State officials blast 'unprecedented' DHS move to secure electoral system. - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/state-electoral-system-hacking-homeland-security-233349"]http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/state-electoral-system-hacking-homeland-security-233349[/URL] [QUOTE]State election officials on Monday denounced the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to label the country's electoral system as "critical infrastructure." The move, which DHS announced on Friday, puts the electoral system on par with the energy or financial sector, industries considered vital to national security and economic stability. On Monday, the National Association of Secretaries of State lashed out at the decision, saying it is “is legally and historically unprecedented, raising many questions and concerns for states and localities with authority over the administration of our voting process." Secretaries of state oversee elections in most states. Several of these officials have expressed concerns that the "critical infrastructure" tag could presage a federal takeover of local elections. “While we recognize the need to share information on threats and risk mitigation in our elections at all levels of government, as we did throughout the 2016 cycle, it is unclear why a critical infrastructure classification is now necessary for this purpose,” the group added. DHS has countered that the label does not create new regulations for states — it simply makes the cybersecurity of polling places, election machines, voter databases and other election technology a formal priority for the agency.[/QUOTE] Conservatives are angry, and some saying that this is a coup. Conspiracy Theorists also believe this is step one of overturning election (I highly Doubt it)

DHS says the electoral system is really important? Is that it?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51649602]DHS says the electoral system is really important? Is that it?[/QUOTE] Apparently this is another Jade Helm Situation where people think this is a coup to overturn the election

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51649602]DHS says the electoral system is really important? Is that it?[/QUOTE] Yes.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51649602]DHS says the electoral system is really important? Is that it?[/QUOTE] They're formally obliged to look after them and local elections now. Not sure what to think other than that.

Well, it is. If a foreign agent can directly affect all other critical industries by affecting the result of the election, then surely by default it's in the same category.

That's cool and all, but werent the hacks aimed more at the private organization known as the dnc in an information "warfare" scheme (if you will) designed to undermine the dnc candidate? Unless this is also meant to put the security of the parties's private email servers under the dhs's protection this really doesn't do much other than make people feel good.

[QUOTE=Durandal;51649731]That's cool and all, but didn't the weren't the hacks aimed more at the private organization known as the dnc in an information "warfare" scheme (if you will) designed to undermine the dnc candidate? Unless this is also meant to put the security of the parties's private email servers under the dhs's protection this really doesn't do much other than make people feel good.[/QUOTE] Feel Good? Some Conservatives are screaming "COUP!"

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51649758]Feel Good? Some Conservatives are screaming "COUP!"[/QUOTE] You don't think this makes anyone who dislikes how the election turned out feel at least a very tiny bit good?

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51649758]Feel Good? Some Conservatives are screaming "COUP!"[/QUOTE] all conservatives ever do is scream and whine about nonsense. it's best to ignore them.

The electoral should be a critical system which is protected like its an national asset. We live in an digital age and if we don't change how we look at things it will leave us to vulnerabilities.

[QUOTE]“While we recognize the need to share information on threats and risk mitigation in our elections at all levels of government, as we did throughout the 2016 cycle, it is unclear why a critical infrastructure classification is now necessary for this purpose,” the group added.[/QUOTE] Um, you answered your own fucking question? This only protects the data and any intrusion to that data. This is not the government taking over the elections. But they totally can if some congress decided to (this is a bad idea but will suddenly become the best idea ever depending on what party is in control and how stupid their base is).

Hey GOP If you did this, it could give evidence of Dem intrusion.

See, the problem I have with this is as follows. When the Republicans demanded harder voter identity laws with the expressed intent of cracking down on potential vote tampering (let's not talk about the actuality of disenfranchising anyone) Democrats lined up to shout, "you can't tamper with the votes! Nobody has, nobody will!" When Donald Trump, in some capacity, suggested that the Election system was rigged against him Democrats all across the spectrum rallied to say, "it's not rigged, you can't rig it, you'll never rig it." Now, there's a Democratic-driven narrative that Russia poses a serious threat to the Voting system (with no substantiating evidence, since all apparent Russian electoral interference was non-voting) and suddenly, "WE GOTTA SECURE THE BALLOT BOXES BOYS!" Are you quite serious? Have you lost your goddamn collective minds? And as much as people mock the Operation Jade Helmet conspiracy theorists, it's not exactly but ten years ago that people were still theory mongering over how the Patriot Act was going to be used to jail "political dissidents" or put "undesirables" in camps by the Bush Administration. Except when we elected a charismatic black man who promised to undo those extrajudicial incarcerations (and [I]didn't[/I]) we somehow forgot that the Government can still do that. On top of the literal explosion in extra-judicial killings by the United States via the drone programs.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51650070]See, the problem I have with this is as follows. When the Republicans demanded harder voter identity laws with the expressed intent of cracking down on potential vote tampering (let's not talk about the actuality of disenfranchising anyone) Democrats lined up to shout, "you can't tamper with the votes! Nobody has, nobody will!" When Donald Trump, in some capacity, suggested that the Election system was rigged against him Democrats all across the spectrum rallied to say, "it's not rigged, you can't rig it, you'll never rig it." Now, there's a Democratic-driven narrative that Russia poses a serious threat to the Voting system (with no substantiating evidence, since all apparent Russian electoral interference was non-voting) and suddenly, "WE GOTTA SECURE THE BALLOT BOXES BOYS!" Are you quite serious? Have you lost your goddamn collective minds? And as much as people mock the Operation Jade Helmet conspiracy theorists, it's not exactly but ten years ago that people were still theory mongering over how the Patriot Act was going to be used to jail "political dissidents" or put "undesirables" in camps by the Bush Administration. Except when we elected a charismatic black man who promised to undo those extrajudicial incarcerations (and [I]didn't[/I]) we somehow forgot that the Government can still do that. On top of the literal explosion in extra-judicial killings by the United States via the drone programs.[/QUOTE] As far as I can tell the DHS is only going to secure the data? They are not going to do much else. It seems highly more likely that the DHS is saying to the states that they have access to these new tools to help secure their stuff. They are not going to be taking over. The states still have control over how elections are ran. That is not changing.

[QUOTE=jordguitar;51650084]As far as I can tell the DHS is only going to secure the data? They are not going to do much else. It seems highly more likely that the DHS is saying to the states that they have access to these new tools to help secure their stuff. They are not going to be taking over.[/QUOTE] I also can tell you if they try to take over elections a huge fight will be brewing.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51650070]See, the problem I have with this is as follows. When the Republicans demanded harder voter identity laws with the expressed intent of cracking down on potential vote tampering (let's not talk about the actuality of disenfranchising anyone) Democrats lined up to shout, "you can't tamper with the votes! Nobody has, nobody will!" When Donald Trump, in some capacity, suggested that the Election system was rigged against him Democrats all across the spectrum rallied to say, "it's not rigged, you can't rig it, you'll never rig it." Now, there's a Democratic-driven narrative that Russia poses a serious threat to the Voting system (with no substantiating evidence, since all apparent Russian electoral interference was non-voting) and suddenly, "WE GOTTA SECURE THE BALLOT BOXES BOYS!" Are you quite serious? Have you lost your goddamn collective minds? And as much as people mock the Operation Jade Helmet conspiracy theorists, it's not exactly but ten years ago that people were still theory mongering over how the Patriot Act was going to be used to jail "political dissidents" or put "undesirables" in camps by the Bush Administration. Except when we elected a charismatic black man who promised to undo those extrajudicial incarcerations (and [I]didn't[/I]) we somehow forgot that the Government can still do that. On top of the literal explosion in extra-judicial killings by the United States via the drone programs.[/QUOTE] One little problem with your story. It isn't at all a Democrat-driven narrative. It comes directly from the CIA. Now, as butthurt as Republicans may be about the possibility that their candidate didn't win fair and square, I think I'm more inclined to believe one of the world's most powerful and competent spy agencies over random people bitching about it on the internet. While last year might have proved that feelings matter to most voting Americans more than facts do, the rest of us still have a healthy respect for reality.

[QUOTE=jordguitar;51650084]As far as I can tell the DHS is only going to secure the data? They are not going to do much else. It seems highly more likely that the DHS is saying to the states that they have access to these new tools to help secure their stuff. They are not going to be taking over.[/QUOTE] The issue has to do with the precedent it sets, and the way it may be used. Giving the Alphabet Agencies the power to unilaterally decide what is (or is not) critical infrastructure that they can then take power over is quite literally a perturbing decision, particularly when the elements they are taking charge of have traditionally been seen as State's elements. While the DHS has no evil, or overt explicit intentions with this, there's very little oversight in to what they will actually do, or in to how they will do it. All it would take is the return of a McCarthyist era, and suddenly your vote might be thrown out by the DHS Electoral Regulations Agency because your vote is actually a Commie plot to unbalance the American Democratic Process via non-cybersecurity means.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51650098]One little problem with your story. It isn't at all a Democrat-driven narrative. It comes directly from the CIA. Now, as butthurt as Republicans may be about the possibility that their candidate didn't win fair and square, I think I'm more inclined to believe one of the world's most powerful and competent spy agencies over random people bitching about it on the internet. While last year might have proved that feelings matter to most voting Americans more than facts do, the rest of us still have a healthy respect for reality.[/QUOTE] Saddam's WMD's anyone?

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51650096]I also can tell you if they try to take over elections a huge fight will be brewing.[/QUOTE] They are not doing that. States still have to administer elections. DHS is giving them tools and making sure that if anything does cause some issue that they will act (either the state or DHS or both).

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51650106]Saddam's WMD's anyone?[/QUOTE] Yes, as it turns out, even the CIA drop the ball sometimes. What exactly is your point? Let me guess. "The CIA were wrong in this situation, therefore they're wrong in all situations and armchair experts on the internet know better." Right. Wonderfully well-reasoned argument there. [editline]10th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=jordguitar;51650109]They are not doing that. States still have to administer elections. DHS is giving them tools and making sure that if anything does cause some issue that they will act (either the state or DHS or both).[/QUOTE] This. This isn't some huge attack on States' rights, this is simply some regulation to ensure the system is more secure moving forward.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51650105]The issue has to do with the precedent it sets, and the way it may be used. Giving the Alphabet Agencies the power to unilaterally decide what is (or is not) critical infrastructure that they can then take power over is quite literally a perturbing decision, particularly when the elements they are taking charge of have traditionally been seen as State's elements. While the DHS has no evil, or overt explicit intentions with this, there's very little oversight in to what they will actually do, or in to how they will do it. All it would take is the return of a McCarthyist era, and suddenly your vote might be thrown out by the DHS Electoral Regulations Agency because your vote is actually a Commie plot to unbalance the American Democratic Process via non-cybersecurity means.[/QUOTE] States STILL administer the elections. STATES Stop pretending that this is suddenly going to take them out of the loop because that is what you are trying to spin it as. Federal level can not administer the elections. They can offer assistance to some parts as what they are offering now. They don't get to just step in the middle of a count and push everyone out and declare a result. [editline]10th January 2017[/editline] This also would affect the political parties as well to help secure their shit because they are part of the electoral system in a way. They organise and focus candidates that will get the seats. If they are compromised, then the election can be thrown out of whack. So even if the states do not see much benefit from this, the parties will.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51650070]See, the problem I have with this is as follows. When the Republicans demanded harder voter identity laws with the expressed intent of cracking down on potential vote tampering (let's not talk about the actuality of disenfranchising anyone) Democrats lined up to shout, "you can't tamper with the votes! Nobody has, nobody will!" When Donald Trump, in some capacity, suggested that the Election system was rigged against him Democrats all across the spectrum rallied to say, "it's not rigged, you can't rig it, you'll never rig it." Now, there's a Democratic-driven narrative that Russia poses a serious threat to the Voting system (with no substantiating evidence, since all apparent Russian electoral interference was non-voting) and suddenly, "WE GOTTA SECURE THE BALLOT BOXES BOYS!" Are you quite serious? Have you lost your goddamn collective minds?[/QUOTE] Two things happened. Two things have nothing in common.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51650070]When the Republicans demanded harder voter identity laws with the expressed intent of cracking down on potential vote tampering (let's not talk about the actuality of disenfranchising anyone) Democrats lined up to shout, "you can't tamper with the votes! Nobody has, nobody will!"[/QUOTE] You're not here to debate because you literally ruled out debate in your first sentence. Yes, Voter ID laws are targeted voter suppression. One such case happened in my state, an old woman was repeatedly turned away because every time she tried to get her ID, a new requirement popped up. First she needed her SSN, that's fine. Then they wanted her Birth Certificate, okay but they should have asked for that the first time as well. Then they wanted her Husband's Death Certificate. Excuse me but what? At that point it's clear they're just throwing up obstacles because they don't want to register her. This was an old retired woman, now how many hoops do you think a younger working person would go through? They would probably just give up because they don't have the time or will to keep fucking around, and that's the real goal of Voter ID. Voter ID would be fine if you could receive it through mail for free, but I'm sure they'd still look for ways to fuck it up, like not sending them out and claiming they were lost in transport, then making you go through registration again. [editline]10th January 2017[/editline] Not to mention we do need to do something about our voting systems. Our systems are archaic, and I don't mean the rules. My state uses 30 year old voting machines that produce no hard copy or backups, which would make skewing the results very hard to detect. Atop of that, it is extremely hard to trigger a recount in this state, you basically need a convince either the board of elections or a judge to rule that a recount is necessary. Then the recount probably won't even help because as I said, the machines produce no hard copy or backups, they'll only rerun the votes they were given and produce the exact same results. So if a machine was compromised, a recount would just make it display the same compromised tally.