Pentagon blocking overseas Americans from registering to vote

[Galaril]

This comes from Salon.com so yay it is biased but the facts remain:

"The Pentagon doesn't want you to vote overseas
A Web site maintained by the Department of Defense is blocking access to non-military Americans. Could it be worried that expatriates are leaning toward Kerry?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo

Sept. 21, 2004 |

On Monday, the International Herald Tribune reported that the Pentagon is restricting international access to the Web site for the Federal Voting Assistance Program, the official government agency that helps Americans living abroad register to vote in the November election. According to the IHT, Americans who connect to the Internet using one of several foreign Internet service providers have reported difficulty logging in to the voting-assistance site. The Pentagon confirmed that it is blocking traffic from these ISPs -- which provide Internet service in 25 countries -- but it declined to say why.

"This is a completely partisan thing," one Defense Department voting official stationed in Europe told Salon. The official, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being fired from her position, is one of the many people in the department assigned to help both uniformed military personnel as well as American civilians register to vote. She described the Pentagon as extremely diligent in its efforts to register soldiers stationed overseas -- for instance, this official had been told by the department to personally meet with all of the soldiers in her unit in order to help them register. But the department has ignored its mandate to help overseas civilians who want to vote, the official said

Update to this I found the original story in the International Herald Tribune:

Linklink (http://www.iht.com/articles/539597.html)

[Ksyrup]

The Pentagon has not declined to say why. The explanation I read is that those ISPs have been used by hackers to hack government sites.

Also, even assuming a larger portion of troops would vote Democrat than normal, the split amongst registered military voters still favors Bush. And those who would vote for Bush are also blocked.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This comes from Salon.com so yay it is biased but the facts remain:

"The Pentagon doesn't want you to vote overseas
A Web site maintained by the Department of Defense is blocking access to non-military Americans. Could it be worried that expatriates are leaning toward Kerry?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo

Sept. 21, 2004 |

On Monday, the International Herald Tribune reported that the Pentagon is restricting international access to the Web site for the Federal Voting Assistance Program, the official government agency that helps Americans living abroad register to vote in the November election. According to the IHT, Americans who connect to the Internet using one of several foreign Internet service providers have reported difficulty logging in to the voting-assistance site. The Pentagon confirmed that it is blocking traffic from these ISPs -- which provide Internet service in 25 countries -- but it declined to say why.

"This is a completely partisan thing," one Defense Department voting official stationed in Europe told Salon. The official, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being fired from her position, is one of the many people in the department assigned to help both uniformed military personnel as well as American civilians register to vote. She described the Pentagon as extremely diligent in its efforts to register soldiers stationed overseas -- for instance, this official had been told by the department to personally meet with all of the soldiers in her unit in order to help them register. But the department has ignored its mandate to help overseas civilians who want to vote, the official said.

I have exerpience this FIRST hand. Lady H_B and I tried to access this site a number of times earlier in the year to get info. We had no luck at all none. The site crashed or would not come up at all.

I don't buy this conspiracy theory, but it has happened.

[clintl]

The Pentagon has not declined to say why. The explanation I read is that those ISPs have been used by hackers to hack government sites.

Also, even assuming a larger portion of troops would vote Democrat than normal, the split amongst registered military voters still favors Bush. And those who would vote for Bush are also blocked.

The article said that the Pentagon is hindering overseas civilians from registering, not overseas troops. And even if it is justified in blocking registration from ISP that have been hacked, the article quotes the employee as charging that it has not been fulfilling its mandate to help overseas civilians register. Whether it's a conspiracy or not, if the Pentagon has been tasked with this, and it's not doing its job to give overseas civilians the same voter registration access that troops have, that's a big problem and completely unacceptable.

[Raiders Army]

So let me get this straight. A United States citizen decides to go overseas and it's our government's responsibility to ensure they register via the internet? To me, this is this person's choice to live overseas (even in cases of contractors, etc). Saying that they don't have the same access that troops has is comparing apples and oranges. When troops connect via the internet, they aren't going through a local ISP. Additionally, most states will accept the FPCA electronically; in other words, not all states accept the FPCA.

Some background for you guys:

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires that the states and territories allow certain groups of citizens (i.e. active-duty military and their dependents and civilian overseas personnel) to register and vote absentee in elections for Federal offices. Many states and territories have also developed their own laws allowing citizens covered by the UOCAVA to register and vote absentee in state and local elections as well.

The FPCA is a postage-paid (within the U.S. postal system, including APO and FPO addresses) postcard for use by absentee voters covered under the UOCAVA. The UOCAVA requires the design of a single postcard form to serve all states and territories both as an absentee voter registration application and an absentee ballot application. The extent and manner of its use, however, is controlled by state and territorial law and sometimes by local procedure.

There are more forms of registering to vote instead of the internet. The internet just makes it easy. In the form of "protecting our system from hackers" since the website is available to about 85% (my guess) of everyone else, I would say it is a reasonable measure to restrict access from certain ISPs. (Greater good, blah, blah, blah...Star Trek II). All these people had to do was turn in their FPCA in time and they could vote.

People need to stop whining.

[oliegirl]

Americans who connect to the Internet using one of several foreign Internet service providers have reported difficulty logging in to the voting-assistance site. The Pentagon confirmed that it is blocking traffic from these ISPs -- which provide Internet service in 25 countries -- but it declined to say why.

It says they are blocking several ISP's, not ALL of them. Maybe there are security problems with these ISP's...being that this is from a very partisan (left leaning) source, read between the lines and it's not so bad. Sounds like they should be able to log in from a computer not using these ISP's and vote or register to vote without any problem.

[CamEdwards]

heh. Election Day is coming, make sure you get your excuses ready early!

And seriously, Clintl, has Rathergate taught you nothing? You're going to rely on the word of one unnamed source that the Pentagon is engaging in a massive denial of rights to Americans living abroad?

[Crapshoot]

heh. Election Day is coming, make sure you get your excuses ready early!

And seriously, Clintl, has Rathergate taught you nothing? You're going to rely on the word of one unnamed source that the Pentagon is engaging in a massive denial of rights to Americans living abroad?

Cam,
They are supposed to help civilians as well. the story is in the IHT, which is a fairly well respected International newspaper- I believe the Post and the Times both have stakes in it. Is it not a story if civilians are being blocked from registering to vote ?

[Raiders Army]

Cam,
They are supposed to help civilians as well. the story is in the IHT, which is a fairly well respected International newspaper- I believe the Post and the Times both have stakes in it. Is it not a story if civilians are being blocked from registering to vote ?

Puh-lease! Can you tell me how the civilians are being blocked from registering to vote? Can you read my above post? Is it not clear that you can mail in the FPCA and register to vote? Is this not helping civilians? Answer these questions and then I'll be swayed to your line of thinking.

[clintl]

heh. Election Day is coming, make sure you get your excuses ready early!

And seriously, Clintl, has Rathergate taught you nothing? You're going to rely on the word of one unnamed source that the Pentagon is engaging in a massive denial of rights to Americans living abroad?

Did you notice the "if" qualifier in my statement? It's not the blocking of possibly insecture Web sites that's the problem. It's the Pentagon not giving the same help to civilians as it is to troops IF that's what they're supposed to be doing. If they're not, then some other agency (State Department, maybe?) should be doing it. Like HB, I doubt that it's partisan effort to suppress votes for Democrats, but I can easily imagine the Pentagon deciding not to put as much effort into helping civilians register as it is for troops, because organizations give preferential treatment to "their own" all the time, even when it's not appropriate.

[Crapshoot]

Puh-lease! Can you tell me how the civilians are being blocked from registering to vote? Can you read my above post? Is it not clear that you can mail in the FPCA and register to vote? Is this not helping civilians? Answer these questions and then I'll be swayed to your line of thinking.

Becuase it seems foolhardy to me to restrict access by ISP's (a favored Chinese tactic , btw) without even offering any degree of explanation why. Im not saying its neccessarily a partisan thing, but Im not going to dismiss it point blank.

[CamEdwards]

Becuase it seems foolhardy to me to restrict access by ISP's (a favored Chinese tactic , btw) without even offering any degree of explanation why. Im not saying its neccessarily a partisan thing, but Im not going to dismiss it point blank.

they've offered an explanation. See Kysrup's post above. You may not like the answer given, but to say they haven't offered an explanation is false.

And a point of reference: if by comparing someone to Hitler, you invoke Godwin's Law... what's it called when you compare something to a Communist Chinese tactic?

[Raiders Army]

Well then, why don't you dismiss it after having researched it? Again, tell me how the civilians are being blocked from registering to vote. Has the government stopped the acceptance of FPCAs? Before you state your opinion and refuse to listen to others, why don't you research it first?

[HighandOutside]

Well then, why don't you dismiss it after having researched it? Again, tell me how the civilians are being blocked from registering to vote. Has the government stopped the acceptance of FPCAs? Before you state your opinion and refuse to listen to others, why don't you research it first?

Zogby had a poll which showed that people with passports were much more likely to vote for Kerry. I think it was 58% to 35%.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=851

[Galaril]

Here is a related story same topical area form yahoo

Millions blocked from voting. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=3&u=/nm/20040922/pl_nm/campaign_vote_dc_3)

[Raiders Army]

Here is a related story same topical area form yahoo

Millions blocked from voting. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=3&u=/nm/20040922/pl_nm/campaign_vote_dc_3)

Snippet:Vicky Beasley, a field officer for People for the American Way, listed some of the ways voters have been "discouraged" from voting.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

So if you're a law-abiding citizen you shouldn't have to worry.

BLACKS' BALLOTS REJECTED

The commission, in a report earlier this year, said that in Florida, where President Bush (news - web sites) won a bitterly disputed election in 2000 by 537 votes, black voters had been 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected and were often prevented from voting because their names were erroneously purged from registration lists.

Additionally, Florida is one of 14 states that prohibit ex-felons from voting. Seven percent of the electorate but 16 percent of black voters in that state are disenfranchised.

In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of all voters but 17 percent of blacks; in New Mexico, 6.2 percent of all voters but 25 percent of blacks.

In total, 13 percent of all black men are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, according to the Commission on Civil Rights.

All I get from this is that black guys are more likely to be felons. Your point is....?

[Crapshoot]

they've offered an explanation. See Kysrup's post above. You may not like the answer given, but to say they haven't offered an explanation is false.

And a point of reference: if by comparing someone to Hitler, you invoke Godwin's Law... what's it called when you compare something to a Communist Chinese tactic?

Cam, like I Said - I dont neccessarily think its a partisan thing, and I'm open to alternatives. As for the blocking ISP's aka China- that is a favored tactic by the Chinese, the Singaporeans, and so forth- and the "hackers" or "troublemakers" is the excuse usually given - my point was that governments often block access, which is true. That being said, I did miss Ksyrup's point earlier. Ive read it now, but I would like to see a source on it.

[Ksyrup]

Pentagon Restricts Overseas Voters




<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=420 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=center><TD width="40%"><!-- Yahoo TimeStamp: 1095750312 --><!-- timestamp 1095750312 124450 secs stale 28800 secs -->Tue Sep 21, 3:05 AM ET
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- TextStart -->By JOHN LEICESTER, Associated Press Writer PARIS - Americans abroad, whose votes could be crucial if the Nov. 2 presidential election proves close, are being denied access to a U.S. Department of Defense (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Department%20of%20Defense%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Department%20of%20Defense)) Web site designed to make it easier for them to cast absentee ballots. The problem concerns blocks placed on access to the Web site of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, a Defense Department division to help expatriate American voters, including servicemen and women. The site's address is www.fvap.gov (http://www.fvap.gov/).

In an e-mail, a site Web manager, Susan Leader, said access is being refused to some Internet service providers that were used by hackers to attack U.S. government sites.

"There has been a marked increase in Web attacks on government computers, more as we get closer to the election. As a result, many Internet service providers have been blocked from accessing our site," Leader wrote.

Brett Rierson, a Hong Kong-based Democrat who wrote to Leader about the problem, provided The Associated Press with a copy of her e-mail. Rierson says he has tracked complaints from users of at least 27 ISPs in 25 countries who have been denied access to information from the Pentagon (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22Pentagon%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=Pentagon))-run site.

He fears that U.S. citizens may be unable to vote if they can't download absentee ballot forms from www.fvap.gov or another site, www.overseasvote.com, which he co-founded, or collect the forms in person from an American embassy or consulate.

"It has the potential to disenfranchise anyone who does not live next to a U.S. Embassy," Rierson said in a telephone interview. But he also noted that the Democratic Party has set up the site www.overseasvote2004.com, where even people using blocked ISPs can still register.

The sister of Democratic hopeful Sen. John Kerry (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22John%20Kerry%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=John%20Kerry)) said she was "outraged" and accused the Pentagon of "gross bureaucratic negligence and indifference to the rights of American voters."

"That the Pentagon ... has chosen to surrender to unspecified 'hackers' without firing a single shot in defense of American democracy is suspect," Diana Kerry said in a statement.

Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke confirmed that some ISPs which have been used to launch attacks are barred access to military .mil and .gov sites. But she said the blocks were not related to the election nor designed to silence Democrat voting abroad — as some of them suspect.

"It would stop the Republicans, too, right? It's both sides. We're not just letting a certain party through," Krenke said.

Some U.S. government agencies have previously blocked access to their Web sites from Internet providers, and even entire countries, where hacking attempts have been detected. In March 2000, NASA (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22NASA%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=NASA))'s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., temporarily barred all Internet users in Brazil, Latin America's most populous country, from all of its Web sites.

Rierson said the 27 ISPs known to have been blocked included Yahoo Broadband in Japan, Wanadoo in France, and those of Telefonica in Spain and China Telecom, among others.

[Crapshoot]

Thanks K.
Sidenote- if you're blocking things as wide as Yahoo Broadband Japan- the Pentagon really needs to beef up its computer security team so as to not have to engage in a "one size fits all" cure.

[CamEdwards]

Thanks K. Im curious why Krenke didnt comment as to what exactly they were blocked for by herself.

Sidenote- if you're blocking things as wide as Yahoo Broadband Japan- the Pentagon really needs to beef up its computer security team so as to not have to engage in a "one size fits all" cure.

or perhaps they have other matters that are higher priorities.

[Raiders Army]

Thanks K. Im curious why Krenke didnt comment as to what exactly they were blocked for by herself.

Sidenote- if you're blocking things as wide as Yahoo Broadband Japan- the Pentagon really needs to beef up its computer security team so as to not have to engage in a "one size fits all" cure.

I'm glad that you volunteered to pay for $500,000 a year to beef up their security team. ;)

It's always easy to criticize, but thanks for coming up with the solution.

[Crapshoot]

I'm glad that you volunteered to pay for $500,000 a year to beef up their security team. ;)

It's always easy to criticize, but thanks for coming up with the solution.

you're right- spend $100 billion plus on Iraq, or sending $5 billion a year to Israel and Egypt are both better uses of money. I can see how a budget great than $300 billlion can't afford $500,000 for "Security".

[Raiders Army]

Strange, this is sort of like the chicken and the egg. I was thinking about how to reply to you, Aadik, but I'm not sure how. Heh heh.

If you want to make a change in the budget, you need to change who you have in office, right? In order to change who's in office, you need to vote. In order to vote you need to have access to vote. In order to have access to vote, you need to hire more security guys.

Hmmmmmm....wait. I see the flaw in that. The website isn't denying people to vote, it just makes it more convenient. Nevermind then.

I can agree with you that spending money in the government needs better checks and balances. I'm not sure what they would be. Regardless, my previous argument that you never refuted still stands: the website makes it easier to be able to vote, and only in most of the cases. Some states you still need to send in the FPCA instead of being able to register electronically.

[mgadfly]

I don't want to get into this as a political argument, but I'd think that if the government said they were going to do something (especially in an act with that many letters in its acronym) that American citizens should be able to rely on them to come through with what they've said they would do. It may be reasonable to restrict access (which it sounds like it is to me), but since they have a mandate to help citizens abroad, they should be actively pursuing alternative ways to help those affected.

This could be especially troublesome if someone was rightfully relying on access to the site waited until after mailing the documentation in was insufficient.

As for the felony restrictions, many of the people struck from voting lists in 2000 (in Florida) were struck because they had "similar" names to felons. And not only felons from their state, but other states (Texas) provided lists of known felons to be struck as well. So people were being struck from voting lists even when they weren't felons because they had traditionally "black" names that were similar to a felons name. As a moderate, that is flat out wrong, and something the local Republican's should have (in the least) apologized for. But as of now, they haven't seen any fault in their actions.

[Crapshoot]

Strange, this is sort of like the chicken and the egg. I was thinking about how to reply to you, Aadik, but I'm not sure how. Heh heh.

If you want to make a change in the budget, you need to change who you have in office, right? In order to change who's in office, you need to vote. In order to vote you need to have access to vote. In order to have access to vote, you need to hire more security guys.

Hmmmmmm....wait. I see the flaw in that. The website isn't denying people to vote, it just makes it more convenient. Nevermind then.

I can agree with you that spending money in the government needs better checks and balances. I'm not sure what they would be. Regardless, my previous argument that you never refuted still stands: the website makes it easier to be able to vote, and only in most of the cases. Some states you still need to send in the FPCA instead of being able to register electronically.


Basically RA, I dont think the Pentagon is sitting there, plotting how to screw democrats. I do think however, that in an area where overseas Americans (even including the military- far smaller contingent when compared to the larger Diaspora) who are significantly "democratic" can wonder why it seems its being made "harder" for them to vote (for the States that do accept it) ? I understand the Pentagon's stance, but I find the budget arguement to be a weak one- it seems to me that the Pentagon would employ some of the best talent available, simply because of the value of the information they have to protect. I've had a friend (hacker- grown up now) who hacked in pretty deep as a 13 year old- it alarms me if Computer Security is not a high priority issue for them.

[Raiders Army]

I don't want to get into this as a political argument, but I'd think that if the government said they were going to do something (especially in an act with that many letters in its acronym) that American citizens should be able to rely on them to come through with what they've said they would do. It may be reasonable to restrict access (which it sounds like it is to me), but since they have a mandate to help citizens abroad, they should be actively pursuing alternative ways to help those affected.

This could be especially troublesome if someone was rightfully relying on access to the site waited until after mailing the documentation in was insufficient.

As for the felony restrictions, many of the people struck from voting lists in 2000 (in Florida) were struck because they had "similar" names to felons. And not only felons from their state, but other states (Texas) provided lists of known felons to be struck as well. So people were being struck from voting lists even when they weren't felons because they had traditionally "black" names that were similar to a felons name. As a moderate, that is flat out wrong, and something the local Republican's should have (in the least) apologized for. But as of now, they haven't seen any fault in their actions.

Ah...I get it now with the article. Thank you for clearing it up. I agree that someone should have apologized, albeit not necessarily Republicans, but maybe the people in charge of striking their names.

[Raiders Army]

Basically RA, I dont think the Pentagon is sitting there, plotting how to screw democrats. I do think however, that in an area where overseas Americans (even including the military- far smaller contingent when compared to the larger Diaspora) who are significantly "democratic" can wonder why it seems its being made "harder" for them to vote (for the States that do accept it) ? I understand the Pentagon's stance, but I find the budget arguement to be a weak one- it seems to me that the Pentagon would employ some of the best talent available, simply because of the value of the information they have to protect. I've had a friend (hacker- grown up now) who hacked in pretty deep as a 13 year old- it alarms me if Computer Security is not a high priority issue for them.
I agree with you 100%! Being in the "Government" myself, I have seen stuff that is bought with taxpayer money that some would deem questionable. Perhaps if security were the priority, more money would go there...but then again, I'm sure that takes votes to do so. :)

[mgadfly]

Ah...I get it now with the article. Thank you for clearing it up. I agree that someone should have apologized, albeit not necessarily Republicans, but maybe the people in charge of striking their names.


Oh yeah, I said Republicans because the state officials were Republicans that were in charge of that effort in 2000. I meant those officials should have apologized (obviously regardless of what party they belonged to).

[Ryche]

The word I received about this ( I work in Minnesota's SOS) is that they blocked some sites where hacking attacks have originated from in the past.

There are a lot of other ways to obtain this information, both without the internet and through other agencies and through an individual's state of residence.

[Glengoyne]

Oh yeah, I said Republicans because the state officials were Republicans that were in charge of that effort in 2000. I meant those officials should have apologized (obviously regardless of what party they belonged to).
I thought the claims regarding "traditional black names similar to those of convicted felons" were bogus. I mean it was alleged, but the claims were determined to be unfounded, and the people wrongly removed from the rolls were previously convicted felons, whose convictions had been overturned. Also, and this is just my common sense talking. I don't think you restrict people from voting by matching their name. I'm pretty sure something identifying would be used, like Social Security Number for instance.

[Alf]

FWIW : I can access both sites (and the registration form) from France using my regular ISP (Wanadoo), who is the main Internet provider in France.

Just my 0.02 €

[Buddy Grant]

We get it already, you don't like Bush :rolleyes: .

[sterlingice]

We get it already, you don't like Bush :rolleyes: .
I get it already, you love Bush. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

C'mon, BG. This is the third thread I've read today where your only post is nearly identical to this. It's one thing if you intersperse it with a story or insight or some facts or something but I haven't seen that. Just taking a quick swipe at what we can already see- what purpose does that serve? Then again, I suppose this post is the same thing.

SI

[mgadfly]

I thought the claims regarding "traditional black names similar to those of convicted felons" were bogus. I mean it was alleged, but the claims were determined to be unfounded, and the people wrongly removed from the rolls were previously convicted felons, whose convictions had been overturned. Also, and this is just my common sense talking. I don't think you restrict people from voting by matching their name. I'm pretty sure something identifying would be used, like Social Security Number for instance.

You might be right (it has been awhile), but from what I've read some of the claims were bogus, not all claims. In addition, an overturned conviction is not a conviction and the person isn't a felon (and probably still deserves an apology) and still retains their right to vote. (Though the mistake would be more understandable, but still wrong)