13 ms·
CISA: Election Security Rumor vs. Reality
- puffoflogic 4y agoThese are all of the following form: > Rumor: Bad things can happen. > Reality: Bad things cannot happen. > Facts: We made bad things illegal. Therefore they can't happen. Somehow this fails to be reassuring. A slightly more sophisticated take is that the "bad things" which fill in this template are precisely those things which legislatures thought up as the most likely threats to election integrity. That makes the "we made it illegal" approach that much less sufficient. The only thing on the whole page which is remotely a mitigation is the description of outdoor drop boxes being reinforced against tampering, which is... small potatoes.
- chasil 4y agoThese are bromides offered by a bureaucracy on issues over which it has no control. The claims are easily dismissed.
- themark 4y agoIt mentions system testing; i read here that testing could only be done according to criteria provided by the vendor. https://www.scribd.com/document/596142725/Fulton-Pa-Sues-Dominion#download&from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/596142725/Fulton-Pa-Sues-Dom...
- chasil 4y agoI don't think we need this vendor. I think that a tiny amount of money could be allocated from our taxes to create an open, transparent, and secure voting system. We are buying from untrustworthy vendors when we could build a superior solution ourselves. The federal/state bureaucracies that advocate proprietary voting systems should be liquidated.
- encryptluks2 4y agoSure... let's trust bureaucracy that consistently outsources election security to third parties who then claim that the process is proprietary. Might as well outsource the Federal Reserve and SEC to Chase and Wells Fargo while we're at it and believe everything they do is fair and balanced.
- chasil 4y agoOutsourcing to a proprietary voting system could work, if a paper trail is produced that is verified by the voter. Still, open source is everywhere. Why don't we have open, unbreakable voting? Really, what is wrong with us? This is not a hard problem.
- NegativeLatency 4y agoWhat’s wrong with us: Pork barrel politics, corruption, money being considered speech, etc. This is why campaign finance reform is probably my top issue as a voter. It’s just disappointing to have the two main political parties dominate to such an extent that it feels like there’s no reasonable choices WRT voting.
- water8 4y agoOpen source does not mean unbreakable
- dijonman2 4y ago
- anonymouse008 4y agoReality: The existence of a vulnerability in election technology is not evidence that the vulnerability has been exploited or that the results of an election have been impacted. Technology has vulnerabilities. Identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities is an important security practice. Rumor: Vulnerabilities in election technology mean that elections have been hacked and hackers are able to change election results. I'm sorry this is comical.
- chasil 4y agoNot when a judge has such qualms that the evidence is sealed. "At a recent hearing, Totenberg sealed the report, citing a strong reluctance to draw any public scrutiny to the sensitive details in the case. Totenberg would not even allow an election integrity group to openly advocate for disclosure of the report..." This is absolutely intolerable. https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-seals-report-on-voting-machine-vulnerability https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-seals-report-on-voting-m...
- chasil 4y agoAs far as google will tell me, the seal remains in place. I say burn these Dominion Voting machines, and blacklist the vendor nationwide. "But the lawsuit, now known as Curling v. Raffensperger, didn’t stop. It instead shifted to alleging that the new system was so insecure as to be unconstitutional." https://www.votebeat.org/2022/3/2/22959221/alex-halderman-dominion-report-georgia-bmd-lawsuit https://www.votebeat.org/2022/3/2/22959221/alex-halderman-do...
- anonymouse008 4y agoFinally the person has been charged that I can speak plainly about these things - elections in 2012 and 2016 had incredible amounts of fraud at the local level. These elections mean next to nothing politically for the local folks running, however, the state and national level really “appreciate” the ability of single upstarts to “get out the vote” in their party. No true preferences for government by the governed have been revealed through elections for some time. That is the travesty for the US, and will be its ultimate downfall
- chasil 4y agoI saw the film "2000 Mules." Amongst the claims of this film was an assertion of open drop boxes on public streets with no cameras for surveillance. Several FOIA requests for camera footage also failed, as the cameras "malfunctioned." While there may be innocent explanations for the odd cell phone location tracking, this fact remains: "The most secure election in history" cannot be as claimed with unmonitored and publicly-accessible drop boxes. This cannot continue if an honest election is the goal. p.s. I regularly split my voting ticket, so I am not as biased as some might suppose.
- tenpies 4y ago> Not a word about Voter ID Every serious, even-remotely-democratic country on the planet requires voter ID, yet one US party is staunchly against it. Until the US changes this, then its electoral process should be seen with extreme skepticism and electoral fraud should probably be considered the default.
- kube-system 4y agoBoth parties have their qualms about IDs. It all depends on how they’re issued and by who. If you proposed exactly what many of those other countries have: a national voter ID, both democrats and republicans would be against it.
- water8 4y agoNo only one party is importing Hispanics by the hundreds of thousands
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jamesvnz 4y agoNew Zealand does not require ID at the voting booth. We would generally be considered to be near the top of the list for "remotely democratic countries". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws#New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws#New_... Australia doesn't require ID either.
- josefx 4y agoIf I understand the simple Australian guide bellow correctly anyone who knows your name and home address can vote in your place. The only good thing about it is that abuse of that probably doesn't scale well. https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/easy-read/files/vote-polling-place-easy-eng.pdf https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/easy-read/file...
- chasil 4y ago
- mercy_dude 4y ago> Mail-in/absentee ballot request forms typically require applicants to sign the form and affirm their eligibility to cast a mail-in/absentee ballot under penalty of law. Upon receipt of a mail-in/absentee ballot request form, election officials implement varying procedures to verify the identity and eligibility of the applicant prior to sending the applicant a mail-in/absentee ballot. Such procedures include checking the signature and information submitted on the form against the corresponding voter registration record, as well as ensuring that multiple mail-in/absentee ballots are not sent in response to applications using the same voter’s information. Let’s see. In 2020, many duplicates were sent. Ballots were sent for dead people. So the rumour is not only true, it has already been happening across the country as recently as last election. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/duplicates-and-dead-people-hundreds-of-thousands-of-questionable-ballots-sent-out-to-la-county-voters/ https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/duplicates-and-dead-...
- chasil 4y agoIn any case, voting is a solemn act of conscience. It should be conducted on election day, in privacy, without undue influence. Mail-in voting should only exist for those who cannot physically attend, with medical evidence.
- LtWorf 4y agoThat's how it works in italy. Where we also use paper instead of machines to vote. Then a fraud requires a conspiracy.
- betwixthewires 4y agoCan we stop it with this bullshit. There's no such thing as election integrity in america and there never has been. Everything they say about the previous election is probably true. Everyone involved in elections in the united states is biased, and just like everything in politics, people will resort to dirty tricks, do whatever they have to do and are in it for themselves. It is nothing new. Everyone arguing for mail in and absentee ballots is doing it because they want to use them to cheat. Everyone arguing for or against anything wants the rules to favor them in some underhanded way, every single rule in very single system was decided to enable some official's preferred method of cheating. Multiple presidents have stolen elections. Every house seat is gerrymandered to protect the incumbent. Election officials in the south used to throw black votes away. Politicians in the north used to pay poor people to travel around a city or state and vote multiple times 50, 100, 150 years ago. It has always been this way in America.
- chasil 4y agoThe people of the United States are sovereign. As such, we can require transparent and accurate elections if and when we choose. This choice must be exercised by elected representation. No political power in the United States can resist this force, when it gathers. We are sovereign.
- betwixthewires 4y agoIt's never going to gather because nobody wants their cheating methods to become useless. Most of our elected representation got there by cheating. They can resist this political force, by making sure to cheat to prevent honest representation.
- water8 4y agoOh, yay another government agency telling us exactly how things happened without any possibility of their mistake