5 ms·

>Election authorities are the ones who need to demonstrate beyond doubt that this system is not vulnerable. There is nothing where something can be beyond doub

by vaidhy 4y ago

>Election authorities are the ones who need to demonstrate beyond doubt that this system is not vulnerable. There is nothing where something can be beyond doubt. It can be beyond reasonable doubt.. but you can always bring up one more "doubt" one level up. At what point would you say we should be trust something?

matheusmoreira 4y ago
You're right, "beyond doubt" is probably an impossibly high standard. Still, they have not proven anything beyond reasonable doubt either. A supply chain vulnerability is pretty much the definition of reasonable doubt. Answering such doubt with oppression and censorship is enough for the entire system to be illegitimate to me. Any talk of "anti-democratic acts" is quite simply hilarious coming from these tyrants. > At what point would you say we should be trust something? I'll trust the results if TSE releases everything publicly, including source code and binaries, and the worldwide community of hackers and cryptographers finds no problems with it. Their current "auditing" process where you're allowed restricted access to the code with nothing on your person other than pen and paper is complete bullshit and I do not believe it.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  > and I do not believe it. The parties seem satisfied with the level of access they have and no law mandating a different process was ever voted. I suggest that instead of invading buildings the people who don't believe in election results start believing in the Rule of Law and understand that the process to change legislation doesn't include threats of violence.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > no law mandating a different process was ever voted No. During Bolsonaro's mandate, there was an attempt to add an auditable paper trail to the voting machines. It was voted unconstitutional by the same judges who would go on to declare the election results "unquestionable". I don't blame them for using violence. Censorship is unconstitutional, especially political censorship, yet that's exactly what the judges who interpret the constitution did. How can you speak of "rule of law"? Clearly, "rule of law" is a joke here.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      > During Bolsonaro's mandate, there was an attempt to add an auditable paper trail to the voting machines. The proposal (to vote on the machine and deposit a printout in a bag) would risk the secrecy of the vote. It was, therefore, considered unconstitutional. And rightfully so. There was a vote printer that could be attached to the 2002 machine. I worked on it. It was unreliable and the different operations flow was confusing. It was deemed impractical (because a mechanical failure could cause the whole ballot to be discarded, and mechanical failures aren't that difficult to provoke). And nothing justifies the violence. They should accept the election results like responsible adults do and, if not, use the legal path to question it.

by vaidhy 4y ago

matheusmoreira 4y ago

You're right, "beyond doubt" is probably an impossibly high standard. Still, they have not proven anything beyond reasonable doubt either. A supply chain vulnerability is pretty much the definition of reasonable doubt. Answering such doubt with oppression and censorship is enough for the entire system to be illegitimate to me. Any talk of "anti-democratic acts" is quite simply hilarious coming from these tyrants. > At what point would you say we should be trust something? I'll trust the results if TSE releases everything publicly, including source code and binaries, and the worldwide community of hackers and cryptographers finds no problems with it. Their current "auditing" process where you're allowed restricted access to the code with nothing on your person other than pen and paper is complete bullshit and I do not believe it.

rbanffy 4y ago
> and I do not believe it. The parties seem satisfied with the level of access they have and no law mandating a different process was ever voted. I suggest that instead of invading buildings the people who don't believe in election results start believing in the Rule of Law and understand that the process to change legislation doesn't include threats of violence.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > no law mandating a different process was ever voted No. During Bolsonaro's mandate, there was an attempt to add an auditable paper trail to the voting machines. It was voted unconstitutional by the same judges who would go on to declare the election results "unquestionable". I don't blame them for using violence. Censorship is unconstitutional, especially political censorship, yet that's exactly what the judges who interpret the constitution did. How can you speak of "rule of law"? Clearly, "rule of law" is a joke here.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    > During Bolsonaro's mandate, there was an attempt to add an auditable paper trail to the voting machines. The proposal (to vote on the machine and deposit a printout in a bag) would risk the secrecy of the vote. It was, therefore, considered unconstitutional. And rightfully so. There was a vote printer that could be attached to the 2002 machine. I worked on it. It was unreliable and the different operations flow was confusing. It was deemed impractical (because a mechanical failure could cause the whole ballot to be discarded, and mechanical failures aren't that difficult to provoke). And nothing justifies the violence. They should accept the election results like responsible adults do and, if not, use the legal path to question it.