4 ms·

An exploit demo? An incriminating email? Testimony from Chavez's ghost? Hell, I'd take a suspicious correlation between firmware version and vote count, even

An exploit demo? An incriminating email? Testimony from Chavez's ghost? Hell, I'd take a suspicious correlation between firmware version and vote count, even. I'm not picky. But that's the problem, isn't it? You want the standard of evidence for reporting an allegation (e.g. "the election was stolen") to place the burden of proof on the listener ("Well, you can't prove the election was NOT stolen, can you?"). And that's pretty much the definition of "fake news". It's a lie. And they tell the lie because they know you'll believe it. And that's the problem. Not "information overload".

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> An exploit demo? Been done, pentesters have been crying about this for years. > An incriminating email? After the compromise of the Clinton email server I think they learned their lesson there. > Hell, I'd take a suspicious correlation between firmware version and vote count, even. I'm not picky. Theres been some technical arguments but they require some expertise to evaluate and probably aren't suited for a presser. > But that's the problem, isn't it? You want the standard of evidence for reporting an allegation (e.g. "the election was stolen") to place the burden of proof on the listener ("Well, you can't prove the election was NOT stolen, can you?"). its a bit ironic that you can ignore existing evidence in favor of a contrary belief but claim the other side isn't presenting evidence. > And that's pretty much the definition of "fake news". It's a lie. And they tell the lie because they know you'll believe it. And that's the problem. Not "information overload". Oh I don't believe shit. its just odd that people are so insistent that this election was all on the up and up with no evidence whereas they aren't even willing to consider that someone might cheat in an election because "that would leave evidence and I haven't seen any"
- newacct583 6y ago
  Link to a verified pentest report on the Dominion machines they're talking about that shows this kind of thing is possible? Genuinely curious. I promise I'm not ignoring evidence, I literally haven't seen it. Edit: and in the other direction, any input on why the non-machine hand count which just completed in Georgia affirmed the results from the original count? Doesn't that pretty much eliminate the whole conspiracy theory?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Link to a verified pentest report on the Dominion machines they're talking about that shows this kind of thing is possible? Genuinely curious. I promise I'm not ignoring evidence, I literally haven't seen it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/election-voting-machine-hacking-russians.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/election-voting-m... > Edit: and in the other direction, any input on why the non-machine hand count which just completed in Georgia affirmed the results from the original count? Doesn't that pretty much eliminate the whole conspiracy theory? There are documents on the web, which appear to be sworn affidavits from people who claim to have been election observers that contain allegations that there were many improprieties including boxes of ballots with no chain of custody. To me if you can affect the initial count then I don't see why its hard to believe that you can affect the recount, especially if it was affected by adding ballots. To me the real issue is that there's no real way to verify the outcome of an election because the process is so big. I'm not convinced it was "stolen" because I don't know who "really" won and its just odd that the burden of proof for establishing that interference is possible is so high when you can just examine the process and tell that if someone adds a bunch of ballots to the room where the ballots are kept, there's not a way to undo that or determine what was done. How can people be so credulous in such an opaque process?
    - newacct583 6y ago
      Come on, that's two years old and those vulnerabilities (which involved having an insider load custom software on the devices) have long since been patched. Halderman himself confirmed it. You're not arguing in good faith. Where's the evidence that the machines used in, wherever is en vogue -- MI/WI/GA/PA are actually vulnerable. That's what you need if you want to justifiably run a headline that the election was stolen. > To me if you can affect the initial count then I don't see why its hard to believe that you can affect the recount, especially if it was affected by adding ballots. You think a software vulnerability can conjure pieces of paper out of thin air? Now you've lost me entirely. Seems like Occam is rolling in his grave here. Isn't the more obvious interpretation just that your candidate... lost the election?

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> An exploit demo? Been done, pentesters have been crying about this for years. > An incriminating email? After the compromise of the Clinton email server I think they learned their lesson there. > Hell, I'd take a suspicious correlation between firmware version and vote count, even. I'm not picky. Theres been some technical arguments but they require some expertise to evaluate and probably aren't suited for a presser. > But that's the problem, isn't it? You want the standard of evidence for reporting an allegation (e.g. "the election was stolen") to place the burden of proof on the listener ("Well, you can't prove the election was NOT stolen, can you?"). its a bit ironic that you can ignore existing evidence in favor of a contrary belief but claim the other side isn't presenting evidence. > And that's pretty much the definition of "fake news". It's a lie. And they tell the lie because they know you'll believe it. And that's the problem. Not "information overload". Oh I don't believe shit. its just odd that people are so insistent that this election was all on the up and up with no evidence whereas they aren't even willing to consider that someone might cheat in an election because "that would leave evidence and I haven't seen any"

newacct583 6y ago
Link to a verified pentest report on the Dominion machines they're talking about that shows this kind of thing is possible? Genuinely curious. I promise I'm not ignoring evidence, I literally haven't seen it. Edit: and in the other direction, any input on why the non-machine hand count which just completed in Georgia affirmed the results from the original count? Doesn't that pretty much eliminate the whole conspiracy theory?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Link to a verified pentest report on the Dominion machines they're talking about that shows this kind of thing is possible? Genuinely curious. I promise I'm not ignoring evidence, I literally haven't seen it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/election-voting-machine-hacking-russians.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opinion/election-voting-m... > Edit: and in the other direction, any input on why the non-machine hand count which just completed in Georgia affirmed the results from the original count? Doesn't that pretty much eliminate the whole conspiracy theory? There are documents on the web, which appear to be sworn affidavits from people who claim to have been election observers that contain allegations that there were many improprieties including boxes of ballots with no chain of custody. To me if you can affect the initial count then I don't see why its hard to believe that you can affect the recount, especially if it was affected by adding ballots. To me the real issue is that there's no real way to verify the outcome of an election because the process is so big. I'm not convinced it was "stolen" because I don't know who "really" won and its just odd that the burden of proof for establishing that interference is possible is so high when you can just examine the process and tell that if someone adds a bunch of ballots to the room where the ballots are kept, there's not a way to undo that or determine what was done. How can people be so credulous in such an opaque process?
  - newacct583 6y ago
    Come on, that's two years old and those vulnerabilities (which involved having an insider load custom software on the devices) have long since been patched. Halderman himself confirmed it. You're not arguing in good faith. Where's the evidence that the machines used in, wherever is en vogue -- MI/WI/GA/PA are actually vulnerable. That's what you need if you want to justifiably run a headline that the election was stolen. > To me if you can affect the initial count then I don't see why its hard to believe that you can affect the recount, especially if it was affected by adding ballots. You think a software vulnerability can conjure pieces of paper out of thin air? Now you've lost me entirely. Seems like Occam is rolling in his grave here. Isn't the more obvious interpretation just that your candidate... lost the election?