The phone numbers in these data sets are weird and problematic, but the equivalent data in the US is usually public, and available for free to any registered candidate.

▲

Teever 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It appears that they registered as a party to get access to the data and them disseminated it publicly through a vibecoded app.

While this data may generally be public in the US, it usually isn't in Canada, and there's an expectation that parties don't publish the data and it is seeded to detect that.

A bigger problem is that people in Canada sign up for this list with the expectation that this data will remain reasonably private so now with this leak you have people who were willing to share their personal information to participate in the democratic process now afraid that their domestic abusers will be able to find them.[0] That really sucks.

There's also the awkward aspect of this in that the Alberta separatists are seemingly backed by American interests.

[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-city-counci...

▲

pavel_lishin 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> and it is seeded to detect that.

Do you mean that there are "paper town"-like entries in the dataset to make it obvious when one has leaked?

	▲	giarc 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, Elections Alberta provided the list to the Republican Party of Alberta. Whenever they do this, they salt the list with fake names so that if it gets leaked, they can then determine which copy was leaked. That's how we know this republican group provided it to this "Centurion Group"

▲

dblohm7 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, it's not really optional for Canadians _not_ to sign up for the list. It's the official list of electors. If you're a citizen, you're going to end up on the voter list one way or another.

▲

gucci-on-fleek a day ago | parent | next [-]

It actually is optional. You should always be able to opt out of registering for it, and if you are registered and don't want to be, there's an official form that you can fill out to get removed. See my other comment [0] for a few more details.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48015977

▲

Teever 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I was under the impression that this was the optional list that you sign up for with the CRA when you file your taxes, is that not the case?

▲

thunderfork 2 days ago | parent [-]

The data sharing between the CRA and Elections Canada is optional, but if you want to vote, you've got to be registered - whether via the CRA or otherwise.

	▲	gucci-on-fleek a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> but if you want to vote, you've got to be registered - whether via the CRA or otherwise Technically true, but you can register at the polling booth on the day of the election, and there's a checkbox that lets you opt out of saving your data in the database. [0] [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48015977
	▲	MichaelBurjack a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Being on the electors list is optional, is something you can opt-in to (and opt-out of), and is not required in order to vote in Alberta. There are many reasons an individual may choose to not be on the list (eg. domestic abuse situations).

▲

nottorp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why are candidates allowed to spam voters in the US?

▲

tptacek 2 days ago | parent [-]

Pesky First Amendment.

▲

mschuster91 2 days ago | parent [-]

Sending mail to or cold calling voters, okay, that should by all definitions be covered by the First Amendment. Verifying voter rolls, okay, reasonable.

But there is no justification for providing voter roll data to the wide public in a way that is machine readable. Or to provide these data to third parties (including political parties, candidates or PACs).

Candidates and parties can use USPS Bulk Mail, they do not need to know the names of potential voters to exercise their right to free speech. People interested to check if they or someone they know are on the voter rolls (or not, in the case of suspected/possible fraud) can do so in person or by mail.

▲

snowwrestler a day ago | parent | next [-]

The public policy purpose is to allow independent verification of who voted, in furtherance of trust in elections. It is arguably one of the reasons voter fraud is extremely rare in U.S. elections. “Many eyes make bugs shallow,” to steal a phrase.

Unfortunately, a lot of people still believe in widespread voter fraud despite the obvious and well-documented rarity.

I would say something similar about the availability of voter files, though. A lot of people are horrified they are available despite the obvious and well-documented lack of evidence it causes any significant harm.

▲

tptacek 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this is a distinction without a real difference. There are a lot of candidates. Note that the voter file isn't simply a mailing list (it's also used for targeting events and messaging) and that under current jurisprudence the state can't create a blanket opt-out for citizens as you suggest it could.

▲

nottorp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> cold calling voters

That should be a capital offense if done for political purposes, commercial purposes or any other purposes that are not an emergency :)

▲

xienze 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> But there is no justification for providing voter roll data to the wide public in a way that is machine readable.

Why not? It's considered public information, just like political donation records.

▲

pessimizer 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Why not?

Because I don't want it to be. Why so?

> It's considered public information

The question is why is it considered public information.

> just like political donation records.

In what way?

▲

gojomo 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Election integrity requires as much of the mechanics of elections to be transparent to all observers, including politically-disfavord groups, as possible.

If the voter rolls are state secrets, only available to approved insiders, how can you know they're not filled with regime sockpuppets?

▲

mschuster91 2 days ago | parent [-]

> If the voter rolls are state secrets, only available to approved insiders, how can you know they're not filled with regime sockpuppets?

Here in Germany, you can show up in person at the election office to check the voter rolls, although in practice you don't ever need to do so because registration of your residential address is mandatory and it automatically also updates voter rolls. Errors here are extremely, extremely rare as a result.

▲

gojomo 2 days ago | parent [-]

Useful comparison, but to my point: is that sufficient to detect fake entries created by incumbent insiders?

Also: has that in-person mechanism ever been used by stalkers/abusers to find their hiding targets?

▲

mschuster91 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Useful comparison, but to my point: is that sufficient to detect fake entries created by incumbent insiders?

Scandals regarding voter roll fraud are extremely rare. I can only think of one scandal from 2014 where a farmer was alleged to have seasonal laborers register and vote for the party of his wife by mail [1]. In the end, the case against the farmer ended up being tossed on insufficient evidence.

> Also: has that in-person mechanism ever been used by stalkers/abusers to find their hiding targets?

If someone is in hiding and legally protected, it is not allowed to contest these entries [2] since the threshold is very high. For "normal" people, you have to bring clear evidence that fraud may have occurred.

[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/geiselhoering-wahlfaelsch...

[2] https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayVV_2021_I_...

	▲	gojomo 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks but I don't understand how either of your replies are responsive to my questions. The number of reported/memorable fraud scandals is not itself a reliable indicator of whether the proper controls are in place. It is only an accurate estimate of the actual fraud if you already assume the controls are working. I don't know what you mean about "contesting" entries. The original report implied people could review the voter rolls - not just their own entry, or some small number of intentional challenges - by going in person. If they can review the names & addresses of all voters, stalkers/abusers could leverage that. If instead they can only "contest" certain entries by name after specific articulable suspicion, that's a much narrower kind of review, which again seems to offer none of the protection against insider fraud that exists in more transparent democracies.

▲

tptacek 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't want grocery store circulars on my front porch. They're trash, they're bad for the environment, an eyesore, literal physical spam. But our municipality can't ban them, because First Amendment jurisprudence says so. The circulars are speech and expression at their nadir of protection (commercial speech not of any public or artistic interest), and they're protected.

Good luck getting in the way of political advertising, which is speech and expression at the apogee of its protection.

▲

mschuster91 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Good luck getting in the way of political advertising, which is speech and expression at the apogee of its protection.

Again: what exactly requires candidates to know your name and address to send you propaganda via mail? There already exist bulk mail services that allow you to target specific areas, addresses and even limited demographics [1].

[1] https://www.usps.com/business/political-mail.htm

	▲	tptacek 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Campaign speech isn't simply the right to address whatever demographics your mail services happens to have decided matter (in the context of a campaign, that is itself a political decision, core protected activity). It's the right to organize around specific voters. In local politics (which is where I engage mostly), these kinds of decisions get made on individual voter bases at times. I want to be clear here that while I believe the principles I'm describing to be normatively good, I'm also being descriptive; the restrictions you'd advocate for would almost certainly be held unconstitutional.