Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online • Hacker News Board

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#101

Post by curt15 » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 3:19 AM UTC

whack wrote: post #5

> “State law requires the public availability of voter lists, including names and address of registered voters,” she said in an email. > It’s little surprise that the way Kemp’s office approached confirming absentee ballots was met with anger. “While the data may already be public, it is not publicly available in aggregate like this,” It's interesting how so many laws are predicated on limited resources. Ie, all name…

>Many people seem to think that the solution to such flare-ups is to introduce more friction, so that the average person can no longer afford to take advantage of the situation.

The philosophy seems similar to that behind the "right to be forgotten". Certain phrases are still permitted to be published for the world to read but not allowed to be discovered in a efficient manner.

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#102

Post by briffle » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 3:19 AM UTC

pavpanchekha wrote: post #21

maxxxxx wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't get is that the state tracks party affiliation and publishes it. This information should not be public or even better not tracked.

Not all states track a party affiliation (mine doesn't), but most of those that do do it to track voting in primaries.

I wish I understood why the state runs a primary election. That seems like it should be the responsibility of the party to decide who their nominee is. Should be their own rules, and cost

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#103

Post by diminoten » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 3:20 AM UTC

romed wrote: post #42

Animats wrote: post #28

Everyone used to have a printed telephone book with almost everyone's name and address. There are lots of public record search sites. Names and addresses are not hard to find. What's the big deal?

Privacy derangement syndrome is big now. People even question license plates.

I genuinely don't know how to talk about this topic on the Internet. Every online community I've been part of has a toxic reaction to the notion that privacy is anything but one of the most important things a person has.

I don't recommend trying.

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#104

Post by mcculley » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 3:26 AM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #100

mcculley wrote: post #64

Just this Monday I sent email to 162,883 Floridians who had no record of having voted before: https://enki.org/2018/11/07/encouraging-people-to-vote/ The Florida data set which I requested has the same kind of information about absentee votes and physical addresses. I am wondering if this kind of data will become less public.

Choosing not to vote is a valid decision. Why shame people who do so?

I am not intending to shame anybody. I sent them a letter encouraging them. Many people thanked me. Some said I changed their minds about sitting out the election.

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#105

Post by mcculley » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 3:26 AM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #84

mcculley wrote: post #64

Just this Monday I sent email to 162,883 Floridians who had no record of having voted before: https://enki.org/2018/11/07/encouraging-people-to-vote/ The Florida data set which I requested has the same kind of information about absentee votes and physical addresses. I am wondering if this kind of data will become less public.

What an amazing project. Neat read!

Thank you.

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#106

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 3:33 AM UTC

whack wrote: post #5

> “State law requires the public availability of voter lists, including names and address of registered voters,” she said in an email. > It’s little surprise that the way Kemp’s office approached confirming absentee ballots was met with anger. “While the data may already be public, it is not publicly available in aggregate like this,” It's interesting how so many laws are predicated on limited resources. Ie, all name…

[deleted]

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#107

Post by stickfigure » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 3:41 AM UTC

jonnybgood wrote: post #98

reilly3000 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got a $136 ticket from a stoplight camera for failing to Completely Stop at an intersection where there were no other cars for at least 1 mile in any direction, and made a right turn on red at about 3mph. It is serviced by a company 6 states away. Automated injustice is very alive today.

Why is getting a ticket for a rolling stop injustice?

The serious answer to this is a sort of echo of the root comment in this thread. Our legal system incorporates the understanding that laws can only be partially enforced. Imagine if robots in the sky automatically cited you for every single infraction. How often do you cross the street outside of a crosswalk? Exceed the speed limit by 1mph? Fail to signal a turn? Drive a block or two without fastening your seatbelt?

Yeah, rolling through a stop at 3mph in the middle of nowhere probably isn't great, but it's not what folks hand in mind when they created the penalties for running red lights. An officer probably wouldn't have bothered to make the stop. But in a world where law enforcement is automated, 99.9% of citations will be these marginal cases.

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#108

Post by vijaybritto » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 3:57 AM UTC

If it was a sane country, he'd be in jail for all that voter suppression he's done and also this!

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#109

Post by forapurpose » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 4:02 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #68

whack wrote: post #5

> “State law requires the public availability of voter lists, including names and address of registered voters,” she said in an email. > It’s little surprise that the way Kemp’s office approached confirming absentee ballots was met with anger. “While the data may already be public, it is not publicly available in aggregate like this,” It's interesting how so many laws are predicated on limited resources. Ie, all name…

We are also way more sensitive about our personal information than we used to be for some reason. When I was a boy, the local newspaper published the previous day's hospital admissions and discharges every day. At some point they stopped doing it, and now we have HIPAA which would probably result in huge fines for doing the same thing.

> We are also way more sensitive about our personal information than we used to be

That's not the typical narrative. I think people share far more than they ever did before, and when asked about privacy they express much less interest than previously (though that is changing a little now): People share things on social media that were never public before; they allow corporations and government to monitor and record their activities at scales that are orders of magnitude beyond what was done before. The threat of big brother and totalitarian government used to be a widespread concern (the book 1984 being an obvious example); now that it's happening, few seem to be bothered.

Re: Georgia’s secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online

#110

Post by forapurpose » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 4:11 AM UTC

briffle wrote: post #102

pavpanchekha wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all states track a party affiliation (mine doesn't), but most of those that do do it to track voting in primaries.

I wish I understood why the state runs a primary election. That seems like it should be the responsibility of the party to decide who their nominee is. Should be their own rules, and cost

I agree that it makes sense in the abstract that ostensibly private organizations conduct themselves as they see fit. But in the U.S. the practical reality is that the Democratic and Republican Parties are effectively official institutions. If voters' only input was to choose between two people secretly selected by these organizations, it wouldn't be very democratic. And imagine that happening in the many U.S. voting districts where the same party always wins - it would be completely undemocratic.

On the other hand, IIRC my history, before maybe the 1970s the U.S. parties did use more private processes, selecting candidates in the 'smoke-filled room' (the image is of fat old men smoking cigars and making deals). Some say the quality of candidate was better then.