Equifax Made Salary, Work History Available To Anyone With Your SSN and DOB (krebsonsecurity.com) 169
An anonymous reader quotes a report from KrebsOnSecurity: In May, KrebsOnSecurity broke a story about lax security at a payroll division of big-three credit bureau Equifax that let identity thieves access personal and financial data on an unknown number of Americans. Incredibly, this same division makes it simple to access detailed salary and employment history on a large portion of Americans using little more than someone's Social Security number and date of birth -- both data elements that were stolen in the recent breach at Equifax. At issue is a service provided by Equifax's TALX division called The Work Number. The service is designed to provide automated employment and income verification for prospective employers, and tens of thousands of companies report employee salary data to it. The Work Number also allows anyone whose employer uses the service to provide proof of their income when purchasing a home or applying for a loan.
The homepage for this Equifax service wants to assure visitors that "Your personal information is protected." "With your consent your personal data can be retrieved only by credentialed verifiers," Equifax assures us, referring mainly to banks and other entities that request salary data for purposes of setting credit limits. Sadly, this isn't anywhere near true because most employers who contribute data to The Work Number -- including Fortune 100 firms, government agencies and universities -- rely on horribly weak authentication for access to the information.
The homepage for this Equifax service wants to assure visitors that "Your personal information is protected." "With your consent your personal data can be retrieved only by credentialed verifiers," Equifax assures us, referring mainly to banks and other entities that request salary data for purposes of setting credit limits. Sadly, this isn't anywhere near true because most employers who contribute data to The Work Number -- including Fortune 100 firms, government agencies and universities -- rely on horribly weak authentication for access to the information.
Remember when? (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember when people mocked the credentials of Equifax's former CIO and other people pushed back because many people in the field didn't have traditional background?
Well, it looks like security was a systemic failure at Equifax, so perhaps it's actually time to suggest that someone with a music degree wasn't qualified for the job?
Let's face it: success is defined as no known security breaches, yet, this could be down to luck rather than skill. Either no-one successfully targeted her prior employers or any breaches never became public.
Re:Remember when? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair you don't need a degree in something to be good at it, work history is just as important.
So, would you rather have:
Someone with a music degree but 20 years in the IT industry
Or
Someone with a comp. sci. degree but 20 years in the music industry?
I know which I'd choose. A comp. sci. or similar degree means jack shit if you've never put it into practice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have one shred of evidence that she was hired because of her gender? Even the smallest hint?
"His name was James Damore."
Check out his Twitter feed. He's not the martyr you think he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Only way this makes any sense is if she's another diversity hire or it's just plain old nepotism (which for some reason nobody has seemed to have even considered so far).
As for Damore, what do you expect when he got this brutally stabbed in the back and misreprese
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not disagreeing that she doesn't appear qualified, but "diversity hire" is one of the least likely explanations. Nepotism seems far more likely. It's very common at C level.
Check Damore's twitter feed. All the claims that he was only interested in science and reason are undermined by the stuff he has posted since.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're making things up. Prior to Equifax, Susan Mauldin spent over 4 years at First Data as Senior Vice President and Chief Security Officer. It's not clear what "industry" you're referring to, but before that she worked for both SunTrust (financial industry) and H
Re: (Score:2)
From when I saw the original reference to those other jobs, it seemed to me that I had no idea what she was doing there...and, IIRC, I suspected that she was a manager.
Considering HP's recent activities I don't consider that a strong recommendation of quality. I don't know SunTrust.
If I were to actually be judging her, I'd need to look a lot deeper, but for a post I'm willing to think she was an incompetent manager who believed that she was competent, and also believed that a good manager can manage anythi
This is true but she is still a PHB (Score:2)
Being someone who said she was clearly not real infosec material it's satisfying to see more and more complete data come out that confirms my intuition. It's not the music degree.. it's the whole package.
Those were shitty low energy dried out turds of companies during the years she worked there. Equifax's CEO described the company as a culture of tenure and mediocrity, so with a history like that sidestepping into a CISO role where she could cyber-this and cyber that until a better C-level position opene
Re: (Score:2)
Equality isn't when a competent women can get hired on the same basis as a man. It's when an incompetent woman can get hired on the same basis as an incompetent man.
Re: (Score:2)
Jaron Lanier [wikipedia.org]
Knuth Discusses Bach, Pipe Organs, And CS [youtube.com]
You: I'm not sure about this hire. Are we really, really, really sure he hasn't got a music degree? I smell a rat.
Now go back to your mother's cave, little boy.
Because the music degree itself is not the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just as big of a failure. A good fall guy is at least convincing and allows you to claim that you were taking matters seriously. If your fall guy is obviously unqualified, all of the responsibility gets shifted back to you for choosing somebody that is clearly not fit for the role.
They failed at having good operational security and at picking effective fall guys/gals.
Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What business is it of a potential employer what I was paid by my previous employers? All that does is weaken the applicant's position when it comes time to negotiate a starting salary.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why employers like that service and provide data to it. Same reason lenders like the basic credit reporting service and provide data to it. So the people in power have numbers to justify keeping you in your place.
Re: (Score:2)
When I hire, I do want to know people's salary and employment history in detail-- not especially for negotiating compensation, although the most recent salary often gives some indication of where they should be.
The main issue is to understand where their career is going-- are they changing jobs every two years because they were fired, or because they found better jobs? Did they take a year or two off that might be relevant (generally it isn't, but certain other patterns can make it a point of consideration
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Logically, arguing that the other party shouldn't be allowed to share this info without your permission, is equivalent to arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to write a Yelp review of a restaurant without first getting the restaurant's permission.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What business is it of a potential employer what I was paid by my previous employers? All that does is weaken the applicant's position when it comes time to negotiate a starting salary.
It's not a bug. It's a feature. In fact, it's pretty much the whole point.
You know it's almost as if (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if ACs didn't know any history, and had no clue that things change over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's less of an employer's business and more the business of someone you are getting a loan from or obtaining a line of credit.
Even then, they should just share your credit score and not any other salary information. If your loan institution wants that you can provide W2 or paystub from your place of employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily.. your credit score is a gross assessment of your general credit risk, but does not tell one anything about your ability to pay back loans of a given size, and while a paystub can confirm to many that you are presently employed, it says absolutely nothing about how long you've actually been employed, and how stable that income actually is.
I completely agree, the score doesn't give the whole picture. I've seen records with bankruptcies getting a better score than records with a collection history that had no outstanding balance.
The system is absurd. Years ago, someone I know got a call from Visa asking when her bankruptcy would be finished so they could send her a new card. I couldn't believe it, but now that I've seen my share of credit reports I have no doubt that this happens a lot. Even a history of bad checks barely move the needle.
Re: (Score:3)
That score represents how profitable you are to them.
Totally illegal in most countries (Score:2)
Certainly Australia. No way salary let alone detailed credit history can be accumulated by a private company and sold.
Mind you, we became a bit more like the US recently (2014) with watering down of these laws with no good reason and far too little debate.
Re: (Score:2)
What business is it of a potential employer what I was paid by my previous employers? All that does is weaken the applicant's position when it comes time to negotiate a starting salary.
We use this kind of service at the office and it's mostly garbage. The data is not normalized, it's full of arbitrary formats. Some are clearly hourly rates, some are either hourly rates or possibly annual salary in thousands, some use the same lingo as bank account figures like 5FH (5-figure high) or Moderate 6. The end result is that while you may be able to have an idea of what a candidate possibly made at a previous job, you have no easy way to put it in perspective because you can't aggregate shit.
Re: Wait, what? (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
"So you're looking for someone who is smart enough to do this highly-qualified job, yet uninformed enough not realize they are being underpaid?"
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing about not realizing. You see, the best fruit of the progress is so much technological disparity between power and masses that the former could be completely smug about it.
Re: (Score:3)
You answered your own question there. Employers seem to have an attitude that you shouldn't get a big pay increase because if you were worth that much your previous employer would have paid you more. They also like to pretend it's an indication of market rate.
Of course if it's a massive pay cut that's fine, market rates etc.
The stupid thing is that this just punishes loyalty and encourages people to change jobs every few years just to get salary bumps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about measuring ability to pay. That misses the point that two people with the same base financials might have different ideas on paying what they owe. Some people are a lot more careless with their money than others.
The idea is that the creditor wants to know how likely you are to pay what you owe, and therefore the credit agency looks at how well you have paid. The past performance is almost certainly a better guide than simple rules based on salary and assumed expenses.
No more tricks for us. (Score:1)
Years ago in order to get a job, I took a pretty low starting salary.
I moved to another job after a couple of years because that company treated us like shit.
Anyway, upon looking for another job, I find out that I was being paid about a third less than my peers.
When I told my real salary to the recruiter and that I wanted to be paid the same as my peers - same experience and skills - I was told that I was being unreasonable to expect an employer to give me that much of a raise. She found me something and t
Sloppy rebuttal (Score:2)
None of those sections refute anything in the article.
The first section describes what different requestors might want, not what they are limited to getting.
The second section how the requestors access may be authorized, not whether an unauthorized requested is limited in any way.
Note that Krebs actually obtained the information you claim cannot be obtained in this manner.
Re:Sloppy rebuttal (Score:4, Interesting)
it obviously lead to confused questions about potential employers getting access to your income info. They only would get that if you let them have it.
In some industries it's a standard practice. I've worked for a firm that does "sensitive" work for a government agency (at least according to them, if you ask me it was not all that sensitive) and short of a finger up the ass they probed every intimate corner of my life. Background check, salary history, parking tickets, credit cards balance, I even had to get an affidavit from the police station stating that I wasn't the subject of an investigation and that I had no history of public disturbance. Technically I could have said no, but that would have been the same as turning down the job.
When is enough, enough? (Score:1)
When is enough, enough, and the peasants rise with pitchforks, rakes, and torches? (none of those stinking tiki torches though)
Stick a fork in them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Time for the corporate death penalty. If "corporations are people", then they can get the death penalty.
Yank their charter. And, if possible, blacklist their CxOs.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are people in the sense that soylent green is people: they are composed of people. So you are saying that you want to put all the shareholders of a corporation into the electric chair. Doesn't seem like a good idea. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing that corporations were created to prevent.
Re: (Score:1)
The point he's making is that, through legal trickery, corporations are treated as legal entities just like people. Except when it suits the people who own them; then they mysteriously become collections of people again so that it's hard or impossible to hold them to any normal standard of accountability. To avoid this double standard it should be possible to effectively prevent a company from damaging society any further in the same way that we can lock up criminals. Not that it will ever happen - the "inv
Re: (Score:2)
The corporate death penalty doesn't change liability limitation. The limitation is that I can lose no more money than I invest in a company. If I buy $10K of it, I can't wind up $20K poorer if it tanks. I can take bigger paper losses, but only if there's paper gains beforehand.
If it were treated as automatic bankruptcy, there's likely to be assets left for the shareholders. Normally, bankruptcy is because a company owes more than it can pay, and so all the assets are taken by categories of higher pri
Re:Stick a fork in them. (Score:4, Insightful)
if possible, blacklist their CxOs.
Marissa Mayer made roughly $900,000 for every week she spent at Yahoo, while driving the company into the ground. And yet her name was mentioned as a possible new CEO for Uber.
There's no blacklist for those people
Re: (Score:3)
Mayer destroyed Yahoo, and is now being considered to destroy Uber. I don't see a down site to this.
Re: Stick a fork in them. (Score:5, Interesting)
She didn't drive them into the ground but she also didn't save them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes she did. Yahoo was struggling but profitable before Mayer.
She sabotaged all the cash cows, like the women website (shine) because she felt it was tacky. She replaced it with immensely expensive bloggers that the usual Yahoo users didn't care about (like Katie Couric) and fancy fashion blogs that she liked but that drove away the millions of loyal users. Ad money dwindled down as she tried to attract sophisticated users that didn't want anything to do with Yahoo and scared away the peasants that were the
Re:Stick a fork in them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yahoo was dead before Marissa Mayer came along.
The fact that she's a completely worthless tool who just pumped enough stock price to bail out the venture capitalist and investment firms by selling it for something rather than watching it disintegrate into nothingness has nothing to do with if Yahoo was going to survive or not.
Yahoo was already dead.
Mayer did exactly what she was hired to do, sell it before it was a complete and total loss to investors.
She's not a CEO thats good at running a company, she's a CEO that you put in place when you want the company dead with the least amount of pain as possible and a great scapegoat
Re: (Score:2)
She's not a CEO thats good at running a company, she's a CEO that you put in place when you want the company dead with the least amount of pain as possible and a great scapegoat
I see that you buy into the "glass cliff" narrative, but the truth is that no, she wasn't hired to sink the company. She was hired because board members thought that she had played a key role in creating Google and that she could bring some of that magic to Yahoo.
The same board members who hired her tried repeatedly to get rid of her. See this famous letter:
http://www.starboardvalue.com/... [starboardvalue.com]
Don't rewrite history. She was given all the money and power she needed, and she failed, full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Yahoo was a failing company before Mayer got anywhere near it. She failed to save it. At worst, maybe you could make an argument that she hastened its demise.
At the same time, when a company is on its last leg like that, you only really have two choices:
1) Accept that it's going to fail and try to stretch things out as long as possible.
2) Take a gamble and try to rescue it. If it doesn't work, you may be hastening its demise.
I don't know all the details, so I'm not going to try to argue whether she
Re: (Score:2)
Based on various different news reports, I'd say that she was a very bad CEO, but not a truly terrible one. Yahoo was dying, and nobody was going to save it, so she ended up with the job of killing it in the most profitable manner. She killed it in a profitable manner. She hurt more people than she needed to in the process, and she was greedy, but nobody was going to do a job like that for idealistic reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that raises a question for me: If her job was to kill Yahoo in a profitable manner, and she killed Yahoo in a profitable manner, then was she a bad CEO?
Re: (Score:2)
She hurt a lot more people than she had to, and she was greedy. So yes, she was a bad CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to try to argue whether she was a good CEO or bad one, but it's not like Yahoo was a thriving company with a bright future.
Yahoo was making a profit between 1 and 4 billions per year, for the 10 years prior to Mayer. Now the company doesn't exist.
Feel free to be nonchalant with billions of dollars, millions of users and tens of thousands of employees if you want, but this was real money for real people, and now it's gone.
equality of predation (Score:5, Interesting)
Site designed to help capitalists to abuse workers is abused by non-capitalists. I feel profound indifference.
Zzzzp (Score:1)
If corporations are people, give that bastard the electric chair.
Technically True... (Score:2)
âoeWith your consent your personal data can be retrieved only by credentialed verifiersâ
However, without your consent, weâ(TM)ll share it with anyone that offers us money. And we never seek your consent.
So if you are broke and unemployed... (Score:1)
...you are golden? Good to know!!
Dox Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like their info isn't already compromised. Between Equifax and all the other leaks, particularly the Office of Personal Management fiasco, everyone who gets a government paycheck can easily have their identity stolen. It's a dead certainty that both the Russians and the Chinese can impersonate anyone in the government online almost instantly. It's a security nightmare that has been covered up. Showing how completely screwed all our security is would be a public service. It would force government and business to behave responsibly for a change.
The really ballsy move would be to apply for credit cards for all of Congress and then go to Amazon and buy a sex toy packing, one for their office and one for their home. It would be suicidal at the level of Kim Dotcom or Assange, but it would be funny. You could have a great laugh in Gitmo when the FBI is tasering your eyeballs.
just make it public already (Score:5, Interesting)
Sweden makes tax returns public with no apparent ill effect. The US already makes real estate values, ownership, and taxes public, and we should do the same thing for income tax returns.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The problem isn't public access to information it's limited private access to information. Some of the comments above about corporations using the information as leverage are missing the point. The leverage doesn't extend from their access to the information, it extends from their unique access which the employee doesn't have.
Re: (Score:1)
Sweden also has a rational worker protection system and isn't an economic titan. You can't just copy/paste policy onto the US without the infrastructure and culture that makes it work and expect the same results.
Re: (Score:2)
Just another reason to be a sole proprietor/contractor. Who else did I or do I work for? Sorry, that's privileged information. How much did I or do I earn? That varies, sometimes by an order magnitude. Do you really want to pay my top rate when I might be negotiating a lower one with you just to do some interesting work.
And 'work history' is also a tool of corporate espionage. When you are a key person in an industry, who you are working with will give competitors an idea about new products and strategic d
Re: (Score:2)
And 'work history' is also a tool of corporate espionage. When you are a key person in an industry, who you are working with will give competitors an idea about new products and strategic decision making.
Interesting, I never thought of that. Though for most employment/global statistics usage, history 2 years back might just be good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if your tax returns were public.
By definition, obtaining government-published data is not "corporate espionage".
And the problem with that would be... ?
Re: (Score:2)
Not if your tax returns were public.
I'll incorporate overseas in a country with strict privacy laws.
By definition, obtaining government-published data is not "corporate espionage".
My companies' government won't publish data.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the fact that you throw a hissy fit over publishing your salary doesn't amount to a rational, convincing argument against such a policy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"many places"??? FUCK YOU. Who wants to share their salary? So that they can screw you up when you lose a job and have to find another?
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you weren't making enough at your previous job to meet your expectations, then why did you stay it at it long enough that it would even be an issue? If you were making good money for what you were doing, and are applying for a similar role, it's fair to mention, when answering a question about your previous salary, that you'd expect to be making about the same amount. If the job entails more responsibilities, then it's fair to instead say you'd expect to be making somewhat more than what you were making before because of that.
It's my experience, however, that most people who are reluctant to share their previous salaries either don't have enough self confidence to believe they are worth as much as what they believe the job they are applying for should reasonably pay (which tells the employer they could probably underpay them anways), or else they have unrealistic ideas about what their skills are actually even worth, which means they wouldn't be satisfied with a reasonable offer anyways so the company is probably better off hiring someone else.
Re: (Score:1)
Or when you started off with a low salary, and employers thought it was up to them to keep your salary "reasonable" for the sake of you blowing all that extra cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Been there, done that. At one company, I agreed on a percent increase over my initial salary (definitely too low) given a promise that my salary would be re-evaluated the next year instead of a percentage applied. I had to remind them of the promise the next year. Least pleasant salary negotiations I've ever been involved in.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And what does that have to do with bieng reluctant to disclose their previous salary? As I said, if the job they are applying for has more responsibilities, it's fair to mention that almost immediately in the context of discussing your previous salary. Also, what you are saying is strongly indicative of lacking the confidence i
Re: (Score:3)
Not that they ever will, but if the employer simply disclosed the range up front, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't... but it doesn't hurt either... I'm not saying you should volunteer the information without being asked, but if they ask, there's no harm in giving that info out as long as they are paying fairly. Sure your previous salary is going to serve as a kind of baseline for whatever the employer is ultimately going to offer, but that doesn't mean the employer is going to want to try and rip you off or take advantage of you.
If you are being paid fairly for the work you are doing, what difference sho
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming an awful lot of rationality there. If I'm worth* $100K, but my previous salary history make it look like $90K would be a significant raise, I'm likely to have to fight my way up to where I should be. Instead of starting with $100K and talking about other things, we're talking about salary right up front.
*Worth is a fuzzy concept here. Just go with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of supposition you are making.. IF they are thinking.... then they MIGHT.... they *PROBABLY*....
While it's true that your previous salary is going to reflect a baseline for whatever the employer that asks about it is going to offer, it's as unfair for you to assume that that they are necessarily thinking of paying you unfairly for the work that you will be expected to do than for the employer to assume that you would be willing to accept a wage below what is considered fair. If 45K/year is
Re: (Score:2)
Then telling them that an offer that they make which might be only slightly more than your previous salary and less than what you were hoping for shouldn't be a problem for you, should it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Typical SlashDot nerd response. "I'm so smart and good at what I do that I don't care about things that might be threatening to the rest of you mere mortals. No skin off my ass".
This story was about a company lying about how well they protect the data they gather - and then giving much of it away to anyone who asks. That should be alarming to anybody - even you self-identified tech gods.
Re: (Score:2)
It's against the law in NYC for prospective employers to ask for, or require, candidate compensation history. The motivation is that women and minorities are often underpaid and when leaving their salary-biased job for a new one, often this bias carries forward with them if they have to report their past salary, which makes the problem of eliminating wage gaps due to gender or race difficult when the new employer can say "hey, I'm not racist, I just paid him what he was making before.. if his last employer
Re: (Score:2)
Your recourse is to collect employment insurance benefits that you would otherwise not be able to collect at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are a criminal deciding who to steal from, or who's relatives to kidnap for ransom, wouldn't you like a big list of everybody's salaries?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the best targets of kidnapping or theft are those who are so rich they don't need to draw a salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually if I were a criminal looking for a place to rob or someone to ransom, I would look at estate value more than salaries. And we already pretty much know the value of housing based on public databases.
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
This only gives a person's work history? ..... Again, why is this a big deal?
The point is that this results in an uneven playing field when negotiating salary. The company knows what you are earning and can make an offer close to that. You do not know what the company is prepared to pay (eg: average of those doing a similar job at the company). The potential employee is thus at a negotiating disadvantage.
Knowing the average industry salary for the job that you are seeking does not give equal negotiating power. If you are currently being paid less than the average you could find yourself in a place that is hard to get out of.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the nature of the job, if your skills are in demand and your relatively content in your existing position then it lets companies know they have to offer a significant premium in order to tempt you away.
I get headhunters contact me all the time offering *LESS* than i'm currently on, to do the same job under less convenient/flexible conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means they're basing their initial offer on your earlier salary, which means if you were underpaid in your last job they'll offer you less than if you were paid fairly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This only gives a person's work history? Far less of an issue than getting a loan in another person's name. Unless someone can show me a hack that makes use of this information that's worse than getting a credit line... Many places are also making a switch to transparent salaries anyway. Again, why is this a big deal?
Many places? Please, feel free to elaborate with a list of the 0.001% of companies doing this.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but all your base are belong to us. -Equifax
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics is already eroding slashdot's credibility, stop making it worse, that's what the editors are for.
Finally somebody is asking some insightful questions, and you complain about politics? Sounds very much like 'LALA I don't want to hear it'.
Re: (Score:2)
So if that data finds its way into a political data mining company, would there be an investigation into the handing over of private data and a prosecution or would be simply be ignored?
The whole vote suppression thing is a hot potato. Suspicious tactics have been used on both sides for a long time; for instance, until his first primaries, Obama consistenly got elected by forcing opponents off the ballot on technicalities. Meanwhile, we can all remember those negative votes for Gore in Florida.
Nobody will open that can of worms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, the "political parties" are private organizations. They are under no obligation at all to respect the voters choices. I believe they could have just appointed their selected candidate without ever going to a vote. The purpose of the primary system isn't to select the candidate, it's to drum up support for the candidate. It is *presumed* that they'll want the candidate that can get the most support, but there have been several instances in both parties that show this presumption to be false
Re: (Score:2)
True, even the GOP tried to bend rules and kill the Trump nomination.
Now we have President Trump (which is hilarious) but at least Clinton is not in a position to use the Army, FBI, CIA and NSA as her personal servants, so we dodged the worst bullet.
Still, it would be nice to have serious candidates in the presidential race once in a while. For instance, a Romney/Sanders race would have been a great opportunity to discuss core issues instead of talking about grabbing pussies or about secretary of states wh
Re: (Score:2)
Voting history is public where I live. It's possible to get copies of the signature logs, so people will know whether you voted in a particular election. No records are kept of how you voted. I don't see how people knowing that I voted or not is going to cause any problems.