Voter Records for 2M Iowans Exposed on GOP Site(wsj.com)

45 pointsby plorgvor 10 Jahren23 comments

Voter Records for 2M Iowans Exposed on GOP Site

http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-records-for-2-million-iowans-exposed-on-gop-site-1454602565

25 comments

Natsuvor 10 Jahren

"The voting records don’t say who a person voted for, just whether or not they voted. It includes presidential primary and general election records, as well as state, local and school board elections dating back decades.

The database, which is a collection of public records, can be purchased from the Iowa Secretary of State, typically for $1,500 to $1,800. Buyers must promise to only use the information for political purposes."

In case anyone was wondering what's in the data.

barsonmevor 10 Jahren

It's public information in all 50 states. Some states require you to pay for it, while others (like Washington[0]) provide it for free.

[0] - https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/vrdb-download-form.aspx

BogusIKnowvor 10 Jahren

"Buyers must promise to only use the information for political purposes."

I promise!

dbroockmanvor 10 Jahren

It's standard practice for states to salt their voter lists with fake names. If, e.g., a non-political solicitation shows up to the fake name, the sender is caught. Same thing with FEC data -- politicians have to list their donors publicly, but it isn't legal for other politicians to solicit those people, and the FEC enforces it with salting.

dfcvor 10 Jahren

The google trick no longer works for paywall bypass.

Its not just me: http://digiday.com/publishers/wall-street-journal-paywall-go...

joshschreudervor 10 Jahren

It worked for me clicking through the 'web' link on HN (which does the Google search) then clicking the top result.

ekianjovor 10 Jahren

nice! it works indeed.

xrjnvor 10 Jahren

A number of sites' paywalls can be bypassed by modifying your referrer, with an extension like Referer Control [0] for example. If we take WSJ, I entered their root URL as a site filter, and set a custom referrer (in this case 'https://www.google.com'). This works for many news sites [1], but LinkedIn for example seems to ignore this.

[0] Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn...

[0] Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/referrer-cont...

[1] http://i.imgur.com/SsnpwrL.png

dfcvor 10 Jahren

You really murdered any sense of normalcy in your de novo system for footnoting.

yohoho22vor 10 Jahren

It should if you clear your wsj.com cookies.

mrbvor 10 Jahren

It doesn't work, even after clearing cookies, even in incognito mode:

- Launch new Chrome incognito session

- Open HN story page, click 'web' link

- Click first Google result: http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-records-for-2-million-iowa...

- I get a partial WSJ page obscured with "To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In"

I think WSJ is getting smart. Maybe they temp-block IP addresses that try to access a news article (with or without a Google referer) if this IP just tried to access it without a referer in the last X minutes.

Edit: I didn't change anything and now it works. (Standard Chrome install on Linux, latest version, no third-party plugins installed, only extensions installed are Authy and Google Docs.) Go figure what WSJ is doing...

msravivor 10 Jahren

Make sure that your referer header is enabled. If you're using uMatrix and have referer spoof turned on, add this to your rules to disable it for wsj:

referrer-spoof: wsj.com false

sillysaurus3vor 10 Jahren

It worked for me. I clicked on web then clicked on the top link.

Here's the content of the article: http://pastebin.com/n0gRHa60

EC1vor 10 Jahren

How is this different than piracy?

jsmeatonvor 10 Jahren

Entering into a pastebin is.. questionable. But I strongly dislike paywalls that disappear for search traffic. It's really really shady.

stock_toastervor 10 Jahren

No ships?

vonklausvor 10 Jahren

Well a pirate is(usually) a private person or ship authorized by a government by letters of marque to attack foreign vessels during wartime, and here we are just reading content we had no intention of paying for which is bundled in to a larger service we have no intention of paying for.

You are not incorrect if you are indicating it is likely unethical however.

dfcvor 10 Jahren

That is "usually" never the definition of a pirate, you are describing privateers. Piracy is not limited to times of war nor is it dependent on a sovereign nation.

vonklausvor 10 Jahren

Wow, this clears up a lot. Logistically, it wouldn't have made sense that the parent was implying most of the thread had gone to Buckingham Palace to receive wartime repreive in order to simply read this article. I was super confused.

Thanks for putting this into context for me and in context this makes more sense.

I guess I just had the wrong definition of pirate.

EC1vor 10 Jahren

Bad attempt at humor. Very low hanging.

pmvor 10 Jahren

I thought that was a privateer.

ekianjovor 10 Jahren

Well privateers and pirates are pretty much the same thing in practice, the only difference being that pirates operate on their own, while privateers are blessed by a particular State. But they both follow the same course of action.

[deleted]vor 10 Jahren

snowwrestlervor 10 Jahren

This is public information. The only "bad" thing about the leak is that now people can get this info without paying $2,000 for the privilege.

mytrilevor 10 Jahren