3 ms·

There's been virtually no evidence posted about the hack outside of "Russia did it" and as far as i can tell there was no attacks on actual voting machines. Mos

by avenoir 10y ago

There's been virtually no evidence posted about the hack outside of "Russia did it" and as far as i can tell there was no attacks on actual voting machines. Most of these hacks revealed dirty laundry on the democratic party and its nominee. No votes were altered if i understand the situation correctly. I don't think Russia or anybody else would be brave enough to perform such a hack.

KirinDave 10y ago
That shouldn't be too surprising. It's difficult to hack voting machines. There are many of them with disparate standards and they're air gapped in many cases until they're done collecting and reporting. As has been shown, it's a lot easier to hack voters themselves with targeted information, misinformation and outright fantasy. We've also learned something amazing this cycle: a key tactic anyone will replicate in the future: When you run negative political ads, don't let anyone outside of the laser focused target demo you want to reach see it until it's too late. The "super predator" ads were crazy damaging to HRC in swing states, but even to this day most people haven't seen them. There's no way to respond to political attacks you aren't even aware of.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  That's ridiculous. A campaign that well funded has folks positioned to see that sort of thing. Politics is nasty business... opposition research and spies are all over the place. In Hillary's case it's even more absurd to claim that they could have known nothing -- many of the voters targeted and flip flopping were union guys and easy to get intel out of. End of the day, the campaign fucked up. I come from New York, where we had easily manipulatable, gear-driven mechanical machines for decades. (It was pretty trivial to jam them up, and the historical over representation of the number 9 in results validated that) The major parties understood the margin of error and used absentee balloting to cover that risk.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > In Hillary's case it's even more absurd to claim that they could have known nothing I don't think there is any indiciation in my post that HRC didn't screw up a campaign in several key ways. It's just worth noting that there is a new and unique series of technology-enabled techniques that DJT's team used to influence key states at the end. Hopefully Facebook will be forced to release all the relevant data and we can see more about it.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >As has been shown, it's a lot easier to hack voters themselves with targeted information, misinformation and outright fantasy. Heh. We call those elections, and this is nothing new.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    Like I said, what's new is our unique ability to both target and blind it in such a way that it's difficult to respond to. It will require a whole set of technological counters to be developer to prevent untraceable entities from launching the "super predator" ads again.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      It's not at all new. This has been going on since at least the early '80s in the form of targeted mailers.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by avenoir 10y ago

KirinDave 10y ago

That shouldn't be too surprising. It's difficult to hack voting machines. There are many of them with disparate standards and they're air gapped in many cases until they're done collecting and reporting. As has been shown, it's a lot easier to hack voters themselves with targeted information, misinformation and outright fantasy. We've also learned something amazing this cycle: a key tactic anyone will replicate in the future: When you run negative political ads, don't let anyone outside of the laser focused target demo you want to reach see it until it's too late. The "super predator" ads were crazy damaging to HRC in swing states, but even to this day most people haven't seen them. There's no way to respond to political attacks you aren't even aware of.

Spooky23 10y ago
That's ridiculous. A campaign that well funded has folks positioned to see that sort of thing. Politics is nasty business... opposition research and spies are all over the place. In Hillary's case it's even more absurd to claim that they could have known nothing -- many of the voters targeted and flip flopping were union guys and easy to get intel out of. End of the day, the campaign fucked up. I come from New York, where we had easily manipulatable, gear-driven mechanical machines for decades. (It was pretty trivial to jam them up, and the historical over representation of the number 9 in results validated that) The major parties understood the margin of error and used absentee balloting to cover that risk.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > In Hillary's case it's even more absurd to claim that they could have known nothing I don't think there is any indiciation in my post that HRC didn't screw up a campaign in several key ways. It's just worth noting that there is a new and unique series of technology-enabled techniques that DJT's team used to influence key states at the end. Hopefully Facebook will be forced to release all the relevant data and we can see more about it.
gozur88 10y ago
>As has been shown, it's a lot easier to hack voters themselves with targeted information, misinformation and outright fantasy. Heh. We call those elections, and this is nothing new.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  Like I said, what's new is our unique ability to both target and blind it in such a way that it's difficult to respond to. It will require a whole set of technological counters to be developer to prevent untraceable entities from launching the "super predator" ads again.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    It's not at all new. This has been going on since at least the early '80s in the form of targeted mailers.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]