DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#141

Post by int_19h » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:01 AM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #136

int_19h wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in US, so yes, I'm well aware of the specifics. But also, "America is different" is a fairly used excuse by now, and frankly, I don't think it really is as different as Americans like to think it is. That "spread apart" thing and culture designed around driving is not unique, either. All the issues you describe are, again, issues with a specific implementation. Voting day can (and should) be moved to a weekend…

There’s already an established history of voter ID laws being used to suppress votes. This is not a hypothetical.

Like I said, I'm well aware.

There's also an established history of voter ID laws in other countries not being used to suppress votes. This isn't a hypothetical, either.

From which directly follows that voter ID is not racist. The right-wing politics around voter ID in US specifically is racist. If lefties keep letting right-wing own the subject, then that's all it'll ever be. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#142

Post by int_19h » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 11:13 AM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #135

int_19h wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why the vast majority of other countries do have voter ID laws then? As far as voter suppression, the whole point of what I wrote is that it's not inherent in voter ID. It only happens if the laws are deliberately designed that way. Again, look into how people vote in most European countries to see that it's not what these kinds of laws are actually about, when they're done right. BTW, my perspective…

We don’t need symbolic laws. Adding a restriction on our most fundamental rights because it feels good is misguided and extremely dangerous. This country has a long and well documented history of voter suppression and voter ID is just the latest example. You’re going to have to do better than “other countries do it” to convince me voter ID laws are a good idea. Start with any evidence of necessity and a how the south…

Voting is not a fundamental right like by definition, because only citizens have it. Fundamental rights are those that all persons have, innately, by virtue of being a person. Voting is a civic right of citizens.

Furthermore, in US specifically, right to vote is not even a guaranteed right for citizens - there's nowhere in the constitution that says a citizen has an inherent right to vote. There are various amendments that prohibit the government from discriminating based on certain traits (gender, race, age, poll tax etc); but none of them are a blanket grant of the right. This is why the states can prohibit felons from voting, for example, and why the criteria for that are so drastically different between them.

Now, personally, I think this is not a good idea, and every citizen should have an unconditional right to vote that can only be stripped with citizenship. But you insist that we talk about US as it is - and that is how it is.

The way you implement voter ID such that South can't abuse it is by using the constitutional power of Congress to set uniform rules for all congressional elections in the country. Since citizenship is a federal matter, it follows that voter eligibility as it pertains to citizens and non-citizens is also a federal matter, and should be set on the appropriate level. It would completely preempt any state legislation on this, solving the problem once and for all. This also means that the feds should be required to issue an ID that is sufficient to vote to any citizen who asks for one, at no cost to the citizen, and with minimal hassle - ideally, automatically - same as every other government in the world does.

And I disagree that symbols don't matter. The right to vote is valuable in part because of its exclusivity - not everybody has it. If you're unwilling to protect that exclusivity, even symbolically, that diminishes the right.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#143

Post by explainplease » Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 11:53 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #108

explainplease wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All it means is a foreign entity like Russia just attacks each state differently. It won't stop them. Clearly, we are doing literally what you're saying, and it hasn't worked. This country has been around for over 200 years. Our elections have worked well, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. > Elections, in the 21st century, should fall within the range of national defense. Power grids and other types…

> This country has been around for over 200 years. Our elections have worked well, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. Doesn't follow; countries can exist for a long time without elections at all, and, a fortiori, without elections that “work well”. Our existence and ability to debate th topic doesn't prove our elections worked well on average over history, or that they've been working well in their most…

The point I'm making is that our elections have worked well, because they're still going on, and our nation still has its original form of government. If we ceased to have elections, as you hypothesize, it would no longer be the same nation, because it would have abandoned its form of government. So the fact that we're having this conversation, talking about elections that have been going on for over 200 years, indicates that, yes, they're actually working pretty well.

When we eventually stop having them, then we can revisit this conversation and long for the good old days. Meet you back here in...a few centuries?

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#144

Post by explainplease » Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 11:55 AM UTC

dreamcompiler wrote: post #110

kadendogthing wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does voter ID improve election security? It does not.

Voter ID addresses a threat model that has been repeatedly proven to be minor at worst. It does absolutely nothing for the much more serious threat model of digital tampering.

Why do you think that that threat has proven to be minor? From what I've heard, I suspect we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Voter fraud has been going on, no doubt, for as long as voting has.

> It does absolutely nothing for the much more serious threat model of digital tampering.

I agree that they solve different problems. I think we should use only paper ballots, and eschew all forms of electronic voting.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#145

Post by explainplease » Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 12:05 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #112

explainplease wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one defines "election security" as "ensuring that each voter is registered, is alive and present, votes only once, and votes only in the correct location," then obviously requiring voters to legally identify themselves, just as they do when doing any number of everyday activities that involve local government, improves election security. Your assertion seems a bit knee-jerk.

None of those things you've mentioned requires voter ID, so I'm not sure why you're advocating for a solution that fixes nothing you claim is an issue. Specifically: You can figure out if a voter is registered by cross-checking with the voting rolls, you can figure out if someone is alive by cross-checking obituaries and the other two issues can similarly be figured out by cross-referencing across all elections in a…

> None of those things you've mentioned requires voter ID, so I'm not sure why you're advocating for a solution that fixes nothing you claim is an issue.

Respectfully, you're putting words in my mouth. I did not advocate for anything.

I was responding to the OP's assertion that, "democrats are working to improve election security while republicans are not." That assertion is facially incorrect, and Voter ID (whether you like it or not) is a reason why.

> Specifically: You can figure out if a voter is registered by cross-checking with the voting rolls, you can figure out if someone is alive by cross-checking obituaries and the other two issues can similarly be figured out by cross-referencing across all elections in a state. None of this requires strict voter ID to figure out.

Voter ID solves those problems at the ballot box. The volunteers sitting behind the desk aren't cross-checking obituaries or all elections in a state. You know that, so why did you say all that?

> voter fraud is incredibly rare in practice.

Why do you think that? After the last election, we saw video evidence of people being bused across state lines to vote where they weren't registered. That's just one example.

> Additionally all of those checks actually open up more avenues for hackers or less honest individuals to take advantage of said systems.

How would requiring photo ID matching that on the list of registered voters open up more avenues for attack? It's an additional form of authentication.

> For example dropping a bunch of people off of voter rolls to ensure that they have trouble voting or can't meet the deadline, mistakenly registering people as deceased and so forth.

What does requiring photo ID have to do with those forms of attack? Those can be done right now, without requiring photo ID. Why are you confusing the discussion with irrelevant issues?

> I think your assertion seems more knee-jerk than the person you're responding to.

Actually, your comment is the most knee-jerk in this thread so far. You've put words in my mouth and torn down a bunch of strawmen. You've identified me as an enemy when I haven't even advocated for one side or the other. All I'm doing is making logical observations. If you disagree with those observations, by all means, show me why.