4 ms·

We can repeat the 2020 election the “most safe and secure” election ever. Funny how Russia and China sat that one out huh? Guess they’d let the other team win o

by vuln 3y ago

We can repeat the 2020 election the “most safe and secure” election ever. Funny how Russia and China sat that one out huh? Guess they’d let the other team win one.

FormerBandmate 3y ago
Neither Russia or China has ever interfered with vote totals. No one has ever claimed that
- zdw 3y ago
  Well, someone did claim this during the 2020 cycle, but in a quite bizarre and totally unsubstantiated way: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/06/arizona-republicans-bamboo-ballots-audit-2020 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/06/arizona-repu...
- junofan 3y ago
  My understanding is in some states the laws are written with a Catch-22: you need evidence of hacking to kick off an investigation. So I wouldn’t be that confident. If I were China I’d probably go with a hardware supply chain attack. These machines can sit around for years. I think DARPA’s SSITH program is a step in the right direction. At the very least, I’d feel a lot better with bug bounties on publicly available demonstrators from all manufacturers.
threeseed 3y ago
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if Russia/China get involved they are guaranteed to decide the outcome of the election. That is absolutely not the case. There are hundreds of factors that will ultimately decide who wins on the day.
autoexec 3y ago
Why do you think they didn't try to interfere in the 2020 election?
unclebucknasty 3y ago
The safe and secure claim was largely around the conduct of the election itself, whereas US adversaries largely deployed disinfo and propaganda tactics to interfere in the election. So, not sure they sat it out as much as the U.S. was a little better prepared. For instance, social media platforms did a better job of not being completely owned as fire hoses for propaganda and disinfo. Of course, some then complained that this constituted "censorship" by the platforms.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- the_doctah 3y ago
  >Of course, some then complained that this constituted "censorship" by the platforms. Literally, by definition, and extending well beyond just election topics.
- vuln 3y ago
  > For instance, social media platforms did a better job of not being completely owned as fire hoses for propaganda and disinfo. Better job by not cashing the adversaries checks? https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/... > Of course, some then complained that this constituted "censorship" by the platforms. Ah you mean the government going hunting and finding accounts that violated the ever changing ToS which was heavily influenced by the USG?
  - unclebucknasty 3y ago
    Yes and yes. Safe to say that $46K ad spend was a drop in the bucket versus their overall effort, but sure, Facebook not accepting those rubles in 2020 counts as a small example. I have no problem with the U.S. government working with American communications platforms to prevent adversarial propaganda, disinformation and disruption of US elections. These are foreign governments engaged in psyops against American citizens. Falls pretty squarely (and obviously) within government purview to defend against it.
arp242 3y ago
"Most safe and secure" referred to the counting of the votes, in response Trump's claims. "Interference" refers to China/Russia state-sponsored targetted propaganda on social media and the like. Was it really the "most safe and secure" and is "interference" an accurate way to describe these type of activities? Well, one could argue about that. But you're mixing up two mostly unrelated things here.

by vuln 3y ago

We can repeat the 2020 election the “most safe and secure” election ever. Funny how Russia and China sat that one out huh? Guess they’d let the other team win one.

FormerBandmate 3y ago

Neither Russia or China has ever interfered with vote totals. No one has ever claimed that

zdw 3y ago
Well, someone did claim this during the 2020 cycle, but in a quite bizarre and totally unsubstantiated way: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/06/arizona-republicans-bamboo-ballots-audit-2020 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/06/arizona-repu...
junofan 3y ago
My understanding is in some states the laws are written with a Catch-22: you need evidence of hacking to kick off an investigation. So I wouldn’t be that confident. If I were China I’d probably go with a hardware supply chain attack. These machines can sit around for years. I think DARPA’s SSITH program is a step in the right direction. At the very least, I’d feel a lot better with bug bounties on publicly available demonstrators from all manufacturers.

threeseed 3y ago

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if Russia/China get involved they are guaranteed to decide the outcome of the election. That is absolutely not the case. There are hundreds of factors that will ultimately decide who wins on the day.

autoexec 3y ago

Why do you think they didn't try to interfere in the 2020 election?

unclebucknasty 3y ago

The safe and secure claim was largely around the conduct of the election itself, whereas US adversaries largely deployed disinfo and propaganda tactics to interfere in the election. So, not sure they sat it out as much as the U.S. was a little better prepared. For instance, social media platforms did a better job of not being completely owned as fire hoses for propaganda and disinfo. Of course, some then complained that this constituted "censorship" by the platforms.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
the_doctah 3y ago
>Of course, some then complained that this constituted "censorship" by the platforms. Literally, by definition, and extending well beyond just election topics.
vuln 3y ago
> For instance, social media platforms did a better job of not being completely owned as fire hoses for propaganda and disinfo. Better job by not cashing the adversaries checks? https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/... > Of course, some then complained that this constituted "censorship" by the platforms. Ah you mean the government going hunting and finding accounts that violated the ever changing ToS which was heavily influenced by the USG?
- unclebucknasty 3y ago
  Yes and yes. Safe to say that $46K ad spend was a drop in the bucket versus their overall effort, but sure, Facebook not accepting those rubles in 2020 counts as a small example. I have no problem with the U.S. government working with American communications platforms to prevent adversarial propaganda, disinformation and disruption of US elections. These are foreign governments engaged in psyops against American citizens. Falls pretty squarely (and obviously) within government purview to defend against it.

arp242 3y ago

"Most safe and secure" referred to the counting of the votes, in response Trump's claims. "Interference" refers to China/Russia state-sponsored targetted propaganda on social media and the like. Was it really the "most safe and secure" and is "interference" an accurate way to describe these type of activities? Well, one could argue about that. But you're mixing up two mostly unrelated things here.