3 ms·

I agree with you, and that's why I didn't spread disinformation suggesting an election system may be compromised. I just stated that the attack surface for some

I agree with you, and that's why I didn't spread disinformation suggesting an election system may be compromised. I just stated that the attack surface for something like this is quite big. Edit: I'm also definitely not saying that paper voting is better than urna eletrônica. Both methods have big attack surfaces.

hammock 4y ago
Maybe I misunderstood you. The attack surface for American elections is quite big also, but there is no widespread election fraud that I'm aware of
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  I'm not aware of that cancer that is probably killing me right now. There is no valid argument for trusting electronic voting machines. While they are still closed source like now, it is flatly impossible and not even slightly rational to trust them. If they ever become open and auditable and verifyable, well then you are no longer trusting them. Talking about "large, coordinated" is an irrelevant distraction. Maybe there have been and maybe there haven't been any such attempted to date, but you have no way to know and so your awareness means nothing, and on top of that, every minute is a new minute. There is no valid argument for trusting these things as they currently exist. Whether you think any elections have been changed doesn't even matter.
  - chalst 4y ago
    > There is no valid argument for trusting electronic voting machines. 'Trust' is a strong word. It can be the case that the best electronic vote-tallying system offered to an electoral authority is better than the best paper-based vote-tallying system. Generally, one should judge the system as a whole, and vote-system and cyber-security experts did judge the 2020 elections and found the allegations of fraud to be without basis, even though many of those same experts are generally critical of electronic voting machines.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      This isn't about Hillary, or any other particular election, or any particular team colors.

hammock 4y ago

Maybe I misunderstood you. The attack surface for American elections is quite big also, but there is no widespread election fraud that I'm aware of

Brian_K_White 4y ago
I'm not aware of that cancer that is probably killing me right now. There is no valid argument for trusting electronic voting machines. While they are still closed source like now, it is flatly impossible and not even slightly rational to trust them. If they ever become open and auditable and verifyable, well then you are no longer trusting them. Talking about "large, coordinated" is an irrelevant distraction. Maybe there have been and maybe there haven't been any such attempted to date, but you have no way to know and so your awareness means nothing, and on top of that, every minute is a new minute. There is no valid argument for trusting these things as they currently exist. Whether you think any elections have been changed doesn't even matter.
- chalst 4y ago
  > There is no valid argument for trusting electronic voting machines. 'Trust' is a strong word. It can be the case that the best electronic vote-tallying system offered to an electoral authority is better than the best paper-based vote-tallying system. Generally, one should judge the system as a whole, and vote-system and cyber-security experts did judge the 2020 elections and found the allegations of fraud to be without basis, even though many of those same experts are generally critical of electronic voting machines.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    This isn't about Hillary, or any other particular election, or any particular team colors.