this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2026
655 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

81374 readers
4575 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
655
All U.S. Social Security numbers may need to be changed following a massive breach that is already being investigated as a national threat (www.ecoticias.com)
submitted 2 days ago by Cnote5@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

According to a protected disclosure filed with the Office of Special Counsel, Borges told the Government Accountability Project that DOGE officials working at Social Security created a “live copy” of the country’s Social Security records in a separate cloud environment that sidestepped usual security checks.

The group says those lapses put the Social Security information of more than 300 million Americans at risk.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The check in the US is done when you register to vote. Once you are registered, a variety of proofs of ID can be used to vote at your polling location.

And why the double check ? It would not be better to just go to the polling station, show your id and then vote ?
(I undestand that it is a simplification, in the US people move way more often that here and this add some other problems)

Requiring a passport and birth cert or some other strong ID are unnecessary at the actual voting site. The main reason for doing this is to make voting take longer,

Considering that if I have no one before me to vote, it take about 30 seconds from the moment I enter the polling station and the moment I am handed the cards to cast the vote I would argue that saying that this way it will take longer is not really true.
And, btw, we do the check of the document against a printed list who containt all the names of the people who can vote at a polling station, splitted between man and women.

and be more strenuous, which means that you can have a greater effect on election results by manipulating the number of polling stations for an area.

Every difficulty you build to try to make harder for your enemy voters to cast their vote is a difficulty you set up also for your voters.
And simply manipulating the number of polling station in a certain area give you nothing: people who want to vote against you will come anyway and you cannot know if they will come before your voters of after and which voters eventually will lose their patience and just go home without casting a vote

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not a double check at the polling station. They simply need to confirm that you showed up and voted today, and have a way to ID you. The actual check, that you are legally allowed to vote, and that you are actually who you say you are, and that you aren't allowed to vote anywhere else, all happened when you register to vote. That is a long process, and that's why it is done before you actually need to go vote.

Every difficulty you build to try to make harder for your enemy voters to cast their vote is a difficulty you set up also for your voters.

Elections are run by the individual states (unless something egregiously unconstitutional is going on) which allows the governor and even local election officials to make decisions that affect how hard it is to vote almost down to a street level basis. If you don't want people from blue areas to vote, you just put in fewer polling stations, and make them in less convenient places for areas that skew blue on the map. So adding 30 seconds to the voting time doesn't really matter for a rural station that might need to service 100 people in a day, but for a inner city location that might need to service 100 people a minute those 30 seconds per person really add up.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 10 hours ago

Elections are run by the individual states (unless something egregiously unconstitutional is going on) which allows the governor and even local election officials to make decisions that affect how hard it is to vote almost down to a street level basis.

Same here, it does not seems to be a problem.

If you don’t want people from blue areas to vote, you just put in fewer polling stations, and make them in less convenient places for areas that skew blue on the map.

That assumes that you already know how people would vote. Yes, historical data could give a hint but not a certainty. It is some times that polls are spectacularly wrong.

So adding 30 seconds to the voting time doesn’t really matter for a rural station that might need to service 100 people in a day, but for an inner city location that might need to service 100 people a minute those 30 seconds per person really add up.

True, but think about who could spare more time when voting (hint, probably not the people you want to vote) and you will realize that it is a stupid idea.