Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Privacy

White House Releases Sensitive Personal Info From Voters Concerned About Privacy (vox.com) 330

Huge_UID shares an article from Vox: The White House just responded to concerns it would release voters' sensitive personal information by releasing a bunch of voters' sensitive personal information. Last month, the White House's "election integrity" commission sent out requests to every state asking for all voters' names, party IDs, addresses, and even the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, among other information. The White House then said this information would be made available to the public. A lot of people did not like the idea, fearing that their personal information could be made public. So some sent emails to the White House, demanding that it rescind the request. This week, the White House decided to make those emails from concerned citizens public through the commission's new website... It didn't censor any of the personal information -- such as names, email addresses, actual addresses, and phone numbers -- included in those emails.
Some of the emails also included the commenter's place of employment -- though at least one commenter helpfully informed the White House that their voter info was available at Goatse. But the voting comission is now also facing new lawsuits from the ACLU, Public Citizen, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, McClatchy reported on Monday, noting that "Trump's voting commission has told states to hold off on sharing the data until after a judge's ruling in a lawsuit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Releases Sensitive Personal Info From Voters Concerned About Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15, 2017 @09:49PM (#54817243)

    ..to not give a fuck about your privacy.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15, 2017 @10:02PM (#54817307)

      deflect, deflect, deflect

      and don't get me started on her emails!!1!

    • by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Saturday July 15, 2017 @10:32PM (#54817435)

      Perhaps, but this administration has raised not giving a fuck about America into an art form.

    • Doxing individuals who are publicly disagreeing with your policies is something completely different.
    • ..to not give a fuck about your privacy.

      Nice deflection Kellyanne!

    • has been covering voting shenanigans since 2000. He spoke to WMNF(.org) news on 6 July about his investigation into this farce of an integrity project. His website. [gregpalast.com]

    • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      Except this is stuff that states already sell to anyone that cares to pay for it. The righteous indignation is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy.

  • And, does it really makes any difference?

  • Reminder (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Saturday July 15, 2017 @10:05PM (#54817323) Journal

    One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted. They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents.

    Let that sink in for a second. Imaging the Slashdot comments section if a President Clinton or President Obama demanded this same information from the states. Remember, the Constitution gives the power over all US elections to the states.

    • Re:Reminder (Score:5, Informative)

      by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Saturday July 15, 2017 @10:23PM (#54817381)

      You're making that up. The states don't have that information and everybody (but you) knows it.

      • Here's the actual request from the letter sent to Maine:

        publicly available voter roll data for Maine, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.

        You can interpret the phrase "voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward" two ways... a history of which elections you voted in or a history of what your votes were in the elections you voted in.

        Yes, we know which one it SHOULD be interpreted as and states aren't supposed to keep a record of what your votes were, but the government wasn't supposed to gathering massive amounts of telephone records either and then we found out that they were. W

        • Go here:

          http://www.elections.virginia.... [virginia.gov]

          That's a list of stuff that Virginia will sell to you. You know - state of Virginia, Governor Terry McAullife who's standing up to that evil Trump and not giving him a damned thing!!!!!

          Yeah, but he'll sell it to you.

          One of the items in the list:

          "Vote History List (VHL) – a list of those persons who voted in a primary, special or general election in a specified jurisdiction, legislative, election district or statewide over a four year time period."

          That's what t

    • by glitch! ( 57276 )

      One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted.

      This can be read two ways. We already know the official aggregate tallies. It seems (am I correct?) that they are thinking that the party affiliations are indicative of voting results. If so, that assumption is ridiculous and stupid. I am registered with the Republican party, but I voted for another as a protest vote. Actually, this describes every election since Bush 1. He broke his oath. I wish there was actually a hell for him to burn in.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Voting ballots are anonymous.

      But otherwise great story bro.

    • One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted. They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents.

      Let that sink in for a second. Imaging the Slashdot comments section if a President Clinton or President Obama demanded this same information from the states. Remember, the Constitution gives the power over all US elections to the states.

      That is different. Trump has an R next to his name so it's ok. I agree if someone with a D next to his name did that then we would need to impeach and form an armed rebellion as that would be socialist!

      Yes sarcasm implied.

      Sadly, many on my facebook friends list actually agree with my above comment. Disclaimer I am a Democrat so I am biased, but what keeps me up at night is this super hyper partisanship where it is like cheering for a football team! The fact the right admires Putin and sees nothing w

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re "They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents."
      The USA does not keep count of "how" each person voted. The voting is done in secret.

      The problem is the numbers of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections.
      Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes (June 19, 2017)
      http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted.

      By "how voters voted" you mean - like paper ballot -vs- electronic -vs- mail-in? I didn't see that in any of the linked articles, or really any articles linked from there. If you mean "who they voted for" that also wasn't in the articles, and in theory it isn't supposed to be kept. If they did, that would violate several treaties and some state constitutions (West Virginia, not sure what others?)

      • If they did, that would violate several treaties and some state constitutions (West Virginia, not sure what others?)

        These are the grounds that so many governors are using to refuse to give the information to Trump and his goons.

  • Passive Aggressive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Saturday July 15, 2017 @10:15PM (#54817357) Homepage Journal

    Sure let's hear what you have to say. What did you say? You don't want people to have access to your private personal information? Let's see here... okay so we'll go ahead and just release some of that publicly for you. Don't complain. We haven't released EVERYTHING on you, just yet...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15, 2017 @10:42PM (#54817473)

      Don't worry. None of the Trump supporters are the sorts of vindictive people who would actually use this information to go harass people who didn't vote for Trump. A more stable group of concerned citizens you have never seen before and will never see again.

  • ...for people to start throwing molotov cocktails at Trump's properties. Seriously, I think stuff like that is just around the corner.

    • ...for people to start throwing molotov cocktails at Trump's properties

      Or they will shoot up his local pizza parlor!

  • by Picodon ( 4937267 ) on Saturday July 15, 2017 @11:13PM (#54817579)

    I remember when, not so long ago, people were making fun of presidents and other politicians for being technologically illiterate, and perhaps not even knowing what a “mouse” was. Well, I have to give it to the current administration. Not only are they masters of the technology (databases, social media, etc.), they’ve now officially embraced one of the latest social trends: doxing!

    The times, they are a-changing...

    • Submitter here. Original headline was White House doxxes "election integrity" commission critics. Slashdot editors do edit - and they improved my submission.
  • Seriously (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    WTF is wrong with your government? That sort of shit would bring down a government in any sane first-world democracy.

    True freedom.

  • uhm.. "editors"? (Score:2, Informative)

    by superwiz ( 655733 )
    It is supposed to be "White House Releases Sensitive Personal Info ______Of______ Voters Concerned About Privacy". Just because you are linking to an article which has a grammatical error in the title, doesn't mean you should keep the error. That is, unless the post itself is about the error.
  • we're not "suffering" under Obama anymore.

  • Normally, Slashdot would be all up in arms about even "anonymized" metadata that might get put out by some outfit, screaming about the American three letter agencies or Google. I share some of that concern.

    What occurs in a story about direct publishing of names and other actual personal info?

    Deflection, and every attempt to change the subject you can imagine. This is an interesting trend we have here. The amount of deflection is ramped up with the provable veracity of the story. This is not consistent w

  • There is no other way to put this: This is an ASSHOLE move by an ASSHOLE 'administration' being led by an ASSHOLE 'President' who continually demonstrates through actions that they don't give a flying FUCK about the average citizen, they only care about their agendas and their corporate and 1%-er cronies. Finding that they've been in bed with Russia the whole time and throwing the entire administration out on their ear can't come soon enough. 2020 elections can't come soon enough. How are you Trump-suppor
    • There is no other way to put this: This is an ASSHOLE move by an ASSHOLE 'administration' being led by an ASSHOLE 'President' who continually demonstrates through actions that they don't give a flying FUCK about the average citizen, they only care about their agendas and their corporate and 1%-er cronies. Finding that they've been in bed with Russia the whole time and throwing the entire administration out on their ear can't come soon enough. 2020 elections can't come soon enough. How are you Trump-supporting idiots liking him and his minions now? You all like your privacy AT LEAST AS MUCH AS I DO, and they just took a BIG STEAMING DUMP all over the entire CONCEPT of your privacy, HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL?

      I don't think you understand his supporters. Haven't you noticed by now that they think he can do no wrong. No matter how bad it is, they don't care. He, himself, had it right when he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and lose no voters. His supporters are just plain idiots and there's pretty much nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

      • I guess I'm kinder than you are about it. Some of them 'think he can do no wrong'; some of them, as usual, thought he was the 'least worst' of two choices, and many of those are now regretting it, but keeping their heads down and their mouths shut, because they don't want to deal with it. Then there's some who thought he could be controlled, and they're finding out how wrong they were, too. HIs approval rating is currently 39% and dropping. As the reality sinks in it'll just get worse, and when all his prom
        • I guess I'm kinder than you are about it. Some of them 'think he can do no wrong'; some of them, as usual, thought he was the 'least worst' of two choices, and many of those are now regretting it, but keeping their heads down and their mouths shut, because they don't want to deal with it. Then there's some who thought he could be controlled, and they're finding out how wrong they were, too. HIs approval rating is currently 39% and dropping. As the reality sinks in it'll just get worse, and when all his promises and schemes are shown to be nonsense, the bottom will drop out. My greatest fear at this point is when they inevitably find the allegations of collusion are true and have to start removing the administration. I don't know what provisions we have in our system of government to handle something on that scale. Guess we'd have the Speaker of the House as POTUS?

          If Ryan thought he could pull it off, I'm sure he'd go for it. But I suspect that Ryan doesn't think he has a realistic chance of getting rid of Pence, even if he could get rid of Trump. They're just thinking they can get their tax cuts passed with Trump; nothing else matters as much to them, though a few more right-wingers on SCOTUS is surely on their wish list.

          • Did you notice that Pence lawyered up a while back? He, apparently, is not completely stupid: he sees how much of a liability being involved with the current administration is to his political career and saw fit to get ahead of the whole thing as soon as possible; he's a career politician, through-and-through. Five bucks says when the axe falls, he's going to be standing aside of the conflagration, yelling like Ashe in the Bruce Campbell version of Army of Darkness "..hey, I don't even KNOW these assholes!"
            • Did you notice that Pence lawyered up a while back? He, apparently, is not completely stupid: he sees how much of a liability being involved with the current administration is to his political career and saw fit to get ahead of the whole thing as soon as possible; he's a career politician, through-and-through. Five bucks says when the axe falls, he's going to be standing aside of the conflagration, yelling like Ashe in the Bruce Campbell version of Army of Darkness "..hey, I don't even KNOW these assholes!". He'll step aside, co-operate fully with any further Senate an FBI investigations, and try to walk away as cleanly as possible -- or at least I hope that's what happens. I don't think Mike Pence should be POTUS, especially by default.

              Of course Pence shouldn't be POTUS, much like Trump shouldn't be POTUS, but Pence is smart enough to be still standing when Trump gets the axe. I wonder if that's why he even agreed to be VPOTUS in the first place.

  • To me is looks as if this story has dragged in a bunch of astroturfers.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...