4 ms·

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. Ha

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"?
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > Hard to take that seriously without knowing how he would be in a position to know that vote fraud didn't take place Arrgh, you're doing it again! The burden of proof is on the accuser. You cited this guy to say that the election was fraudulent. I proved he doesn't agree. Now you're saying he can't know that it WASN'T fraudulent... so therefore... it is? Surely you see that this logic doesn't work. > I've never seen Jeffrey dahmer eat human flesh, that doesn't really speak to his innocence. By that logic you're accusing literally the whole world of being cannibals! This isn't good faith. You don't believe any of this.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Arrgh, you're doing it again! The burden of proof is on the accuser. No, the burden of proof is on the claimant. > You cited this guy to say that the election was fraudulent. I cited him to say that fraud was possible. > I proved he doesn't agree. He claims the election wasn't stolen, without offering any proof. Thats a claim, with no evidence. > Now you're saying he can't know that it WASN'T fraudulent I'm asking how he would know that it wasn't fraudulent. What are his ground for contradicting people who say there was fraud and changed votes? Surely he has reasons for making claims. > Now you're saying he can't know that it WASN'T fraudulent... so therefore... it is? Surely you see that this logic doesn't work. Thats not what I said. I said he disputed claims of fraud without any evidence, where 2 years ago he demonstrated that fraud was easy to achieve. Whether fraud actually occurred is unknown. But there's a difference between saying "these people who allege fraud has occurred have offered no proof" and "these people who say fraud has occurred are wrong." And there's a difference between saying "its possible that fraud occurred, and witnesses who were present say fraud occurred, so we should be open to the possibility that fraud occurred" and saying "these people say fraud occurred therefore fraud occurred", and saying "These people say they witnessed fraud but a pentester says they're wrong so no fraud occurred." Does that make sense to you? > By that logic you're accusing literally the whole world of being cannibals! That is a bizarre misreading of my statement. I'm saying I have not seen something that I wasn't in a position to see, so my lack of evidence is not evidence for anything. It would seem that enough evidence of dahmer's cannibalism was presented that my lack of eyewitness evidence is just as irrelevant as Halderman's lack of evidence of fraud in 2020. > This isn't good faith. You don't believe any of this. dude, can you maybe focus on the arguments that are being presented and perhaps contemplate the difference between making a statement about the evidentiary status of a claim and making a claim yourself? This is basic stuff when it comes to epistemology and at this point I can't tell whether you understand this and are arguing in bad faith, or actually don't understand it and think I am arguing in bad faith. I might be wrong (it has happened before) but I'm quite sure there is a difference between observing the lack of evidence for someone else's claim and making a claim yourself.

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"?
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > Hard to take that seriously without knowing how he would be in a position to know that vote fraud didn't take place Arrgh, you're doing it again! The burden of proof is on the accuser. You cited this guy to say that the election was fraudulent. I proved he doesn't agree. Now you're saying he can't know that it WASN'T fraudulent... so therefore... it is? Surely you see that this logic doesn't work. > I've never seen Jeffrey dahmer eat human flesh, that doesn't really speak to his innocence. By that logic you're accusing literally the whole world of being cannibals! This isn't good faith. You don't believe any of this.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Arrgh, you're doing it again! The burden of proof is on the accuser. No, the burden of proof is on the claimant. > You cited this guy to say that the election was fraudulent. I cited him to say that fraud was possible. > I proved he doesn't agree. He claims the election wasn't stolen, without offering any proof. Thats a claim, with no evidence. > Now you're saying he can't know that it WASN'T fraudulent I'm asking how he would know that it wasn't fraudulent. What are his ground for contradicting people who say there was fraud and changed votes? Surely he has reasons for making claims. > Now you're saying he can't know that it WASN'T fraudulent... so therefore... it is? Surely you see that this logic doesn't work. Thats not what I said. I said he disputed claims of fraud without any evidence, where 2 years ago he demonstrated that fraud was easy to achieve. Whether fraud actually occurred is unknown. But there's a difference between saying "these people who allege fraud has occurred have offered no proof" and "these people who say fraud has occurred are wrong." And there's a difference between saying "its possible that fraud occurred, and witnesses who were present say fraud occurred, so we should be open to the possibility that fraud occurred" and saying "these people say fraud occurred therefore fraud occurred", and saying "These people say they witnessed fraud but a pentester says they're wrong so no fraud occurred." Does that make sense to you? > By that logic you're accusing literally the whole world of being cannibals! That is a bizarre misreading of my statement. I'm saying I have not seen something that I wasn't in a position to see, so my lack of evidence is not evidence for anything. It would seem that enough evidence of dahmer's cannibalism was presented that my lack of eyewitness evidence is just as irrelevant as Halderman's lack of evidence of fraud in 2020. > This isn't good faith. You don't believe any of this. dude, can you maybe focus on the arguments that are being presented and perhaps contemplate the difference between making a statement about the evidentiary status of a claim and making a claim yourself? This is basic stuff when it comes to epistemology and at this point I can't tell whether you understand this and are arguing in bad faith, or actually don't understand it and think I am arguing in bad faith. I might be wrong (it has happened before) but I'm quite sure there is a difference between observing the lack of evidence for someone else's claim and making a claim yourself.