SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Securityweek has a look at the bits of HR1 with digital election security implications running:
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has unveiled its first Bill: HR1, dubbed the 'For the People Act'. It has little chance of getting through the Republican-controlled Congress, and even less chance of being signed into law by President Trump.
Nevertheless, HR1 lays down a marker for current Democrat intentions; and it is likely that some of the potentially bi-partisan elements could be spun out into separate bills with a greater chance of progress.
One of these is likely to include the section on election security. This has been a major issue since the meddling by Russian-state hackers in the 2016 presidential election, and the subsequent realization on how easy it would be for interested parties (both foreign hackers and local activists) to influence election outcomes.
I'm all for secure and accountable elections but the feds are going to need to be careful and deliberate in what they mandate vs. what they place conditions for funding on. They do have significant authority as far as election laws go but their power is more deep than broad; most specifics are legally up to the states. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean they currently have the legal authority necessary to do it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Sunday January 06 2019, @09:58PM (2 children)
And what exactly do you do about absentee ballots? You can't take a picture of the person filling those out. And before you suggest getting rid of them, consider that absentee ballots are the only way many deployed soldiers can vote at all, and that in many states, strict rules have led to dramatically reduced chances of soldiers receiving their ballots or having them counted in time or at all. Not to mention all the other reasons we have absentee ballots.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @02:01AM (1 child)
Suppose you are deployed to Irastan. The military designates a team to handle the problem for you. They take your picture, then package that up with your ballot and also transmit it back to the USA. The ballot is kept under armed guard by the voting team until escorted back to your state.
Suppose you are in the hospital. We send a suitable group of people to do as above. It might involve a notary public and a US marshal.
No, it isn't cheap, but absentee ballots should not be available for frivolous reasons.
Really though, I'm fine with a simple "NO". Untainted elections are too important to allow this hole.
(Score: 3, Informative) by redneckmother on Monday January 07 2019, @05:17AM
Suppose you are at home, and your polling place is 50 miles away, and your vehicle gets (at best) 15MPG. Also, suppose fuel costs $2.50 a gallon (it's actually a LOT more than hat in the boonies).
Additionally, suppose you and/or your significant other has health issues, and the 100 mile (round trip) drive is a serious imposition.
Absentee voting is a necessity for some of us.
Mas cerveza por favor.