11 ms·
Wi-Fi sniffers strapped to drones: odd plan to stop election fraud
- HumblyTossed 3y agoThese people are so fucking stupid. There's just no being nice about it. They are void of any intelligence whatsoever.
- Mike61 3y agoI agree ... I am now a little more stupid for just thinking about this ...
- orangepurple 3y agoThese dummies think a wifi scanner will pick up anything useful and that they can somehow keep drones floating over concrete buildings where wireless signals are highly attenuated, voting takes place and afterwards, around 24-36 hours, and what if there is a cellular modem inside? It won't be picked up by some wifi SSID sniffer. And SSIDs don't have to be broadcast by APs. Total fools.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y agoThis opens up another grift opportunity - drones that can do in-flight battery swaps for these drones! Call Lindell, see if he has any money left.
- orangepurple 3y agoThe best way to deliver lithium ion batteries to those drones is an 18650 cell packaged in a 12 gauge shotgun shell. They fit. And the show is more spectacular when they are fully charged upon impact with the target. I suspect he is alphabet agency controlled opposition playing the role of the useful idiot to distract the angry mob with a red herring which can later be proven false, thus discrediting everyone who was concerned about election fraud. The tactic is used to perform character assassinations and to discredit conspiracy theories not by proving them false beyond a reasonable doubt but by casting anybody who asks questions as a nutjob.
- michaelmrose 3y agoWhat election fraud?
- networkchad 3y ago[dead]
- taylodl 3y agoI call it negative intelligence - people who are so stupid they make everybody around them more stupid.
- predictabl3 3y agoHonestly the real conspiracy is that Lindell and other dipshits are making legitimate concerns about voting machines impossible to talk about.
- joemazerino 3y ago[flagged]
- brk 3y agoI can't wait to show up to the next election with some ESP32's configured to create networks like "Diebold System 1" or "Vote Reorganizer".
- kotaKat 3y agoOh, cool! Free drones with (probably) Rapsberry Pis attached! I'll bring my net when I go vote.
- datavirtue 3y agoI will LMAO if I see a drone hovering over my polling place. I might even be moved to tears if it's clutching a pillow.
- caboteria 3y agoHopefully we'll be able to sign up and have them send us one for free so we can use it for things other than monitoring our local polling place.
- whoitwas 3y agoWhy's the drone required?
- wedowhatwedo 3y agoIt's not but I'm sure some very smart business person knew Mike Lindell was gullible and would fall for something crazy like this. A box in the corner doesn't make for good TV. Drones flying around sure does.
- splintercell 3y agoWhy would election centers allow a box to be kept in the room? What might work better is people walking around with a backpack wearing Pineapple. https://youtu.be/EbetD2LMbeQ https://youtu.be/EbetD2LMbeQ
- georgeplusplus 3y agoSuppose you do capture what you are looking for. How would you present the information to courts when you illegally captured the information.
- stantaylor 3y agoWhy drones? was my first thought as well. I think your answer is as good as any. Mike Lindell is an idiot.
- astrodust 3y agoWhy not drones? Sure, you could do exactly the same thing with a sniffer app on a normal phone, but drones sell better, at least for this ridiculous grift.
- predictabl3 3y agoEven better when you label the "wifi montiroing device" as "WMD" and strap it to a drone. Also, why do I even know this? What is life anymore? Haha.
- lockhouse 3y agoOr we could just offer secure voter IDs to everyone that is legally eligible to vote free of charge. It could be like selective service. Sign up after your eighteenth birthday to vote. Also, use scantron style ballots that use computers to automate vote counting but not vote casting, with members of all major political parties monitoring polling stations and vote counting to ensure everything is above board.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoOr we could just offer secure voter IDs to everyone that is legally eligible to vote free of charge. This exists, it's called registering with your address and then going to your local polling place. Voter fraud is essentially a nonexistent problem.
- codr7 3y agoOne day you're going to look back at this comment and it will feel about as comfortable as Gate's yapping about 640k being enough for anyone.
- saveferris 3y agoI am curious what you think could happen. I did a lot of looking after all the allegations and all the lawsuits. It is remarkably secure today, all the lawsuis that have been filed, etc. and nothing was found. Where do you think the vulnerabilities are that can be exploited?
- codr7 3y ago[flagged]
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y agoNothing was found by courts. Or governments. Or the media. Or anyone, really. Put up proof that something was off or STFU. I said the same thing to myself and many others when there were a few cries of voter fraud after the 2016 election. Those cries died down within a month or so of the election because the loser wasn't actively amplifying that position.
- ThinkingGuy 3y agoI guess nobody's told him about MAC address randomization. (not that gathering SSIDs and MACs from random people in the vicinity who happen to have Wi-Fi on their devices has any value in detecting election fraud, anyway)
- neilv 3y agoAre the nutty people and manipulators discrediting legitimate concerns about electronic voting machines? I think it would be better if they limited their sabotage to UFOs, and french fries, and other things less fundamental to our society.
- orangepurple 3y agoUFO news happens when some really bad domestic corruption stories are in danger of getting into the news cycle
- linuxftw 3y agoI don't believe the elections have any amount of integrity in the US. The system of controls in place are laughable at best. When the physical recount doesn't match the voting day totals, the original totals are kept (see Jill Stein vs Hillary in 2016). It's just pathetic all the way around. That said, Mike Lindell is a fraud charlatan. The fact that Trump hitched his wagon, directly or indirectly, to clowns like him shows how weak of a statesman he really is. I agreed with many of Trump's policies, but his ability to execute is pitiful.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y agoManual recounts tend to be full of error opportunities, so that policy is pretty sensible to me. Maybe if you did a large number of manual recounts and took an average or the most common value or something, it might work. A single manual recount is not deserving of any trust whatsoever. Manual recounts are a safety blanket for people who haven't thought through what it costs and what it actually gets you.
- linuxftw 3y agoWe're not talking about a discrepancy of 1 or 2 votes. We're talking hundreds of votes.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y agoYes, that tends to happen when you do manual recounts. That's my point. They're unreliable as hell. You see a chance to validate a pile of 100k votes. I see 100k chances for human error.
- linuxftw 3y agoThat's not how recounts work. Please, inform yourself.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
- coolhand2120 3y agoI’m not into Lindell or whatever is going on here, but that said closed source voting machines that are not open for audit and have remote access setup really do not sound like the ideal platform for trust. Really if you wanted people to distrust these machines I couldn’t think of a more perfect solution for distrust than that.
- 2devnull 3y agoAnd then sue anybody who questions the machines security.
- rtkwe 3y agoLoads of people raise concerns about electronic voting machines without getting sued, it's making wild direct claims that they're switching votes while writing in internal emails you know it's false that gets you in trouble...
- 2devnull 3y agoI’m talking appearance which is not necessarily the same thing as reality. Public trust is about appearance.
- mindslight 3y agoOne of the biggest problems with these nutjob movements is that they're playing off very real problems to fuel their circuses. Proprietary untrustable voting machines have always been a major problem. You used to be able to bring this up, and since it wasn't a partisan issue, people would at least hear you out even though they understood little about the technicals. But these days if you talk about it to most people or without including a bunch of nuanced disclaimers, you're pigeonholed as if you're part of this mentally ill cult. So reasonable opposition/criticism gets pushed into this shitty position of just having to support the status quo, despite seeing its glaring problems and injustices.
- appplication 3y ago
- orangepurple 3y agoWhy bother performing election fraud using an online process? Just discard user inputs, use preloaded historical local voter registration data by age cohort, multiply the curve by some coefficients to make it plausible, and report that as the result. If the coefficients are known, a recount can "independently" be designed to come up with the same numbers. No network access is needed to produce completely controlled results. The network access thing is a red herring. There are more sophisticated ways to generate the numbers the powers that be want without raising eyebrows.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThis can be surprisingly hard to get right. Look at the chart in https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/11/russian-elections-once-again-had-a-suspiciously-neat-result https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/11/russian-... for an example. Humans are bad at making up numbers.
- sharikous 3y agoMaking open source, transparent, auditable, voting machines that can be trusted to be secure and are more efficient than physical counting is a very interesting challenge. A challenge that I am sure politicians are not very interested in solving. Why spending so much to gain the trust of your citizens if most people know nothing about cryptography anyway?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mikey_p 3y agoThis demonstrates such a poor misunderstanding of how elections and elections equipment work, that this can only be assumed to be a fundraising stunt. I've been a poll worker in Ohio off and on for 3 years, and at no point does any polling location send any voting data over any network of any kind. There's literally nothing to hook a router or access point up to that contains any votes. * At least in my county, the electronic pollbooks in each voting location ARE networked to the other pollbooks in that location so that we can see WHO voted, etc. but this is just the pollbooks, which is necessary to prevent folks from voting twice by trying to check in at a different pollbook. Each electronic pollbook is also backed up by a paper pollbook, and we reconcile all the totals several times a day to make sure that we have an accurate count of how many ballots have been issued and how many ballots are in the ballot box.
- sleepybrett 3y agoHidden wireless (5g! Get cancer while you vote!) modems implanted in voting machines in secret by kim jun un and the illuminati! /heavy on the sarcasm
- monkeydreams 3y agoI suspect that the point of this technology is to experience false positives, thereby sowing further discord and distrust. They will find signals everywhere, if they are even indeed interested in bothering to filter for them, and will claim this is evidence that the next election is being stolen.
- bdcravens 3y agoIs he giving this contract to the Cyber Ninjas too?
- mikestew 3y agoSo...make sure all of my voting machines are hard-wired Cat6 to a router that has no radio transmitters? I mean, how hard did they think about...oh...nevermind. I sometimes wish I had the lack of integrity to look for opportunities like this and exploit them. Sell snake oil to those who are actively looking for snake oil. OTOH, a life lived with some degree of integrity (hey, I'm not perfect) has served me well enough so far.
- pangolinja 3y ago[flagged]
- footlose_3815 3y agoWhy is anyone giving this guy oxygen. He's been laughed off the natural stage for years.