11 ms·

This is due to a Dutch ethical hacker (Sijmen Ruwhof) investigating the way that our elections work. He had posted a great research document [0] that showed how

by wila 10y ago

This is due to a Dutch ethical hacker (Sijmen Ruwhof) investigating the way that our elections work. He had posted a great research document [0] that showed how bad our current system was. Two days later, we're back to paper. Thanks Sijmen :) [0] https://sijmen.ruwhof.net/weblog/1166-how-to-hack-the-upcoming-dutch-elections https://sijmen.ruwhof.net/weblog/1166-how-to-hack-the-upcomi...

saycheese 10y ago
Here's the related HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13524466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13524466
mladenkovacevic 10y ago
Why does everyone think that hacking the DNC amounted to "hacking the election". Did anyone complain when Iceland PM resigned as a result of the Panama Papers leak and the large-scale protests that ensued? You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. The truth came out and whatever happened was a natural result of that.
- vkou 10y ago
  > You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. No, you wouldn't. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the DNC hacks are all because the Democratic leadership is unwilling to accept responsibility for putting forward a bad candidate. Better blame the Russians, instead! If only the public didn't know the truth, we would have won!
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attacks were targeting a specific party alone and seem to be motivated by foreign geopolitical interests, not in the American public's interest. There is a reason we want equal time laws for example, because if I constantly hear one side of the argument, it doesn't matter how true those arguments are, I will come to biased conclusions.
    - borkborkbork 10y ago
      Imagine all the dirt on GOP email accounts
      - jakeogh 10y ago
        Like that time Sarah Palin had to release her personal email acct? Remember all the bad stuff in there? No? That's because there wasn't any. It's weird that when a political entity gets caught rigging debates (and worse) the std response is "I'm sure the other side did it too".
    - vkou 10y ago
      If the press digs up dirt on a candidate, should they not publish it until they dig up some dirt on their opponent? What if it's a foreign newspaper? Should Deep Throat's leaks not been published, because they would influence the election? What if he were a card-holding Democrat? What if he were a reptilian agent? I hate Trump as much as the next person, but there was no shortage of actual dirt that was dug up on him. There was no democratic outrage over the source of his comments about grabbing people's genitals... Or that one page of his tax return.
      - rhcom2 10y ago
        The press "digging up dirt" is surely different than the illegal hacking and wholesale release of all private email correspondence. Deep Throat provided info on the current President's illegal actions to a journalist, not just "dirt". Even if we accept that it is better to know the info in the DNC leaks, it is still a big problem if a foreign government can wield its influence so easily through illegal computer intrusions. At least to me.
        vkou 10y ago
        Leaking the Trump tax return was illegal. There was nothing illegal in the tax return. The Snowden leaks were quite probably illegal. Many of the things he leaked were not illegal. (Since this will never go to trial, we'll probably never know.) Should the press only report on legally-sourced information? They aren't a jury. Good news for us, though - both illegal leaks, and illegal hacks are illegal. We already have a mechanism to deal with bad behaviour in this space.
  - thomask0 10y ago
    It wasn't just the presidential race either, Guccifer 2.0 (suspected Russian front) also targeted Democractic down-ballot races in the House and Senate: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democra... with stuff taken from the DNC.
  - facetube 10y ago
    You are so wrong it's practically dangerous. And not about Clinton. Seventeen US intelligence agencies [1] have joined in a consensus opinion that Russia, under Putin's command, ran a targeted campaign aimed at opposing Hillary Clinton and helping to elect Donald Trump. It is well-documented beyond any reasonable doubt in a full report, portions of which (including conclusions) have been made unclassified [2]. This should be troubling to any American. In fact, it seems to be: Donald Trump himself has pledged to conduct an investigation into voter fraud surrounding the 2016 US election [3]. So let's do it. Investigate the circumstances surrounding the 2016 election. Make public the extent and severity of Russian disinformation operations, and hold them accountable. Investigate why James Comey made a fact-free statement contrary to FBI policy during early voting, when 40% of total ballots are cast. Investigate any and all financial dealings with Russia in the run-up to the election, by either candidate. Perform full recounts and investigate voting rolls for evidence of improper exclusion or inclusion. Oh yeah – and check to make sure Hillary Clinton, the tragically flawed candidate who nonetheless put up with mountains of abuse – really did win the popular vote by approximately three million. 1: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/... 2: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/ODNI_Statement_on_Declassified_Intelligence_Community_Assessment_of_Russian_Activities_and_Intentions_in_Recent_U.S._Elections.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/ODNI_Sta... 3: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-voting-fraud-false-claim-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-voting-...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. Right, because the Panama Papers leak wasn't a leak targeting specifically one Icelandic party, traced back to a foreign government with active geopolitical disputes with Iceland who also had similar hacks of other Icelandic parties traced back to them with no corresponding leaks. There are quite a few additional relevant differences, as well, but I think that suffices to demonstrate that the situations are not, at all, parallel with regard to the applicability of the description in question.
- tdkl 10y ago
  That just speaks about the misinformation media machine nowadays. The "hacking of election" is the same thing as having a 1 year media smear campaign between candidates that occurs before the USA elections.
- sampo 10y ago
  > Why does everyone think that hacking the DNC amounted to "hacking the election". In the American two-party political system, it is very important who the two candidates are, and how they are chosen. While it is formally only the business of the two political parties to choose their candidates however they see fit, in practice also the primaries are an important part of democracy. If America had a more modern multiparty system, the decisions of individual parties would be less important for the whole. Most European countries run their presidential elections in two rounds: First round all parties can run their candidates, and second round is between the two winners of the first round. In America the primaries pretty much take the role of the first round in the European model. (Also, the whole idea of counting votes instead of counting winners per electoral district is a bit alien to the American system, so it's not easy to see how the European system could be implemented in America.)
- johnchristopher 10y ago
  > You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. This the kind of thing you could read here on HN and it would be taken seriously and debated to death until the `hack` term would lose any semblance of definition.
r00fus 10y ago
Best news I've heard electorally for some time. They're even fully proportional voting.
ar-jan 10y ago
A great write-up, but I'd say at least as much credit to the person who reported the issue to the RTL news, who then contacted Sijmen to investigate further. According to [0], the original reporter had already enumerated all the flaws of the system. 0: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/120667/proces-stemmen-tellen-nederlandse-verkiezingen-eenvoudig-te-hacken.html?showReaction=9566845#r_9566845 https://tweakers.net/nieuws/120667/proces-stemmen-tellen-ned...
- wila 10y ago
  Interesting read, thanks!

by wila 10y ago

saycheese 10y ago

Here's the related HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13524466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13524466

mladenkovacevic 10y ago

Why does everyone think that hacking the DNC amounted to "hacking the election". Did anyone complain when Iceland PM resigned as a result of the Panama Papers leak and the large-scale protests that ensued? You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. The truth came out and whatever happened was a natural result of that.

vkou 10y ago
> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. No, you wouldn't. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the DNC hacks are all because the Democratic leadership is unwilling to accept responsibility for putting forward a bad candidate. Better blame the Russians, instead! If only the public didn't know the truth, we would have won!
- mattnewton 10y ago
  You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attacks were targeting a specific party alone and seem to be motivated by foreign geopolitical interests, not in the American public's interest. There is a reason we want equal time laws for example, because if I constantly hear one side of the argument, it doesn't matter how true those arguments are, I will come to biased conclusions.
  - borkborkbork 10y ago
    Imagine all the dirt on GOP email accounts
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      Like that time Sarah Palin had to release her personal email acct? Remember all the bad stuff in there? No? That's because there wasn't any. It's weird that when a political entity gets caught rigging debates (and worse) the std response is "I'm sure the other side did it too".
  - vkou 10y ago
    If the press digs up dirt on a candidate, should they not publish it until they dig up some dirt on their opponent? What if it's a foreign newspaper? Should Deep Throat's leaks not been published, because they would influence the election? What if he were a card-holding Democrat? What if he were a reptilian agent? I hate Trump as much as the next person, but there was no shortage of actual dirt that was dug up on him. There was no democratic outrage over the source of his comments about grabbing people's genitals... Or that one page of his tax return.
    - rhcom2 10y ago
      The press "digging up dirt" is surely different than the illegal hacking and wholesale release of all private email correspondence. Deep Throat provided info on the current President's illegal actions to a journalist, not just "dirt". Even if we accept that it is better to know the info in the DNC leaks, it is still a big problem if a foreign government can wield its influence so easily through illegal computer intrusions. At least to me.
      - vkou 10y ago
        Leaking the Trump tax return was illegal. There was nothing illegal in the tax return. The Snowden leaks were quite probably illegal. Many of the things he leaked were not illegal. (Since this will never go to trial, we'll probably never know.) Should the press only report on legally-sourced information? They aren't a jury. Good news for us, though - both illegal leaks, and illegal hacks are illegal. We already have a mechanism to deal with bad behaviour in this space.
- thomask0 10y ago
  It wasn't just the presidential race either, Guccifer 2.0 (suspected Russian front) also targeted Democractic down-ballot races in the House and Senate: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democra... with stuff taken from the DNC.
- facetube 10y ago
  You are so wrong it's practically dangerous. And not about Clinton. Seventeen US intelligence agencies [1] have joined in a consensus opinion that Russia, under Putin's command, ran a targeted campaign aimed at opposing Hillary Clinton and helping to elect Donald Trump. It is well-documented beyond any reasonable doubt in a full report, portions of which (including conclusions) have been made unclassified [2]. This should be troubling to any American. In fact, it seems to be: Donald Trump himself has pledged to conduct an investigation into voter fraud surrounding the 2016 US election [3]. So let's do it. Investigate the circumstances surrounding the 2016 election. Make public the extent and severity of Russian disinformation operations, and hold them accountable. Investigate why James Comey made a fact-free statement contrary to FBI policy during early voting, when 40% of total ballots are cast. Investigate any and all financial dealings with Russia in the run-up to the election, by either candidate. Perform full recounts and investigate voting rolls for evidence of improper exclusion or inclusion. Oh yeah – and check to make sure Hillary Clinton, the tragically flawed candidate who nonetheless put up with mountains of abuse – really did win the popular vote by approximately three million. 1: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/... 2: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/ODNI_Statement_on_Declassified_Intelligence_Community_Assessment_of_Russian_Activities_and_Intentions_in_Recent_U.S._Elections.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/ODNI_Sta... 3: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-voting-fraud-false-claim-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-voting-...
dragonwriter 10y ago
> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. Right, because the Panama Papers leak wasn't a leak targeting specifically one Icelandic party, traced back to a foreign government with active geopolitical disputes with Iceland who also had similar hacks of other Icelandic parties traced back to them with no corresponding leaks. There are quite a few additional relevant differences, as well, but I think that suffices to demonstrate that the situations are not, at all, parallel with regard to the applicability of the description in question.
tdkl 10y ago
That just speaks about the misinformation media machine nowadays. The "hacking of election" is the same thing as having a 1 year media smear campaign between candidates that occurs before the USA elections.
sampo 10y ago
> Why does everyone think that hacking the DNC amounted to "hacking the election". In the American two-party political system, it is very important who the two candidates are, and how they are chosen. While it is formally only the business of the two political parties to choose their candidates however they see fit, in practice also the primaries are an important part of democracy. If America had a more modern multiparty system, the decisions of individual parties would be less important for the whole. Most European countries run their presidential elections in two rounds: First round all parties can run their candidates, and second round is between the two winners of the first round. In America the primaries pretty much take the role of the first round in the European model. (Also, the whole idea of counting votes instead of counting winners per electoral district is a bit alien to the American system, so it's not easy to see how the European system could be implemented in America.)
johnchristopher 10y ago
> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. This the kind of thing you could read here on HN and it would be taken seriously and debated to death until the `hack` term would lose any semblance of definition.

r00fus 10y ago

Best news I've heard electorally for some time. They're even fully proportional voting.

ar-jan 10y ago

A great write-up, but I'd say at least as much credit to the person who reported the issue to the RTL news, who then contacted Sijmen to investigate further. According to [0], the original reporter had already enumerated all the flaws of the system. 0: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/120667/proces-stemmen-tellen-nederlandse-verkiezingen-eenvoudig-te-hacken.html?showReaction=9566845#r_9566845 https://tweakers.net/nieuws/120667/proces-stemmen-tellen-ned...

wila 10y ago
Interesting read, thanks!