).
In the event a firearm is turned up, you can ask the manufacturer to look it up, they will point you to the distributor and then the first gun store that sold it... beyond that tracking gets tricky without lengthy time looking at bound books of 4473's in a given area.
Gun shows are often exempt from requirements to conduct background checks on people who buy a gun.
False.
Gun shows are not exempt, nor are FFLs conducting business there (who are given an occasional OK to do business in a location other than their normal spot).
Private citizens who are not otherwise prohibited from buying/selling/owning a firearm are free to buy/sell in most locations. Parking lots, living rooms, gun shows. (Granted there may be state requirements as to the requirement of a background check for private transactions, and many transactions are prohibited when both persons are not in their state of residence (without a bg check)).
All that's needed is that you buy from a private individual (not a dealer).
Which again, is nothing unique to a gun show.
So if I had a history of being mentally unstable or had a criminal conviction and wanted to buy a gun anyway
Most reports of mental health issues are not enough to get added to a DB which a NICS check will pick up on and prevent the purchase.
Says the person who has offered a single argument as to why an investigatory tool created for government would not later be available to private cases.
Stored data is stored data, and the law and court history is pretty clear as to who can get access and when (where there exists an access method).
Today it is about Uncle Sam wanting to know, just as it was long ago just about Uncle Sam being able to send a subpoena to Google or Microsoft for the contents of someones inbox. Once that ability exists, private lawyers will find sympathetic judges who will agree to use it in private legal matters as well.
Don't believe me? Chat with a divorce lawyer sometime as to the weapons one or both members of the case end up using against each other.
I am purposely not placing my marker as to where I think the correct line is, I am simply responding to a loon who thinks that a single person was the reason we can't treat those he deems as being mentally ill, as he lacks a great deal of understanding of just some of the history on the issue well before the the 80's.
Do you know how hard it is to involuntarily institutionalize someone due to mental health issues? If you can articulate where you are (ie "in a room, strapped to a bed") and don't make any overt statements about a desire to harm yourself or others... you are going to be left go after just a day or three.
This was more due to the ACLU and legal challenges and not law/policy of Reagan. Sorry.
I specifically call out 'involuntarily institutionalize' as that at least gives the hope that someone notices someone is a bit crazy and might do something bad... do you honestly think that the person pondering doing evil is going to say "you know what, I can just so easily go check myself into the dr, spend a few months with some shrinks & meds and be all better and not kill anyone"? Of course not, their mind is so warped that doing what we call evil is good/normal to them.
Short version: A reverse engineer can take a dozen or two chips of the same kind, slowly grind them down layer by later, selecting the best example of each level, then continue the process. Once you've gone through all of the layers you can actually construct a pretty accurate design of the internals. From there, you can use a FIB and some probes to actually get access to the inner workings of the chip.
Chip designers for years have to various extents attempted to take steps to prevent this. The one advantage they have is doing so is very difficult & expensive... but a successful hack can more than pay for itself.
I ask not for government but for other third parties. If you die should your spouse gave legal right to access your phone and encrypted storages?
Which is a fair point. If your loved one goes missing and leaves their phone behind, unlocking it to find out who they were recently talking with may be difficult if not impossible. If someone dies, your window to use their finger to unlock the device is quite short.
This is only a wider version of a long standing problem... as I don't know many people who make it a point to stash a BitLocker/TrueCrypt/etc keys to a safe spot that will be discoverable upon their disappearance or death, but secure enough that an angry spouse or law enforcement agent wouldn't be able to uncover.
There are workarounds... the most recent notable example/request being requiring Apple to push a one time update to the San Bernardino terrorists device which would remove the pin lockout counter so that the FBI could try every single combo without fear of wiping the device.
This idea runs into legal issues as given such an update would be required to be signed by Apple (so that the device trusts the update), it constitute government compelled speech... which the first amendment tends to prevent.
The bugger is that there is always a way, it's just a matter as to how much time/money/leverage is available.
The reality is that police do have a right, with a court order to search everything related to you, especially if you commit multiple attempted murders
Said right does not require a safe manufacturer to build backdoors into their safes, nor alter the complexity of math.
That said I am all for strong encryption on all electronics. I think the best solution is some middle ground. I don't know where that middle ground is. The reality is that we the people need to start by requiring the federal government to treat our computers, email and cell phones with the same level of respect for privacy as is given to the US mail (i.e. its a felony to tamper/interfere/gain unauthorized access). Once that is established we can have a conversation about giving access with court order to some or all of these items.
Easier said than done. The contents of a letter remain secret because people treat it that way. The contents of a safe remain secret because people treat it that way... and have a physical impediment to easy access. The contents of an encrypted device remain secret because the system is designed not to be easily be openable by anyone other than those the legitimate owner has chosen thanks to lots of math.
Currently, there is no legal requirement for a company like Apple to have a way that they & only can unlock a phone, in fact they've purposely engineered ways to make it more difficult.
It's easy to say "but in the case of terrorism, we should have the right to compel them!" ok... where do you want that right to end? Are you & Apple ready for divorcing spouses to be going to court to order the seizing of their spouses cell phone and ordering Apple to decrypt it to prove infidelity?
Such an ability also lowers the bar not only for law enforcement to legitimately investigate (via search warrant) suspects, but also the ability to plenty of others in law enforcement & government to go fishing.
Slashdot Mirror
So little imagination... or knowledge.
If the ballot itself has a unique id that is correlated to the voters request... that means that Oregon lacks a secret ballot.
More so, even if we assume it's difficult to print identical looking ballots for some stuffing operations... there are cases when it is legitimate to print your own ballot, say you are overseas in the military, hell, our own federal government has a page for doing this, here is the one for Oregon: https://www.fvap.gov/oregon
Tell me, in Oregon, what do you do about those who cannot reliably sign their name? Say you've got a broken hand on election day, or worse, have no hands? Do they have to show ID to prove themselves later? Or don't they get to have their ballot counted?
Here in Washington, in such a case the envelop contains an option at the bottom to have two people 'witness' your mark.
Care to guess how much validation is done regarding those witness signatures? Hint: It's exactly how much suspicion the ape-descendant Arthur Dent had that one of his closest friends was not descended from an ape, but was in fact from a small planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse and not from Guildford as he usually claimed. (ie none at all).
At least in Washington, you seal your your ballot in to a privacy envelop which has no PII, which in turn goes into the mailing envelope which contains your name, mailing address & signature.
Come election day, after they verify your signature they remove the privacy envelop from the mailing one and separate them into rather large piles for later opening & counting.
If you do not use the privacy envelop then the person doing the first opening could put 2+2 together, but otherwise it's not as easy to figure out who voted for what.
Maybe some people, know things you don't as you incorrectly assume you need to target the voters and not simply their ballot.
How hard would it be for a malicious actor to say... request 10,000 absentee ballots, likely for targeted individuals who they believe will vote 'the other way' or not likely to vote (maybe recently deceased), then cast those ballots on their behalf.
10k not enough? That's just from one small crew. Need to say... swing Florida to Romney in 2012? Just need 8 crews doing 10 ballots each to hit the margin... which isn't all that many people.
Really? So simply getting a bus full of dedicated party loyalists of want to be criminals together to drive from polling place to polling place wouldn't work? http://projectveritas.com/2016...
There are plenty of ways to commit massive voter fraud under all systems in place in the US today, most just don't want to see how easy it really is.
How do you know that?
How do they know that?
Even if they did know it... you assume they care.
Didn't we just see news out of New York City this week of election commissioner describing fraud there? http://projectveritas.com/2016...
I can't speak specifically to Oregon, but up here in Washington I know there exists several vulnerabilities in our election system which could be used to cast hundreds, if not thousands of votes from ones own basement. Even if the county or state figured out what was going on, it'd be near impossible for them to finger who did it.
I've a hard time believing that I'm the only one who noticed these issues here, I'm just ethical enough not to use it, but also know (given state politics) I've I disclosed it, I'd more or less get a "we don't care".
Why would you make just one web site? All of the shell companies & websites should appear to be as independent as possible so that if one does get shut down, you don't have the time & energy cost to spin up another.
Do you by chance know the who/what/when & where of this 'admitted' sexual assault? No? Neither do I.
I hate having to defend Trump, but yes, at this point it was just "joshing around guy talk" as we don't have any other evidence of a crime.
You can claim rather easily that you raped and killed a young girl in 1990... and absent any other evidence (a confession alone is worth very little), that doesn't mean the event happened, only that you made a claim that may or may not be true. ... though I remain surprised the Clinton campaign hasn't brought someone out yet who claims to be one of Trump's victims yet.
I knew we shouldn't have given our robot overlords the ability to reproduce via creating cyborgs that do their bidding.
Yup, though given the 4473's remain with the FFL, the ATF would need to spend a good bit of time 'inspecting' and scanning the bound books to build such a thing, regardless of where it is stored.
Easier to work with states which require reporting of all transactions.
Drug smugglers & cartels may not kill with it, but they will kill for it.
Which becomes impractical automatically because how to you show a month, a year or a decade from now that the firearm you have was legally purchased? You either require the buyer keep their 'receipt' to prove it (god help you if you ever lose that piece of paper (which of course could never be counterfeited)) or you require some sort of database to be implemented which tracks all legal transactions after the start of the DB... which still doesn't account for the hundreds of millions of firearms already in circulation.
Again, how do you prove or disprove ownership a week or decade ago?
Not without a lengthy delay at the border.
The ATF is prohibited from creating a searchable DB from 4473 data, so in order to know if you recently purchased, you'd have to ask a few FFLs to go through their bound books... or rely on a state based DB which may contain this info (some states collect data on all purchases, some on only certain kinds of arms, most simply don't exist).
In the event a firearm is turned up, you can ask the manufacturer to look it up, they will point you to the distributor and then the first gun store that sold it... beyond that tracking gets tricky without lengthy time looking at bound books of 4473's in a given area.
False.
Gun shows are not exempt, nor are FFLs conducting business there (who are given an occasional OK to do business in a location other than their normal spot).
Private citizens who are not otherwise prohibited from buying/selling/owning a firearm are free to buy/sell in most locations. Parking lots, living rooms, gun shows. (Granted there may be state requirements as to the requirement of a background check for private transactions, and many transactions are prohibited when both persons are not in their state of residence (without a bg check)).
Which again, is nothing unique to a gun show.
Most reports of mental health issues are not enough to get added to a DB which a NICS check will pick up on and prevent the purchase.
Says the person who has offered a single argument as to why an investigatory tool created for government would not later be available to private cases.
Stored data is stored data, and the law and court history is pretty clear as to who can get access and when (where there exists an access method).
Because of ties to terrorism? ... and having more tools to try to recover data than your local PD?
Today it is about Uncle Sam wanting to know, just as it was long ago just about Uncle Sam being able to send a subpoena to Google or Microsoft for the contents of someones inbox. Once that ability exists, private lawyers will find sympathetic judges who will agree to use it in private legal matters as well.
Don't believe me? Chat with a divorce lawyer sometime as to the weapons one or both members of the case end up using against each other.
I am purposely not placing my marker as to where I think the correct line is, I am simply responding to a loon who thinks that a single person was the reason we can't treat those he deems as being mentally ill, as he lacks a great deal of understanding of just some of the history on the issue well before the the 80's.
We must not allow an infinite monkey gap to exist!
Given the suspect is dead, they have no remaining privacy rights... and a warrant to search such a device is trivial to get.
I know your hate is strong, your facts are not.
Do you know how hard it is to involuntarily institutionalize someone due to mental health issues? If you can articulate where you are (ie "in a room, strapped to a bed") and don't make any overt statements about a desire to harm yourself or others... you are going to be left go after just a day or three.
This was more due to the ACLU and legal challenges and not law/policy of Reagan. Sorry.
I specifically call out 'involuntarily institutionalize' as that at least gives the hope that someone notices someone is a bit crazy and might do something bad... do you honestly think that the person pondering doing evil is going to say "you know what, I can just so easily go check myself into the dr, spend a few months with some shrinks & meds and be all better and not kill anyone"? Of course not, their mind is so warped that doing what we call evil is good/normal to them.
The device always contains a decryption key... it's just a matter of how hard it is to get to... and it may not actually be located in flash memory.
Disassembly yes, retrieval, no.
What do you know about focused ion beam hacking? http://semiengineering.com/eve...
Short version: A reverse engineer can take a dozen or two chips of the same kind, slowly grind them down layer by later, selecting the best example of each level, then continue the process. Once you've gone through all of the layers you can actually construct a pretty accurate design of the internals. From there, you can use a FIB and some probes to actually get access to the inner workings of the chip.
Chip designers for years have to various extents attempted to take steps to prevent this. The one advantage they have is doing so is very difficult & expensive... but a successful hack can more than pay for itself.
Which is a fair point. If your loved one goes missing and leaves their phone behind, unlocking it to find out who they were recently talking with may be difficult if not impossible. If someone dies, your window to use their finger to unlock the device is quite short.
This is only a wider version of a long standing problem... as I don't know many people who make it a point to stash a BitLocker/TrueCrypt/etc keys to a safe spot that will be discoverable upon their disappearance or death, but secure enough that an angry spouse or law enforcement agent wouldn't be able to uncover.
There are workarounds... the most recent notable example/request being requiring Apple to push a one time update to the San Bernardino terrorists device which would remove the pin lockout counter so that the FBI could try every single combo without fear of wiping the device.
This idea runs into legal issues as given such an update would be required to be signed by Apple (so that the device trusts the update), it constitute government compelled speech... which the first amendment tends to prevent.
The bugger is that there is always a way, it's just a matter as to how much time/money/leverage is available.
Said right does not require a safe manufacturer to build backdoors into their safes, nor alter the complexity of math.
Easier said than done. The contents of a letter remain secret because people treat it that way. The contents of a safe remain secret because people treat it that way... and have a physical impediment to easy access. The contents of an encrypted device remain secret because the system is designed not to be easily be openable by anyone other than those the legitimate owner has chosen thanks to lots of math.
Currently, there is no legal requirement for a company like Apple to have a way that they & only can unlock a phone, in fact they've purposely engineered ways to make it more difficult.
It's easy to say "but in the case of terrorism, we should have the right to compel them!" ok... where do you want that right to end? Are you & Apple ready for divorcing spouses to be going to court to order the seizing of their spouses cell phone and ordering Apple to decrypt it to prove infidelity?
Such an ability also lowers the bar not only for law enforcement to legitimately investigate (via search warrant) suspects, but also the ability to plenty of others in law enforcement & government to go fishing.
Or... terrorists hate the freedom of OSS and prefer the over-priced walled garden model.
Fine Print: Offer applies only to those with unlimited data, constant WiFi connections or don't mind high cellular bills.