How To Hack an Election (bloomberg.com)

"For eight years, Andres Sepulveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns..." writes Bloomberg, citing elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Sepulveda says he was bankrolled by a political consultant in Miami, and his services involved everything from phone tapping and cracking donor databases to managing thousands of fake Twitter profiles. While Sepulveda wasn't always successful, in 2012, "He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Pena Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory." Now serving 10 years in prison in Colombia, Sepulveda is telling his story in hopes of a reduced sentence - and to warn the public that hackers are affecting modern elections, and that specialized skills will be need to stop them.

"On the question of whether the U.S. presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. 'I'm 100 percent sure it is'."

Comments

That's not hacking an election.

[VMaN]

That's just regular spying, not actually changing the vote counts.

Re:Bloomberg fail

[fyngyrz]

You're citing Bloomberg, which is basically the American version of Russia Today. Propaganda machine.

You're citing journalism, which is basically the American version of Russia Today. Propaganda machine.

FTFY

Trump springs to mind

[danhuby]

"manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision"

Trump hired people to cheer at his rallies. Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to assume he does the same thing online too.

Re:Trump springs to mind

[Rob Y.]

So clever of you to repeat the oft Fox-cited list of exactly 3 Democratic rich donors. It's a matter of degree, dontcha think? There are hundreds of Republican rich folks doing a lot more than paying for busses to get people to vote. The Koch's alone have pledged 900 million. And that's not to mention the various billionaires who have brought out their individual Republican candidates practically bearing their logos. And of course your 3 aren't angling for any direct personal benefits, either. Sure, they have pet causes that the Democrats they support favor - but those causes aren't their bottom lines.

And don't start with Hillary's super-PAC. The Bernie bots may think it's equivalent to what the Republicans have, but it's nothing like it. Sure, it's good old fashioned influence peddling, no doubt. But it's not out and out candidate purchase like you see on the Republican side.

WRT the U.S., the scandal isn't what's a crime....

[guevera]

....the scandal is what's legal.

and the sky is blue.....

[Immostlyharmless]

"..."On the question of whether the U.S. presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. 'I'm 100 percent sure it is'."..."

I voted in Arizona, didn't need a hacker to tell me that.

Closer to Home

[jimbrooking]

If you think the US elections are fair, you might read this article: http://www.salon.com/2016/04/0... We may have heard of gerrymandering, but what's happening in the USA, state by state, goes well beyond simple map-redrawing. I thought I was fairly politically literate, but was really shocked when I read this. And it's all apparently legitimate. That is to say it gives the appearance of being legal and it hasn't been challenged on court, that I know of, but it certainly belies the principle of "one person, one vote."