4 ms·

Unreal. Because voting is secure the conspiracy theorist decided to create a conspiracy and potential security threat by releasing passwords online for the syst

Unreal. Because voting is secure the conspiracy theorist decided to create a conspiracy and potential security threat by releasing passwords online for the system and allowing people in to the back door. How pathetic. You were that hard up for a conspiracy? They should vet these people more and allow less individual access. I’ve seen some systems where 2 or more people of opposite political parties have to open the facilities at the same time. Maybe try that?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bediger4000 5y ago
Yes, Colorado voting is secure, and yes, a conspiracy theorist, who happens to be Mesa County's Clerk and Recorder, is completely to blame for the security breech. What you're leaving out is that because the election didn't turn out the way the Clerk wanted, she's muddying the waters and making further fair elections far more difficult.
- acituan 5y ago
  That’s not how opsec works. It shouldn’t matter who the agent is, if it happened it is also a vulnerability of the system. It should withstand tampering by any sufficiently motivated party. It is like saying “yes, my website was hacked, but it was by an evil person” or “it was through social engineering.” Don’t care, it was hacked, can’t happen on such a critical system.
  - bediger4000 5y ago
    > It shouldn’t matter who the agent is, if it happened it is also a vulnerability of the system. It should withstand tampering by any sufficiently motivated party. That's exactly opposite of what infosec experts say, and opposes experience as well. I mean, someone, probably Israel and NSA, got Stuxnet into an airgapped Iranian nuclear facility. Don't try to argue that perfection is necessary - it isn't Security is an economic good, with a price, and a value. When value exceeds price, implement the security. Otherwise, live with it.
    - acituan 5y ago
      > Don't try to argue that perfection is necessary - it isn't Security is an economic good, with a price, and a value. When value exceeds price, implement the security. Otherwise, live with it. Turns out not everything is operating under market dynamics; unless you’re willing to put a price tag on election integrity, which is a public good. Especially in comparison to existing alternative implementations. Perfection is a strawman, you are not even arguing for elasticity depending on the attack vector, you’re arguing for a backdoor selective to the identity of the intruder.
BeefWellington 5y ago
On the flipside - this was caught, an investigation has opened, the public was notified and mitigating steps were taken to ensure election security. IMO this is what it looks like when the system is functioning well.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bediger4000 5y ago

Yes, Colorado voting is secure, and yes, a conspiracy theorist, who happens to be Mesa County's Clerk and Recorder, is completely to blame for the security breech. What you're leaving out is that because the election didn't turn out the way the Clerk wanted, she's muddying the waters and making further fair elections far more difficult.

acituan 5y ago
That’s not how opsec works. It shouldn’t matter who the agent is, if it happened it is also a vulnerability of the system. It should withstand tampering by any sufficiently motivated party. It is like saying “yes, my website was hacked, but it was by an evil person” or “it was through social engineering.” Don’t care, it was hacked, can’t happen on such a critical system.
- bediger4000 5y ago
  > It shouldn’t matter who the agent is, if it happened it is also a vulnerability of the system. It should withstand tampering by any sufficiently motivated party. That's exactly opposite of what infosec experts say, and opposes experience as well. I mean, someone, probably Israel and NSA, got Stuxnet into an airgapped Iranian nuclear facility. Don't try to argue that perfection is necessary - it isn't Security is an economic good, with a price, and a value. When value exceeds price, implement the security. Otherwise, live with it.
  - acituan 5y ago
    > Don't try to argue that perfection is necessary - it isn't Security is an economic good, with a price, and a value. When value exceeds price, implement the security. Otherwise, live with it. Turns out not everything is operating under market dynamics; unless you’re willing to put a price tag on election integrity, which is a public good. Especially in comparison to existing alternative implementations. Perfection is a strawman, you are not even arguing for elasticity depending on the attack vector, you’re arguing for a backdoor selective to the identity of the intruder.

BeefWellington 5y ago

On the flipside - this was caught, an investigation has opened, the public was notified and mitigating steps were taken to ensure election security. IMO this is what it looks like when the system is functioning well.