Health, Wealth, and Senator Heller: Recommended Reading

Health care continues as a high priority item for Nevadans, and Greg Sargent’s article for the Washington Post points out how the “GOP Stunt Backfired…and why,” is highly recommended for pulling the tarpaulin off the GOP obfuscation concerning the Affordable Care Act.  The New York Times reports on the impact of the health insurance battle on other elements of the GOP agenda.  Ian Millhiser warns us that if we stop paying attention, the GOP wins.  Meanwhile,…

Senator Dean Heller continues to spout the party lines (the part under the tarp) while ostensibly opposing the repeal bill:

“Under the ACA, premiums have increased 7 times faster than wages, and federal regulations under the law’s employer mandate have cut workers’ hours, wages, or both.”

Nothing like tossing one’s apples and oranges together and expecting to get grape juice.  Some significant elements are missing from this pithy bit of prose.  First, premiums have increased, but not at an equal pace in all states. Secondly, the rate of premium increases have slowed during the implementation of the ACA.  Third, wages have been stagnant during the past decade, but that has little to do with the enactment of health care insurance reform — in fact, lower wage working Americans were included in the Medicaid expansion– the very program the GOP wants to slash in order to provide tax cuts to wealthy Americans.

Senator Heller believes that re-importation of prescription drugs and allowing insurance purchases across state lines are part of the solution.  Notice that he’s not in favor of so much competition as to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices in the manner allowed to the Veterans Administration.  Also notice that he’s not mentioning that some states have rather more lax requirements for the sale of comprehensive health insurance than others.  The “across state lines,” or “portability argument” sounds good until we recall that states build in consumer protections into their regulatory frameworks.  If we could be guaranteed that portability would be a function of the most rigorous consumer protections there’s something to be discussed herein; if not, it’s simply a formula for a race to the bottom.

This is no time to remove our attention to the decimation of health insurance affordability —

Senator Heller can be reached in Las Vegas at 702-388-6605; Reno at 775-686-5770; and DC at 202-224-6244.

Comments Off on Health, Wealth, and Senator Heller: Recommended Reading

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics

Nevada Numbers

Active Voters:  (Secretary of State)  May 2017 —

  • Democratic                580,936
  • Republican                488,971
  • Non Partisan             309,645
  • Indep. American        63,301
  • Libertarian                  13,900
  • Other                             17,342

Number of Nevadans residing in Certified Nursing Facilities (2015)  4,848 [KFF]

Number of Nevadans in Certified Nursing Facilities on Medicaid: 60%;  or 2,090 [KFF]

Uncompensated Care in Nevada Hospitals: (SFY = State Fiscal Year

SFY 2016: $455,780,601  SFY 2017: $347,341,927  a decrease of 23.79%  [DHC dl]

It would seem that 580,936 Nevadans want to preserve care for 60% of our certified nursing facility residents, and help keep the level of uncompensated care in our hospitals lower than in pre-ACA days.

Imagine 580,936 Nevadans making just one phone call or sending one post card to Senator Dean Heller asking that he vote against the Senate version of the tax cut/Medicaid slash bill.

Senator Heller’s numbers are:

Las Vegas Office:  702-388-6605;  8930 West Sunset Road, Suite 230, Las Vegas, NV 89148

Reno Office:  775-686-5770;  400 South Virginia Street, Suite 738, Reno, NV 89501

DC Office:  202-224-6244;  324 Hart Office Building, Washington, DC 20510

Comments Off on Nevada Numbers

Filed under Politics

Independents Day: A Call For Critical Thinking

James Madison wrote, in the popular Federalist #10:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Insert “party” for “faction” and Madison’s fear takes on a more modern face.  However, his analysis holds today for those who place the interests of the party over the interests of the country:

“A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”

Yes, we’ve gotten there. Not that political parties are without  redeeming features.  Parties allow us a framework for political activity; recruiting candidates, establishing a nominating process, organizing candidacies, and promoting a platform of policies and principles.   It’s when we arrive at the “disposed to vex” station that our train is off the rails.

If a portion of the 39% who believe the current President is doing a good job [Al.com] are motivated by satisfaction that the incumbent is vexing to “liberals,” then we’ve met one of the elements which caused Madison to argue against “faction.”  It’s when one group is “adversed” to the rights of others, when we create permanent aggregates of interest, when we are more interested in vexing the opposition than in areas of mutual needs — then we’ve reached Madison’s critical mass.  What is necessary is a bit of Independent’s Thinking.

An independent person may self identify as a member of a political party, but is not defined by that categorization.   A lack of independent thinking yields little but self absorbed partisanship, a feature not conducive to problem solving — or even to identifying the problems in the first place.  There are several sources which purport to define and explain critical thinking, among these the University of Michigan provides a succinct statement. Critical thinking requires analyzing, applying standards, discriminating, seeking additional information, logical reasoning,  predicting, and transforming knowledge into positions or proposals.  Another way to approach critical thinking skills is in the form of a ‘cheatsheet’ illustrating the kinds of questions an independent thinker might apply toward an issue.

If we would diminish the effects of authoritarianism and the less fortuitous elements of partisanship then we’d be well advised to promote critical thinking — which requires more than sound bite sloganeering and the exhortations of televised spin doctors.

For the sake of argument let’s adopt the premise that neither American political party will develop the perfect solution to providing health care insurance to everyone in this country.  What we can, and should do, in this instance is to ask some critical questions,  considering a current proposal: Who benefits? Who is harmed? Who will be the most directly affected?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal? What are the alternatives?  What actions of policies would create a positive change? What would provide the ‘greatest good for the greatest number?’ Where can more information be obtained?

Why is this a relevant problem? Why is there a felt need to make policy changes?  When will we know if a proposal or plan has succeeded?  When is the appropriate time to measure success?

It is equally efficacious to ask these questions of proposals regarding financial sector regulation,  voting rights issues, and climate change policies… indeed, any prospective issue.

We also need to take a more informed view of the way we categorize partisanship and non-partisanship.  One need not be a political independent, in the sense of registering as non-partisan, in order to be an independent political person.  Too often we tend to conflate the terms “independent” and “nonpartisan.”  It is entirely possible to be an independent thinker while identifying with a political party.  All that’s required is a sense that all proposals should be analyzed and evaluated for the purpose of perfecting them, not necessarily for the exercise of opposing them.

It’s easy to assign some responsibility to broadcast media for a lack of examples of critical thinking, and its application to contemporary issues.  Fifteen minute segments are hardly conducive to asking all the pertinent questions.  Having a biased perspective from the onset isn’t helpful whether it is coming from the Fox News Network or the Sinclair corporation.  Having the “adversarial” format in which CNN or MSNBC broadcast two or more ‘analysts’ launching verbal grenades at one another isn’t all that helpful either.  However, these outlets will continue their present formats until their ratings drop, and drop precipitously enough to convince sponsors that the public wants more information and less entertainment.

It’s also rather too easy to argue that the Schools Should Be Doing More.  Granted the current testing craze isn’t conducive to imparting practice in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation; but, it’s equally true that most education occurs in the home.  If parents and other significant people in the household ask each other to differentiate between facts and opinions, and further to require each other to substantiate his or her statements with facts, then Little Ears will pick up the process — everyone succeeds in this scenario.

Independence Day would be as good a time as any for us to declare ourselves Independents, as in independent thinkers, no matter our political affiliation.

Comments Off on Independents Day: A Call For Critical Thinking

Filed under media, media ownership, Politics

Trump Can’t Put His Ego Aside, Declares Voter Fraud, Forms Unwarranted Commission at Taxpayer Expense

Highly Recommended Reading!

Rural Nevada Democratic Caucus

Trump may have won the electoral college, but he lost the popular vote by a historic margin.  That fact apparently insults his fragile ego to the effect that he’s now amplified his claims of voter fraud and formed a commission that will look for the equivalent of lightning repeatedly striking the same exact spot.  Heading that commission will be Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach who championed an illegal voter suppression technique called “caging” and launched a program called Interstate Crosscheck to compare voter registration data across states and ferret out evidence of double voting.  Crosscheck, in the 30 states that took up using it, flagged 7.2 million possible double registrants, no more than four have actually been charged with deliberate double registration or double voting.  Very few actual cases of fraud being referred for prosecution.

A new investigation from Rolling Stone raises fresh concerns about Interstate Crosscheck, finding that its…

View original post 539 more words

Comments Off on Trump Can’t Put His Ego Aside, Declares Voter Fraud, Forms Unwarranted Commission at Taxpayer Expense

Filed under Politics

The Happy Hackers Bill approved by House Republicans

One of the major ironies of the past few days is that the administration’s fraudulent anti-voting fraud commission is asking for bundles of private voter information from the 50 states, all the while dismissing Russian interference in the 2016 election as a hoax, AND submitting a budget which we’ve known for some time would eliminate the ONE federal agency tasked with assisting state and local governments with election security.

“House Republicans are taking aim at a small federal agency that helps provide election oversight and guidance, saying its functions are no longer necessary.

A spending bill from the House Appropriations Committee unveiled Thursday would give the Election Assistance Commission 60 days to terminate itself. The small agency was created after the tightly contested 2000 presidential election. It has an annual budget of about $10 million and had just 31 employees on its rolls as of March. The agency writes election management guidelines and develops specifications for testing and certifying voting systems, among other tasks.” [GovExec]

The bill, introduced by Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS), would hand the powers and duties of the Election Assistance Commission to the Federal Election Commission, and the little agency responsible for “developing specifications for testing and certifying voting systems” would fold up and go away under the terms of HR 634.

The tribulations and gridlock in the Federal Election Commission are well known and documented: Investigations stalled, dark money flowing freely, enforcement delayed and denied. In short a scene of “dysfunction and deadlock.”  [NYT]  Failures to investigate, and 3-3 vote ties stifling further investigations. [NBC] Thus, the Harper bill would deliver election security responsibilities to a commission already in the throes of partisan gridlock and as they say so politely, “dysfunction.”

Republicans on the Administration Committee [Harper (R-MS), Davis (R-IL), Comstock (R-VA), Smith (R-NE),  Walker (R-NC), and Loudermilk (R-GA)] voted to send the bill forward;  Democratic Representatives Brady (D-PA), Lofgren (D-CA) and Raskin (D-MD) voted “no.”  So, what do these lawmakers want to hand over the the stalemated FEC?  The part which should interest us the most at the moment is this segment from the EAC:

“EAC Certification Program is to provide clear procedures to Manufacturers for the testing and certification of voting systems to specified Federal standards consistent with the requirements of HAVA Section 231(a)(1).

Under this program, the testing and review process requires the completion of an application, employment of an EAC-accredited laboratory for system testing, and technical analysis of the laboratory test report by the EAC. The result of this process is an Initial Decision on Certification.”

It doesn’t take much effort to interpret this task as the foundation of standards for the certifying and testing of election systems.   Republicans may argue that this could be done under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, but this seems hollow since the bill doesn’t transfer the duties to DHS, it just wipes the EAC off the map.  The EAC already maintains a list of certified election systems,  and those which have been terminated.   The Republicans appear quite pleased to take the constable off the beat, and hope that someone, somewhere, will prevent the development and certification of voting systems from becoming the Wild West of slackers, partisan backers, and hackers.

If eliminating the EAC isn’t the answer, what might be?   The Brennan Center issued a report on “Security Election Systems from Foreign Interference,”  in a forward by former CIA Director James Woolsey,” he observes:

“In the last few months, we have learned extraordinary details about a Russian assault on our election infrastructure. While there is no evidence that this assault altered the vote count, that fact should be cold comfort as we look to protect ourselves against future attacks.”

One doesn’t have to be an expert on cybersecurity or election technology to understand how dangerous this is. Based on my experience, as a former Director of Central Intelligence, and in service to this country under both Democratic and Republican Presidents, I am confident the Russians will be back, and that they will take what they have learned last year to attempt to inflict even more damage in future elections. In particular, their history of interfering in other nations’ politics, their antipathy to the United States and Western democracies generally, and their proven ability to multiply the impact of their actions through cyberattacks should put us on the highest alert, and spur us to take all necessary actions to protect ourselves from further attack.”

In summary form, Ambassador Woolsey is convinced the Russians will be back, they will apply “lessons learned” evaluations, and they will attempt to cause even more damage in the future.  If the former CIA Director is correct, and there’s no logical reason to believe otherwise, this is hardly the time to terminate any programs to help state and local election officials secure their systems.  In fact, it’s time to do more, as outlined by the Report:

“What more must be done? The key security measures detailed in this report are the right place to start: replace paperless electronic machines, upgrade the hardware and software that supports voter registration, and conduct post-election audits to confirm the results.

These are common-sense solutions that will increase security and public confidence in the integrity of our system. Importantly, they will do so without interfering with the right of any eligible citizen to participate in the choice of who will govern the nation.”

Some of these recommendations are squarely in the EAC wheelhouse, others will require additional support for local and state election officials.

The good news is that the decentralization of American voting systems makes a concerted attack extremely difficult, there are 8,000 voting jurisdictions, and about 100,000 polling places.  However, this doesn’t mean that we should be taking much comfort from our fragmented system, because the bad news is that some jurisdictions are using antiquated equipment with operating systems no longer supported by vendors (and thus are easier to attack.)  States and localities have made progress toward greater technical voting system security since 2004, but now is no time to rest upon laurels and declare “we’re Safe!” merely because vote totals are difficult to alter.

There’s also the matter of voter registration data security.  Again, the Brennan Center recommends:

“State and local governments must fully identify potential avenues for attacking voter registration systems, mapping out all of the entities that interact with that system, and implementing mitigation strategies where weaknesses are identified. The consensus among experts interviewed by the Brennan Center is that this should be done on a regular basis, but that many states are unlikely to have completed this kind of comprehensive risk assessment in the last few years, despite the fact that both registration systems and cyber threats have evolved enormously over that time.”

Putting a more blunt perspective on it:  The risk assessment tools used to evaluate the security of voter registration data which were judged “state of the art” just a couple of years ago may now be as outdated as that Motorola StarTAC clam shell mobile phone  sitting in the bottom of someone’s junk drawer.   Add to this the notion that the Administration’s fraudulent Fraud Commission wants to centralize voter registration data from 50 states all in one convenient place — thus making it a handier target for our adversaries — and we lose the advantages of decentralization while making life easier for those wishing to practice their “foreign interference.”

There is a bill in the Congress well worth supporting, introduced by Derek Kilmer (D-WA), HR 1344, under its terms the Department of Homeland Security would assist local and state government officials as follows:

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may award states with planning and biennial implementation grants under the program to:

adopt cybersecurity best practices;
mitigate talent gaps in government workforces;
protect public safety answering points, emergency communications, and continuity of communications during catastrophic disruption;
mitigate threats to critical infrastructure or key resources;
coordinate with neighboring states or countries, National Guard units, or information sharing and analysis organizations; and
establish scholarships or apprenticeships to provide financial assistance to state residents pursuing cybersecurity education who commit to working for state government.
The bill sets forth requirements for distribution of awarded amounts to local and tribal governments within states and for consultation with local and regional officials.

The Committee for Cyber Resiliency Grants is established to: (1) promulgate guidance for states to develop applications for such cyber resiliency grants; (2) provide DHS and states with recommendations regarding the approval of state plans or applications; and (3) evaluate, and report to Congress regarding, the progress of states in implementing plans.”

We’d be well advised to contact our Representatives and recommend they oppose HR 634 (perhaps on the theory that the fact we have a Navy doesn’t obviate the need to also have a Coast Guard) and to support HR 1344.

This is hardly the time to make the hackers any happier.

Local Contact Information: 

Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) Phone: (775) 686-5760

Representative Dina Titus (D-NV1) Phone: (702) 220-9823

Representative Ruben Kihuen (D-NV4)  (702) 963-9360

Representative Jacky Rosen (D-NV3)  (702) 963-9500

Comments Off on The Happy Hackers Bill approved by House Republicans

Filed under Nevada Congressional Representatives, Nevada politics, Politics, Vote Suppression, Voting

Election Integrity in Nevada: How Safe Is Safe?

We have a President of the United States of America who appears singularly uninterested in investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.  Nothing has originated from the Oval Office to indicate he is curious about (a) Russian intrusions into some 21 to 39 state election systems; (b) Russian disinformation efforts during the 2016 elections; and (c) European efforts to blunt Russian cyber attacks on their elections.  Perhaps there’s nothing surprising about this, he’s shown precious little interest in:

(1) Bolstering NATO nation confidence in US support for their interests in addressing Russian incursions into Crimea, Ukraine, and the Baltic States; (2) Extending or enhancing sanctions on Russia for these incursions; (3) Maintaining the sanctions initiated by the Obama Administration including the removal of the Russians from two facilities used for intelligence purposes.   And, now the President wants to have something to “offer” the Russians during the upcoming meetings of the G20.

“President Donald Trump has asked National Security Council staff to come up with “deliverables” that he can offer to Russian President Vladimir Putin during their meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Germany next week, The Guardian reported Thursday.”  [Business Insider]

At this juncture it would seem necessary for citizens in Nevada to multi-task.  On one hand we need to insure that the Administration isn’t encouraged to promote its voter suppression program, at present in the form of Chris Kobach’s extensive request for voter data which will be massaged into a report which will no doubt encourage more voter suppression legislation.  There’s nothing wrong with sharing the information any county chairperson can obtain from the voting registrar or the county clerk, but there’s all manner of things wrong with asking for military status,  Social Security numbers or portions thereof, voting history, and other personal data NOT previously part of the public record.  The Nevada Secretary of State has responded in the following press release:

“Many people have asked whether or not the Secretary of State’s office plans to comply with the request from the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity for voter registration information in Nevada.  Other than the previously identified confidential information, state law (NRS 293.558) prohibits election officials from withholding voter registration information from the public.  In addition, the state’s Public Records Act requires government entities to allow for inspection of public records.  As a result, the Secretary of State’s office will provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with only the publicly available voter registration information under Nevada law.”

Thus much for Kobach’s grand plan for a 50 state data accumulation of personal voting histories and “targets” for vote suppression.  However, we can reasonably predict that this will not be the end of Kobach and Von Spakovsky’s efforts to impede voting by the elderly, the young, and minority ethnic group members; in short, people who are likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

On the other hand, we need to watch out for insecurities in our own electoral systems.  One element, of course, is the integrity of our mechanical and electronic voting machines.  For those wishing to delve into the weediest of the weeds should refer to NAC Chapter 293B which specifies how these are to be maintained, tested, and audited, which led Verified Votin g.Org to declare Nevada’s overall performance as “generally good.”  Additional information concerning Nevada’s audit limitations can be found on this Verified Voting page.   We have some soft spots, but none of these seem like major issues at the moment, and most appear to be capable of repair by a legislature paying attention to the details.

Now, we need a third hand.  Since the intelligence agencies at the Federal level haven’t released the names of those states (21 to 39) which suffered Russian intrusion, we don’t know if Nevada is among the list.  The only ones which have self-identified to date are Illinois and Arizona.  This situation raises more questions:

(1)  Is the voter registration data maintained by the Secretary of State’s office fully secure and safe from hacking?  Is access to this information secured in such a way as to prevent unlawful or illicit compromise?  What tests are performed to verify the security, and by whom are the tests conducted?  To whom are the results reported? Are those receiving the test reports empowered to fix any and all issues discovered?

(2) Is the voter registration data maintained at the local level secure from unauthorized access?  Is there sufficient funding and expertise at the local level to conduct tests of access security?  Is the ‘calendar’ of security testing at the local level adequate to prevent unauthorized or illicit access?  Are there “gaps” in access security, such that some localities are more secure than others?

(3) Are local voting systems/machines secure from unauthorized access and tampering?  Is the State (or local agencies) doing adequate security testing and auditing of results? Are our present systems safe, or is there more we could be doing?  Do we need to consider more in the way of risk limitation auditing .

It’s now beginning to look like we need to have some more hands involved, rather more like an octopus to get a handle on all the questions.

There are some things that Nevada may not have the capacity to do on its own.  We probably shouldn’t be required to conduct our own “elves vs. trolls” in the manner of the Lithuanian government’s efforts to fight off disinformation campaigns.  Germany, the United Kingdom, France, the Baltic nations, Sweden and the European Union have all devised national and cross-border efforts to publicize and blunt Russian efforts. [WP]

It would be extremely helpful to have a federal Executive Branch more engaged in countering Russian meddling than in vote suppression and declaring the obvious FACT of Russian cyber assaults to be Fake News.

Comments Off on Election Integrity in Nevada: How Safe Is Safe?

Filed under Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics, von Spakovsky, Vote Suppression, Voting

They’ve Only Just Begun: Hacking the Silver State?

If the President of the US isn’t all that interested in how the Russians hacked and meddled in the 2016 election, voters and voting officials in the US should be, and this includes the state of Nevada.  There are several layers to the issues, the voting itself and the processes which are elements of the total election system.

Voting Machine Vulnerability

The good news is that Nevada has a relatively robust voting system in place that is more difficult for a foreign power — read Russian operatives — to hack, the bad news is that the Sequoia (Dominion) system could still have some issues most related to “insider” attacks

“The software suffers from numerous programming errors, many of which have a high potential to introduce or exacerbate security weaknesses. These include buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities, and type mismatch errors. In general, the software does not reflect defensive software engineering practices normally associated with high-assurance critical systems. There are many instances of poor or absent error and exception handling, and several cases where the software behavior does not match the comments and documentation. Some of these problems lead to potentially exploitable vulnerabilities that we identified, but even where there may not be an obvious vulnerability identified, the presence of such errors reduces our overall confidence in the soundness of the system as a whole.” [VerifiedVoting]

The problems associated with Nevada’s voting machines are mostly of the variety perpetrated by “insiders,” those who have control of the machines during set up, maintenance, and handling.  This is good news for preventing ‘rigging’ issues in terms of election outcomes being vulnerable to outside forces.  A statement from the Secretary of State describes the election audit system. (pdf)

Voter Registration Record Security

The election voter data isn’t quite so reassuring.  Nevada is a “member” of the Cross Check system.   The system certainly can be used to remove individuals from the voter rolls with deleterious effect, and the exchange between

voting officials and the Nevada ACLU isn’t all that comforting:

Wayne Thorley, Nevada’s deputy secretary of state for elections, counters that the program just matches data and doesn’t target anyone. “Just because someone comes back as a match on the Interstate Crosscheck list, it doesn’t automatically trigger cancellation of their account,” he said. “And then, further investigation is done by the state.” He said Nevada also uses the Electronic Registration Information Center to match names from the Crosscheck list with DMV records. Voters then get a postcard to verify their address and if they don’t respond and don’t vote in two elections, they’re dropped from the rolls. Tod Story, executive director of the Nevada ACLU, worries that the postcard system could be problematic. “It does not seem to be fair and certainly would affect more low-income and minority voters, who tend to be more transient, who are going to move more frequently,” he said. Thorley said that is certainly not the intent. “If that has a disparate impact on members of minority communities, I’m not aware of that,” added Thorley. “But it’s not targeted that way at all. We’re simply following the federal law.”

First, Mr. Thorley should be aware of “that” — there is, and has been demonstrated to be a disparate impact on members of minority groups.  Secondly, the post-card system is, and has been demonstrated to be, an ineffective way of contacting individuals who are ‘challenged’ under the Cross Check system.  [RS]  The results of using the Cross Check system are also not reassuring:

“The program has since expanded to 30 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), but it’s been controversial from the start. For one thing, it’s resulted in very few actual cases of fraud being referred for prosecution, as alleged cases of double voting in multiple states turned out to be clerical and other errors. One tally found that while the program has flagged 7.2 million possible double registrants, no more than four have actually been charged with deliberate double registration or double voting. Meanwhile, some states including Florida dropped out of the program due to doubts about the reliability of its data — though others, including the swing state of North Carolina, joined despite those issues.”  [TVN]

Get that? Out of 7.2 million ‘flagged’ 4 individuals have been charged with double registration or double voting.  In addition to obviously being ineffective (A 0.00005.5% catch rate doesn’t seem worth the effort) the collection would appear to be a grand place for a hacker to start if he or she has mischief in mind.

Initial Russian assaults are still a matter of confidentiality, no Secretaries of State have yet been cleared to receive the reports of hacking collected by our security agencies although there is testimony that 21 states were subjected to attacks of some kind. [LAT]  We do know that Illinois was one on the states in which voter registration rolls were hacked.

“The hack had nothing to do with counting the votes in elections in Illinois. The hackers looked at voting registration data: name, address, date of birth, gender and the last four digits in the Social Security number.

The hackers searched through about 80,000 records overall, with the elections board confirming that the records of just under 3,000 voters were viewed by the hackers.” [CST]

The Chicago Sun Times reported how the hack was accomplished, and how it was detected.   The state of Arizona also had a major scare, as reported by Michele Reagan, AZ Secretary of State:

Reagan said she was alerted to the hack after the Federal Bureau of Investigation found a credential — a username and login — for the state system for sale on the dark web.

“It was really frightening and scary considering we’re in charge of almost four million people’s information,” Reagan said.

Reagan said her office had a lot of decisions to make in short amount of time to protect voter safety and took the system offline.

“At that moment in time, the most important thing was what do we do with that database,” she said. “How do we inspect it? We need to make sure that no information was taken, no information was altered, a virus wasn’t inserted into that system.”

She said, while the voter database was hacked, the voting registration system was not.

“We got lucky once,” she said, adding that the state has added multi-factor authentication, required the changing and strengthening of passwords and made other tweaks to better protect the system. [KTAR]

It would be reassuring to know if Nevada has implemented “multi-factor authentication” and other measures to better secure Nevada voter data.

I’ve not read any reports to date assuring me that the Russian hacking was a “one-off” and unlikely to be replicated.  Indeed, nearly every article asserts that what we’ve seen in 2016 was only the beginning.  A few intrusions in anywhere from 21 to 39 states, a peek into voter information data, some attempts to ‘phish” their way into systems — and many warnings that this indicates increasing interest in going deeper into US elections rather than any foray for temporary recreational purposes.

Recommendations

Retain the sanctions placed on the Russians by the Obama Administration, and enact new and greater sanctions on them as proposed by the U.S. Senate.  House Republicans have stalled the bill which passed the Senate on a 98-2 vote. [NYT] As of June 23, 2017 the White House indicated it would step up lobbying efforts against the Russian sanctions bill. [WP]  Those tracking the progress of this bill will want to follow GovTrack S 722.

Review and potentially revise Nevada voter data security processes and products.  Have issues revolving around the infamous Cross Check program been resolved?  Have procedures been adopted that would prevent access such as happened in Illinois and Arizona?

Russian probing, and interference, will not stop…it will be up to the US Congress and the 50 states, to reject their efforts.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics, Vote Suppression, Voting