Trump Puts Voter Data Collection On Hold After Highly Insecure & Potentially Illegal Process Is Widely Ridiculed
from the encryption-is-for-losers dept
At the tail end of June, The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity turned heads when it began asking states for confidential voter data. The Commission was formed via executive order back in May as part of a supposed effort to crack down on what the Trump administration has insisted (without any supporting evidence) is an epidemic of widespread voting and voter registration fraud. As part of the data collection the Trump administration demanded voter names, political affiliations, addresses, dates of birth, criminal records, the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, and more.
But it didn't take long for the entire effort to unravel. The commission's first misstep was asking states to submit this personal data via unencrypted e-mail. The commission also offered states the ability to deliver the data via a system called SAFE—the Safe Access File Exchange. Traditionally used by the military for the transfer of unclassified files too large for email, the service does allow encrypted transfers via civilian computers, but would have required numerous technical steps and guidance (the commission didn't take or offer) to adequately protect the data's integrity:
"But the site’s HTTPS setup, which enables data transmitted from a browser to the site to be sent over an encrypted connection, is problematic for civilian users in state governments. In fact, when state government officials visit the website, they are greeted with a conspicuous warning telling them that their connection is not private—implying that the data could be stolen or altered in transit."
The commission's attempt to obtain private voter data by insecure means was quickly and surprisingly laughed off by the majority of states concerned with the obvious privacy implications. Only Arkansas has fully complied with the President's request, and many states expressed concern that the request and insecure transfer of private data could violate respective state voter privacy laws. Trump's response to these entirely legitimate, bipartisan concerns about voter privacy? Taking to Twitter to accuse the states of trying to hide something:
Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017
Things have been notably complicated by a lawsuit by the ACLU, which claims the commission violated federal public access requirements by holding its first meeting in private, without public notice. The effort has also been hamstrung by a request by The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the administration's request until the privacy issue can be litigated in court. That has subsequently forced the Trump administration and its commission to suspend its data collection efforts until a Judge rules on the request:
"Today, July 10, 2017, the Commission also sent the states a follow-up communication requesting the states not submit any data until this Court rules on plaintiff's TRO motion," the government wrote (PDF) the court. The commission e-mailed state election officials early Monday that, "Until the judge rules on the TRO, we request that you hold on submitting any data."
EPIC is suing the commission on accusations that the requested information violates the privacy of American voters. EPIC also says the commission is asking the states to forward the data to an unsecure website, the Department of Defense Safe File Exchange site. The commission said that, if it prevails, it will "use an alternative means for transmitting the requested data."
This all appears to be driven by Trump's belief that the only way he could have possibly lost the popular vote is due to fraud (which again, nobody has found any evidence of). Bubbling under all of this is the additional concern that this entire effort has little to do with actually policing voter fraud, and everything to do with finding new and ingenious methods of voter suppression down the road.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, elections, privacy, voter data, voter fraud
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It bears adding that most of the states that have (at least partially) refused to comply are states that voted for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PR stunt
" Let's form a commission to study problem XXX "
This new Trump Commission has no legal authority and cannot force information from anybody. It deals in "requests" only.
Dumb idea. Federal Election Commission (FEC) already exists and probably has all the basis data sought. Many other Federal agencies have have relevant data available. White House staff could easily get data and analysis from their subordinate agencies.
However, election fraud is well documented at the state/local level for past 60 years ... and there's enough to indicate big problems nationwide.
"People who vote decide nothing. People who count the vote decide everything. (-- Joseph Stalin)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR stunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR stunt
Their claims of voter fraud have been debunked many times but they still get mileage out of it. It is all a rather juvenile attempt at voter suppression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's sad is the idiots who voted for him will probably believe his claim that it's something personal rather than a matter that mature adults would understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's not paint with too broad a brush. Trump does have an unshakeable core of supporters who will never turn on him no matter what, but there are also Trump voters who didn't like him very much but liked Clinton even less, Trump voters who voted for him because they liked him but are liking him less and less, and Trump voters who still like him but believe he's wrong on this particular issue. Hell, most of the governors and secretaries of state that aren't complying with the order are probably Trump voters themselves. Hell, Kobach himself, the vice chair of the commission, has said he can't share SSNs with the feds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A person who knew how the country actually operated
Administration is the backbone of any operation. Well, I would say that since it's my job but it is true; without accurate records collation and management and efficient processing how can you expect to get anything done?
The main purpose of administration is accountability; to make and maintain a paper trail so we know what's going on. That the "small government" brigade are against that should not surprise anyone since all they want is power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
zzzzzz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please name the states and show us the laws and registration policies that allow the registration of non-citizens as voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But no tax returns, that would be going too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that job necessary and/or important enough to give this information to them? Probably not. But that's an issue with the creation of the commission in the first place. Since it has been created and given a task, it requesting that information is completely reasonable, though the insecure delivery method is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For instance, why is political affiliation needed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how much for a 50 copy license of winzip?
There: I've turned a mountain into a molehill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how much for a 50 copy license of winzip?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how much for a 50 copy license of winzip?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: how much for a 50 copy license of winzip?
The question you should be asking is who might be the dishonest people in this instance, and what do they want? If they get the information, do they intend to manipulate it? Deny it? Is there anyway to verify it?
Is there a way to check the conclusions of The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity via actual information, verifiable analysis, non-partisan review?
Yes there is. Then we get down to the fight over whose news is fake and whose is not. Get your ducks all set up, in row if possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: how much for a 50 copy license of winzip?
Yes, but with good encryption, "some time" can be hundreds of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: how much for a 50 copy license of winzip?
A know backdoor reduces the time taken to access the data from "months, maybe centuries depending on the type of encryption and hardware the bad guys have" to "instantly the moment the data is stolen". It's the same concept as a physical lock - the lock isn't there as a magical barrier that will keep things safe for eternity, it's there to delay crooks as long as possible before they're spotted, and hopefully deter them from trying to get in to begin with.
Potentially giving the "bad guys" instant access through a backdoor because "well, they'd just get in anyway" is the height of stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This all appears to be driven by Trump's belief that the only way he could have possibly lost the popular vote is due to fraud..."
Just like the whole "Russiagate" narrative appears to be driven by Team Hillary's belief that the only way she could have lost to Trump was due to Russian interference.
We're very lucky nowadays to have so much political hackery to choose from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow. I didn't expect so many replies. Even though this reply is to the first reply, please accept this as my response to all.
Firstly, know that I'm not a Trump supporter. I merely seek to call BS on what appears to me to be a highly self-serving smear campaign being waged by both parties against Trump. Also, I think this has more to do with a non-establishment-approved (i.e., non DNC/RNC approved) candidate winning than anything to do with Trump in particular. Even if it was some other non-approved person, I believe they'd be doing the same thing - as they want someone who's in their pocket, someone they can control.
The main problem I have with the Russiagate narrative is that...
Also, what they're doing isn't new...
The Increasingly Unhinged Russia Rhetoric Comes From a Long-Standing U.S. Playbook
And why they're probably doing it is fairly obvious...
Excerpts from: How Russia Became “Our Adversary” Again
The Russiagate narrative has proved irresistible to these actors for three basic reasons:
So feel free to bash the terrible Drumpster to your heart's content, just be as skeptical of his adversaries narrative as you are of him. As neither are working towards our best interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are ALL on team Hillary while they simultaneously bitch about people using the word "team" or alluding to the term anywhere.
I agree with most of what you have stated but I have a few additional items to toss on the pile.
#1. The constant outrage at Trump is tiresome. By the time Trump does something that really does require "bi-partisan" action one one is going to want to work with the toxic leftists just by habit. With all these leftists spinning out of control every time trump says something stupid, no wonder every is sick of the shit.
#2. Trump or any administration has not business asking for voter records, that is a state problem, though I bet the same fuckwits that would agree this time around sure did support federal action against states that tried to implement voter ID laws.
The vast majority of everyone is a hypocrite up in here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gee, it’s almost as if voter ID laws routinely target the disadvantaged and require some sort of oversight to make sure they do not disenfranchise so many people that the voting rolls in certain states skew in favor of one party’s particular “Southern strategy” of winning the White vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
From this day forward I vow to refrain from using the trigger word "team" on the TD safe-space so as not to risk melting any snowflakes. :^)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jeepers! You guys. I'll just say, Wow - again. So many replies. So, again I'll just reply to the first reply in an attempt to respond to the general theme of all your replies.
"Russian trolls"
Labeling those you disagree with as agents of Russia so as to dismiss the content of what they say represents a very dark chapter in our nations history. I highly encourage you all to read up on the life and times of Joseph McCarthy. It makes me sad to see posters at TD doing this. I realize that there actually are Russian operatives attempting to manipulate our discourse in their own best interests. But they're not alone in that pursuit. There are all sorts of vested interests doing the same. We all need to maintain a high degree of skepticism and use our critical reasoning when evaluating information (esp. out of the corporate media).
"...resembling an actual argument."
I'm no academic. But I stand by both the structure and content of what I wrote. Perhaps you'd like to discuss or attempt to refute a specific aspect of my argument rather than simply dismissing it out of hand in it's entirety?
"Yours reads like a "best of" list of WND article titles."
Ha! I had to look up "WND". I take it by the context of this thread and that it was the first search result that you mean, "WorldNetDaily" described as a politically conservative American news and opinion website and online news aggregator.
I cited my sources. So if you wanted to call into question the source of the information, you could have easily done it. That you instead reference WND seems intellectually dishonest to me. Not to mention, you make a fool of yourself attempting to label either author of the two articles to which I linked as conservatives (as they're both exactly the opposite).
"snowflakes"
After reading your replies, I wasn't sure if I used that term right so I went and looked it up. I found many definitions; all slightly different. I meant it to mean someone who is overly sensitive to challenges to their opinion (vs "weak and unwilling to fight back"). But broadly, it was my feeble attempt at humor. I didn't realize it would actually act as a trigger word in the way it did. I thought that aspect was at least interesting. But, I promise not to use it here at TD as my intent is not to cause conflict but to discuss issues.
"However, when challenged, you pull that word out and retreat."
Actually, I responded in detail to the many of the replies. If there's a specific item you'd like me to respond to, please let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
snowflakes
I love it when I see that word. It implies that your opponent is weak and unwilling to fight back.
However, when challenged, you pull that word out and retreat.
That's called "deflection" - it's Trump's favorite technique, although at his age, it can probably be attributed to dementia, rather than skill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The constant outrage at Trump is tiresome.
It'd dry up completely if he'd just shut the fuck up.
He's created every single problem he has with his big orange mouth coupled with the twitter skills of a 13-year old with a new phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump: "look at me being an idiot!"
Press: "wow, look at him being an idiot"
Normal people: "yeah, what an idiot"
Fanboys: "why are you showing him being an idiot all the time! It's a conspiracy! Hillllarrry!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing in your comment really gets at the issue of voter fraud, you know. Trump claimed that millions of fradulent votes were cast in the 2016 election; this “voting rights” commission was formed explicitly to investigate that claim (and implicitly to scare people into giving up their voting rights voluntarily). But there is no proof that in-person voter fraud tipped the popular vote for Clinton—or that it happened anywhere near the scale that Trump suggests. (And of the numbered-in-the-single-digits stories I heard about people being arrested for voter fraud last year, they all involved Trump supporters.)
Bash the Russia narrative to your heart’s content, just stick to the actual goddamned subject at hand next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Nothing in your comment really gets at the issue of voter fraud..."
You're very observant. It does not.
So on that topic...
Specifically, I think Trump's folks are just trying to appear to address the issue at all. But it's such a ham-fisted attempt, I can't imagine they were all that serious about doing anything.
Generally, I think efforts to detect/prevent voter fraud are a worthwhile pursuit. However, there are much more significant problems with our political process that require much greater attention. Especially the legalized bribery that is Citizens United/Revolving Door politics and how two private corporations (i.e., the DNC and RNC) serve as gatekeepers to which candidates we have to choose from in the first place.
"Bash the Russia narrative to your heart’s content,..."
Will do (and I encourage you to do the same). :^)
"...just stick to the actual goddamned subject at hand next time."
Now, Now. Language.
My gosh-darned subject was to call attention to the political hackery phenomena of blaming-something-other-than-was-likely-the-cause for one's own failure - which can also be interpreted as a topic of this article (i.e., in addition to voter fraud). My detailed response in terms of "Russiagate" was because that's the topic to which I took the replies to my comment to be responding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Specifically, when Bode writes, "This all appears to be driven by Trump's belief that the only way he could have possibly lost the popular vote is due to fraud...", he touches on this subject and the focus of my original comment.
That's as clear as I can be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention that the "3 million illegals voted for Clinton" narrative makes no sense.
It implies that there was a conspiracy so vast that it included nearly 1 out of every 100 people in America, so effective that not one single one of those 3 million people has actually come forward with any evidence that it happened, and so incompetent that nobody thought maybe they should try illegally voting in some swing states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Team Hillary's belief
If you really want to complain, tell the Russians to try harder next time. If he couldn't win the popular vote even with their help, the problem is him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trumplthinskin Jr.
A. "Who are you?"
B. "No, that would be against the law."
C. "I love it!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
RE: Russiagate, my take is that dirt or not, Hillary has been subject to mad smear campaigns for decades and since partisanship runs so deep in America she could stomp a kitten to death on live TV and Dems would still vote for her on the grounds that $GOP_Candidate is worse. Basically, I doubt that the "dirt" uncovered by the Russians had that much of an effect on the election.
Should the Russians have interfered in the election? Pot, meet kettle. As AC @ 13 Jul 2017 @ 1:43pm notes, due to political hackery we're being distracted from the bigger issues.
Should Team Trump have engaged in research opposition with a hostile foreign power? No. Is it treason? Not per the letter of the law. Is it Very Naughty? Yes. Is it acceptable? On the Trump side, "Meh!"
Conclusion: political hackery and partisanship has apparently inoculated Americans from being unduly influence by foreign powers since they're much too busy fighting each other to pay much attention to it.
Whether I'm right or wrong depends on how much you think Putin/US Voters is like B5's Bester/Garibaldi where Bester sends subliminal messages to enhance Garibaldi's natural rebelliousness and distrust of authority, etc. To be fair the GOP had been doing it for decades so I doubt that the Russian efforts made that much of a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fairness this is the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity chaired and staffed by people hand-picked by Trump.
Competent, long-term Federal employees need not apply. After all, almost all of them served under Obama and are therefore automatically suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 minutes of google searching
http://www.fairus.org/issue/noncitizens-voting-violations-and-u-s-elections
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 minutes of google searching
How many of those studies say that in-person voter fraud happens at the levels Trump believes it does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 minutes of google searching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 minutes of google searching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 minutes of google searching
For future reference when evaluating sources remember the acronym CRAP
Currency
Relevancy
Accuracy
Point of View/Propaganda
To be an effective source it must do well in all 4 areas...
yours scores high in Currency, and Relevance, but does abysmally in Accuracy and Propaganda. Making it completely worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sensitive personal data from people who shouldn't have it.
Next, please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Data is power. Lists of people are used to create smaller lists of targets.
There are many other risks apart from privacy and voter suppression.
Personal data is like crack to authoritarians. Don't give them anything. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Twitter feed
"Collection of data to prove voter fraud killed by Trump. What is he trying to hide?"
(Yes it /s just in case because this is the internet, Politics and Trump and some people just can't)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Florida Model
This is not theoretical, it happened. I say tripling down because many states have already doubled down on the Florida Model. They just want to take it nation wide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AMRDEC SAFE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Trump doesn't want to be president
First, he tried trolling the people of the US by saying he'd build a border wall to keep Mexicans out... with no concrete plans.
Then he fills his cabinet with other CEO's and large-donors who have no political or diplomatic experience. Sure, the CEO of Exxon will definitely be a good representative of the US abroad. And sure, a brain surgeon will make an excellent Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
Then he sends out crazy Twitter tweets that should be far beneath the behavior of a US president. Why does the president of the United States need to get into a Twitter war with CNN anyway? And what's a "covfefe"?
Then when he's still not kicked out of office, he demands a recount of all the votes. Sure, he tells everyone that it's to look for fraud, but maybe it's to see if Hillary actually got enough votes to win.
That way, he wouldn't have to quit being the president and he could complain about the "unfair recount" that he himself ordered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Trump doesn't want to be president
Now he's in there, he's clearly out of his depth. He doesn't understand diplomacy, doesn't understand that he can't just order something done. He's a spoilt brat who's spent most of his time surrounded by yes men, now faced with real criticism for the first time. He's trying to install the yes men in every position he can, but he's just ended up with incompetents and empty positions. He's trying to run the country like one of his businesses, but not realising that he can't declare bankruptcy and run, can't screw suppliers and can't coast on a brand name and family fortune like he has in the business world.
I wouldn't be surprised if he bails before the end of the first term. I just hope his supporters realise why rather than ranting about some conspiracy. Alas, I don't think they will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe Trump doesn't want to be president
[ link to this | view in chronology ]