3 ms·

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 n

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
    > those vulnerabilities (which involved having an insider load custom software on the devices) have long since been patched. Halderman himself confirmed it. do you have a link for this? > You're not arguing in good faith. And then you say this: > You think a software vulnerability can conjure pieces of paper out of thin air? Now you've lost me entirely. After I said this: > 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. Perhaps I was unclear. People who observed the election claim that boxes of ballots were added. Perhaps you disbelieve them. Thats fine, but it strains credulity that you can't imagine how someone would subvert a ballot-counting process by adding massive amounts of illegal ballots to the count. > Seems like Occam is rolling in his grave here. Isn't the more obvious interpretation just that your candidate... lost the election? he's not my candidate, thank you. Ask Occam how likely it is that people might attempt to cheat in an adversarial process with high stakes outcomes and poor process controls.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      See https://twitter.com/jhalderm/status/1328066407892860933 https://twitter.com/jhalderm/status/1328066407892860933 https://twitter.com/jhalderm/status/1326995948480978947 https://twitter.com/jhalderm/status/1326995948480978947 et. al. Halderman's 2018 demo has been repeatedly referenced by right wing media, but somehow the actual guy never appears on the talk shows.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        thanks for the links. Do you have the link you referenced where he says the vulnerability he exploited was patched? The tweets you linked are just instances of him denying someone else's statement and stating that he has seen no evidence. Hard to take that seriously without knowing how he would be in a position to know that vote fraud didn't take place, or be in a position to be exposed to evidence. I've never seen Jeffrey dahmer eat human flesh, that doesn't really speak to his innocence. > Halderman's 2018 demo has been repeatedly referenced by right wing media, but somehow the actual guy never appears on the talk shows. Do you think he still agrees that "all cybersecurity experts who have given electronic voting machines any thought agree: these machines have got to go"?

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
  > those vulnerabilities (which involved having an insider load custom software on the devices) have long since been patched. Halderman himself confirmed it. do you have a link for this? > You're not arguing in good faith. And then you say this: > You think a software vulnerability can conjure pieces of paper out of thin air? Now you've lost me entirely. After I said this: > 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. Perhaps I was unclear. People who observed the election claim that boxes of ballots were added. Perhaps you disbelieve them. Thats fine, but it strains credulity that you can't imagine how someone would subvert a ballot-counting process by adding massive amounts of illegal ballots to the count. > Seems like Occam is rolling in his grave here. Isn't the more obvious interpretation just that your candidate... lost the election? he's not my candidate, thank you. Ask Occam how likely it is that people might attempt to cheat in an adversarial process with high stakes outcomes and poor process controls.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    See https://twitter.com/jhalderm/status/1328066407892860933 https://twitter.com/jhalderm/status/1328066407892860933 https://twitter.com/jhalderm/status/1326995948480978947 https://twitter.com/jhalderm/status/1326995948480978947 et. al. Halderman's 2018 demo has been repeatedly referenced by right wing media, but somehow the actual guy never appears on the talk shows.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      thanks for the links. Do you have the link you referenced where he says the vulnerability he exploited was patched? The tweets you linked are just instances of him denying someone else's statement and stating that he has seen no evidence. Hard to take that seriously without knowing how he would be in a position to know that vote fraud didn't take place, or be in a position to be exposed to evidence. I've never seen Jeffrey dahmer eat human flesh, that doesn't really speak to his innocence. > Halderman's 2018 demo has been repeatedly referenced by right wing media, but somehow the actual guy never appears on the talk shows. Do you think he still agrees that "all cybersecurity experts who have given electronic voting machines any thought agree: these machines have got to go"?