+1. If Hillary and Trump were anything like what they displayed in the last 36 hours over the last 15 months, it would have been a much better election.
I'm no fan of Hillary, but I genuinely feel sorry for her right now. This is literally one of those "worked my whole life for this" things, and I take no joy in that dream finally dying no matter how much I disagree with her politics. The truly sad thing is that we know she's capable of being the Hillary we saw yesterday--she did the same thing in 2008 after losing early primaries. If she spent her career being the person she was when she was at her best, she would have won in a landslide. Instead, she was secretive, dishonest, nasty, and manipulative. I wonder what the young woman from Wellesley so many years ago would think of the older woman today.
I'm not a Moore fan, but his analysis was quite astute here (I didn't see the Youtube video, but I heard him interviewed on Fresh Air a couple of weeks ago and he talked about this then--he made a lot of sense). The "sad" part (I'm not sad she lost, though I'm not especially happy Trump won) is that they had plenty of warning, and they just ignored it. Treating an election like a coronation has consequences.
I think you'll find that Gerrymandering could have only played a part (and that a very small one) in Maine and Nebraska. Ignorance is not something to be proud of.
Both parties engage in Gerrymandering, so throwing that charge at the Republicans (while true) is telling half the story. Also, we're talking about California here, the Democrats draw the lines there.
Obama doesn't get enough credit. Sure, he failed to fix a lot of stuff, but he did reduce the US's involvement in a lot of wars
WTF, have you missed the last half decade? Sure, he pulled the troops out of Iraq and largely Afghanistan, but he created massive power vacuums doing so, leading to the arab spring which has been an absolute disaster, and has us and the Russians eyeing each other in a way that we haven't done for a quarter of a century.
If the situation under Reagan is the result of Carter's policies, then it follows that the economic boom under Clinton was the result of Reagan/Bush policies, that the recession under GWB was the result of Clinton policies, and the rally under Obama is the result of GWB's policies.
I'm not going to disagree with you about the "it's that guy's fault" manta--it's been the way things have been in the US for a very long time. At some point, I agree, when you're in control you have to own the things that happen.
I do take issue with the "Jewish bankers" bit. I've heard this talking point a lot in the last couple of months ("international bankers is a dog whistle for antisemitism") and I've got to say that this is seriously hypocritical. "Banksters" was the rallying cry of the Occupy movement, and of the left during the financial crises... but somehow when Trump says the same thing it's a dog whistle and proof of intolerance?
Time and again we have been told private industry does things better than government.
If you're going to make this argument, defense spending is probably not the place to do it, because everything about it is inherently controlled by the government. (hint: cancel 90% of the ships, and the fixed costs don't suddenly decrease).
I'm not saying your point in general is a bad one, just that it has nothing to do with this issue.
Electronic voting does need a receipt, but the receipt needs to be locked in a box and not given to the voter. After the election, you can spot audit the machines with the paper and do full hand recounts if need be.
No, they're not. What you said is just hand-waving wankery designed to make you feel smart because you "thought up a way" that the election could be influenced.
I suggested you needed to keep people who would talk from knowing too much about you. I don't know why that's hand waving wankery, but I'm done feeding the troll.
Again, you're missing the forest for the trees, and display a shocking lack of understanding of the concept of defense in depth. Any one of these items may be relatively easy to do in a vacuum - sure, you can find someone to corrupt. Sure, you can weasel your way into physical access somehow. Sure, you can corrupt the initial boot-up diagnostics review. You *can* do all of those things - but the likelihood of being able to execute these steps in concert, without being caught or found out is *vanishingly* small. It would require incredibly sophisticated planning and coordination, flawless execution, and hundreds of incredibly tight-lipped conspirators. The chances of this are FAR smaller than 1/20. They are probably more on the order of "win the lottery" odds of working to influence the election results.
You gave a list of "why you couldn't"s. I addressed you points with "why you could"s. This is not ignorance of defense in depth--I am not planning a conspiracy here, I am responding to some random dude on the internet. You will note that I actually agreed with you that some of your points were not only non-trivial but quite difficult. You would certainly not have incredibly tight-lipped conspirators--someone is practically guaranteed to talk, if only to brag to their spouse what they'd accomplished if they succeeded. You took my response on that particular point, though, and used it to insult me. WRT odds of success, my 1/20 was not a calculation of the chances of succeeding, but merely stating that if your odds were that good, and if someone were sufficiently motivated, they'd take that chance.
Even if it meant getting caught. "Getting caught" is not a sufficient deterrent to mugging someone, and it sure as shit isn't a significant deterrent to someone who believes your political candidate may as well be the antichrist. People strap themselves with explosives and detonate themselves in crowds, or fly planes into buildings all in the name of making a political statement. Election tampering is tame by comparison.
The comment about nerds was probably the most important part of what I wrote. Shame you skipped it, with your "Cutouts and good security would be essential to firewall off the defector and avoid exposing the larger conspiracy." Maybe you can whip up a Visual Basic GUI to mask your IP address, too.
Unlike CSI technobabble, what I said actually makes sense. It also has jack shit to do with any kind of computer or electronic system. Sorry the words were too big for you, but I assure you that they're perfectly cromulent. I'll make the words simpler:
Zog want steal election. Many cavemen help Zog, but Zog not trust them. Cavemen talky too much. Zog make sure cavemen not know about Zog. Zog make sure cavemen not know each other. If talky caveman in trouble, Zog make sure he only knew about Grog, and Grog know only Ugg. Ugg do ten years standing on head. Ugg take it in ass to Make America Great Again. Zog make sure Ugg only know about Rag just in case.
1) Corrupt registered voters in each of those population centers;
Law of large numbers. We're talking about millions of people here, some are certain to be enthusiastic participants in such a scheme. The problem is identifying them, and I'd argue the tools for doing so probably exist today.
2) Find a way of hacking the machines in each of those population centers without being caught;
Voting machines are often in booths with a curtain. If the hack takes just a few minutes, it's reasonable that a bad actor could compromise the machine with no one thinking anything is especially odd.
3) Hack the votes in a way that initial diagnostics on election day will not notice the changes;
Tamper after initial diagnostics. Show up early and be in the first 10% of voters.
4) Evade suspicion when the machines return votes that are significantly disproportional to all polling leading up to the vote, and exit polls;
Much more difficult, I agree, but polls have been wrong before. Also, simply spoiling the results of a precinct may be "good enough" (most election laws don't allow for do-overs). Not being affiliated with one of the candidates would also help avoid suspicion/detection.
5) And do this in DOZENS of districts around the country, all without somebody blabbing;
Even harder. Agreed that someone would probably brag. Cutouts and good security would be essential to firewall off the defector and avoid exposing the larger conspiracy. If spoilation were a sufficient outcome, this isn't as big a roadblock as you suggest, though.
6) Do it all under the watchful eye of registered democratic and republican election watchers who are there to ensure fairness and accuracy for "their side" at all of these polling places;
See 2-3 above.
I'll agree that success is unlikely, but it IS possible. If you had a 1/20 chance of success, and sufficient motivation, it's probably good enough odds to attempt performing the operation.
You'll note that, apart from rigging the machine, I did not suggest any other form of voter fraud needed to be a part of the conspiracy. Your confederates could actually live in those precincts (or live there just long enough to establish residency and vote there).
I'm not suggesting this especially realistic, just that this is how one could gain physical access to many voting machines to tamper with an election, which was the question asked by the OP.
While some voting precincts have the machines out in the open, many still respect the tradition of privacy and have the machine in a booth, with a curtain.
"Vote for $CANDIDATE or your daughter has an accident. Bring me your ballot receipt on Tuesday night and we can forget this conversation ever happened."
They and a few hundred of their friends could register to vote?
Guaranteed physical access to at least one machine per person involved in the conspiracy. Flipping a few key precincts is all you need to have a high probability of changing a US presidential election outcome.
I'm floored that 18% of their respondents think that fixing things in development costs more than doing so anywhere else in the process. Simple fact: the further it goes down the chain, the more it costs to fix. I don't care if you're writing software, building widgets on an assembly line, or building a house, it is ALWAYS cheaper to fix the problem BEFORE you add more labor on top of your mistake.
Of the choices they provide, dev is hands down the cheapest place to fix the problem, unless by "expense" they mean "it's the maintenance team's job to deal with that shit, so it doesn't cost me anything."
You're blaming Rumsfeld for something that began in the 90s. The program was called the Joint Strike Fighter, and the conventional and STOVL requirements were there from day one.
As I noted above, Rumsfeld killed the Crusader, and he also killed Comanche and tried (and failed) to kill the F-22. You can argue that he could have killed it, but laying the blame for this at his feet is, as I said, just partisan hate.
Are you suggesting that Donald Rumsfeld was the architect of a program that was initiated in 1996? I'll grant that his administration chose the X-35 over the X-32, but I don't know why you think the outcome would have been significantly different.
You know, the funny part is that he was widely criticized for killing a multibillion dollar "last war" defense program (the Crusader artillery vehicle).
I'm not the world's biggest fan of Donald Rumsfeld, but the blind hate you're spewing is exactly the reason that we have people lined up behind the worst two candidates for president in recent memory (arguable, in the history of the republic).
I think the problem isn't that this information was used in this way, but that your SSN has become the root password to your identity. These days, it's issued at birth and changing them is a non-trivial task. You use it every time you get a job, and your employer can leak this information. If you get a divorce, your former spouse likely still knows it. Anyone who sees your tax forms has it.
The foolish part is anyone trusting the SSN as an authentication mechanism.
Legacy telco does not seem to be able to build bulletproof networks anymore.
Telephony is the original give nines application. In the past, and outage like this would probably have resulted in congressional hearings, but there have been numerous wide area outages from AT&T and other baby bells over the last few years, and the frequency of these outages just seems to get higher as years go on.
Slashdot Mirror
+1. If Hillary and Trump were anything like what they displayed in the last 36 hours over the last 15 months, it would have been a much better election.
I'm no fan of Hillary, but I genuinely feel sorry for her right now. This is literally one of those "worked my whole life for this" things, and I take no joy in that dream finally dying no matter how much I disagree with her politics. The truly sad thing is that we know she's capable of being the Hillary we saw yesterday--she did the same thing in 2008 after losing early primaries. If she spent her career being the person she was when she was at her best, she would have won in a landslide. Instead, she was secretive, dishonest, nasty, and manipulative. I wonder what the young woman from Wellesley so many years ago would think of the older woman today.
I'm not a Moore fan, but his analysis was quite astute here (I didn't see the Youtube video, but I heard him interviewed on Fresh Air a couple of weeks ago and he talked about this then--he made a lot of sense). The "sad" part (I'm not sad she lost, though I'm not especially happy Trump won) is that they had plenty of warning, and they just ignored it. Treating an election like a coronation has consequences.
I think you'll find that Gerrymandering could have only played a part (and that a very small one) in Maine and Nebraska. Ignorance is not something to be proud of.
Both parties engage in Gerrymandering, so throwing that charge at the Republicans (while true) is telling half the story. Also, we're talking about California here, the Democrats draw the lines there.
My heart burns for the oppressed billionaires.
Obama doesn't get enough credit. Sure, he failed to fix a lot of stuff, but he did reduce the US's involvement in a lot of wars
WTF, have you missed the last half decade? Sure, he pulled the troops out of Iraq and largely Afghanistan, but he created massive power vacuums doing so, leading to the arab spring which has been an absolute disaster, and has us and the Russians eyeing each other in a way that we haven't done for a quarter of a century.
No credit is due for that.
If the situation under Reagan is the result of Carter's policies, then it follows that the economic boom under Clinton was the result of Reagan/Bush policies, that the recession under GWB was the result of Clinton policies, and the rally under Obama is the result of GWB's policies.
Are you sure you want to go down that route?
I'm not going to disagree with you about the "it's that guy's fault" manta--it's been the way things have been in the US for a very long time. At some point, I agree, when you're in control you have to own the things that happen.
I do take issue with the "Jewish bankers" bit. I've heard this talking point a lot in the last couple of months ("international bankers is a dog whistle for antisemitism") and I've got to say that this is seriously hypocritical. "Banksters" was the rallying cry of the Occupy movement, and of the left during the financial crises... but somehow when Trump says the same thing it's a dog whistle and proof of intolerance?
Time and again we have been told private industry does things better than government.
If you're going to make this argument, defense spending is probably not the place to do it, because everything about it is inherently controlled by the government. (hint: cancel 90% of the ships, and the fixed costs don't suddenly decrease).
I'm not saying your point in general is a bad one, just that it has nothing to do with this issue.
Electronic voting does need a receipt, but the receipt needs to be locked in a box and not given to the voter. After the election, you can spot audit the machines with the paper and do full hand recounts if need be.
No, they're not. What you said is just hand-waving wankery designed to make you feel smart because you "thought up a way" that the election could be influenced.
I suggested you needed to keep people who would talk from knowing too much about you. I don't know why that's hand waving wankery, but I'm done feeding the troll.
Again, you're missing the forest for the trees, and display a shocking lack of understanding of the concept of defense in depth. Any one of these items may be relatively easy to do in a vacuum - sure, you can find someone to corrupt. Sure, you can weasel your way into physical access somehow. Sure, you can corrupt the initial boot-up diagnostics review. You *can* do all of those things - but the likelihood of being able to execute these steps in concert, without being caught or found out is *vanishingly* small. It would require incredibly sophisticated planning and coordination, flawless execution, and hundreds of incredibly tight-lipped conspirators. The chances of this are FAR smaller than 1/20. They are probably more on the order of "win the lottery" odds of working to influence the election results.
You gave a list of "why you couldn't"s. I addressed you points with "why you could"s. This is not ignorance of defense in depth--I am not planning a conspiracy here, I am responding to some random dude on the internet. You will note that I actually agreed with you that some of your points were not only non-trivial but quite difficult. You would certainly not have incredibly tight-lipped conspirators--someone is practically guaranteed to talk, if only to brag to their spouse what they'd accomplished if they succeeded. You took my response on that particular point, though, and used it to insult me. WRT odds of success, my 1/20 was not a calculation of the chances of succeeding, but merely stating that if your odds were that good, and if someone were sufficiently motivated, they'd take that chance.
Even if it meant getting caught. "Getting caught" is not a sufficient deterrent to mugging someone, and it sure as shit isn't a significant deterrent to someone who believes your political candidate may as well be the antichrist. People strap themselves with explosives and detonate themselves in crowds, or fly planes into buildings all in the name of making a political statement. Election tampering is tame by comparison.
The comment about nerds was probably the most important part of what I wrote. Shame you skipped it, with your "Cutouts and good security would be essential to firewall off the defector and avoid exposing the larger conspiracy." Maybe you can whip up a Visual Basic GUI to mask your IP address, too.
Unlike CSI technobabble, what I said actually makes sense. It also has jack shit to do with any kind of computer or electronic system. Sorry the words were too big for you, but I assure you that they're perfectly cromulent. I'll make the words simpler:
Zog want steal election. Many cavemen help Zog, but Zog not trust them. Cavemen talky too much. Zog make sure cavemen not know about Zog. Zog make sure cavemen not know each other. If talky caveman in trouble, Zog make sure he only knew about Grog, and Grog know only Ugg. Ugg do ten years standing on head. Ugg take it in ass to Make America Great Again. Zog make sure Ugg only know about Rag just in case.
Was that sufficiently less nerdlike for you?
1) Corrupt registered voters in each of those population centers;
Law of large numbers. We're talking about millions of people here, some are certain to be enthusiastic participants in such a scheme. The problem is identifying them, and I'd argue the tools for doing so probably exist today.
2) Find a way of hacking the machines in each of those population centers without being caught;
Voting machines are often in booths with a curtain. If the hack takes just a few minutes, it's reasonable that a bad actor could compromise the machine with no one thinking anything is especially odd.
3) Hack the votes in a way that initial diagnostics on election day will not notice the changes;
Tamper after initial diagnostics. Show up early and be in the first 10% of voters.
4) Evade suspicion when the machines return votes that are significantly disproportional to all polling leading up to the vote, and exit polls;
Much more difficult, I agree, but polls have been wrong before. Also, simply spoiling the results of a precinct may be "good enough" (most election laws don't allow for do-overs). Not being affiliated with one of the candidates would also help avoid suspicion/detection.
5) And do this in DOZENS of districts around the country, all without somebody blabbing;
Even harder. Agreed that someone would probably brag. Cutouts and good security would be essential to firewall off the defector and avoid exposing the larger conspiracy. If spoilation were a sufficient outcome, this isn't as big a roadblock as you suggest, though.
6) Do it all under the watchful eye of registered democratic and republican election watchers who are there to ensure fairness and accuracy for "their side" at all of these polling places;
See 2-3 above.
I'll agree that success is unlikely, but it IS possible. If you had a 1/20 chance of success, and sufficient motivation, it's probably good enough odds to attempt performing the operation.
I'll ignore the comment about nerds.
Physical access is physical. Thanks for pointing that out, most of us were completely unaware of that fact.
You're assuming I'm stupid, but you're the guy yelling in bolded text about something I didn't even suggest.
You'll note that, apart from rigging the machine, I did not suggest any other form of voter fraud needed to be a part of the conspiracy. Your confederates could actually live in those precincts (or live there just long enough to establish residency and vote there).
I'm not suggesting this especially realistic, just that this is how one could gain physical access to many voting machines to tamper with an election, which was the question asked by the OP.
While some voting precincts have the machines out in the open, many still respect the tradition of privacy and have the machine in a booth, with a curtain.
"Vote for $CANDIDATE or your daughter has an accident. Bring me your ballot receipt on Tuesday night and we can forget this conversation ever happened."
We have secret ballots for a reason.
They and a few hundred of their friends could register to vote?
Guaranteed physical access to at least one machine per person involved in the conspiracy. Flipping a few key precincts is all you need to have a high probability of changing a US presidential election outcome.
I'm floored that 18% of their respondents think that fixing things in development costs more than doing so anywhere else in the process. Simple fact: the further it goes down the chain, the more it costs to fix. I don't care if you're writing software, building widgets on an assembly line, or building a house, it is ALWAYS cheaper to fix the problem BEFORE you add more labor on top of your mistake.
Of the choices they provide, dev is hands down the cheapest place to fix the problem, unless by "expense" they mean "it's the maintenance team's job to deal with that shit, so it doesn't cost me anything."
You're off by more than an order of magnitude on cost. You're looking at 8-10 billion for a new high-end fab.
He said "between hundreds and thousands of years" not "hundreds of thousands of years."
[citation needed].
You're blaming Rumsfeld for something that began in the 90s. The program was called the Joint Strike Fighter, and the conventional and STOVL requirements were there from day one.
As I noted above, Rumsfeld killed the Crusader, and he also killed Comanche and tried (and failed) to kill the F-22. You can argue that he could have killed it, but laying the blame for this at his feet is, as I said, just partisan hate.
Are you suggesting that Donald Rumsfeld was the architect of a program that was initiated in 1996? I'll grant that his administration chose the X-35 over the X-32, but I don't know why you think the outcome would have been significantly different.
You know, the funny part is that he was widely criticized for killing a multibillion dollar "last war" defense program (the Crusader artillery vehicle).
I'm not the world's biggest fan of Donald Rumsfeld, but the blind hate you're spewing is exactly the reason that we have people lined up behind the worst two candidates for president in recent memory (arguable, in the history of the republic).
I think the problem isn't that this information was used in this way, but that your SSN has become the root password to your identity. These days, it's issued at birth and changing them is a non-trivial task. You use it every time you get a job, and your employer can leak this information. If you get a divorce, your former spouse likely still knows it. Anyone who sees your tax forms has it.
The foolish part is anyone trusting the SSN as an authentication mechanism.
Legacy telco does not seem to be able to build bulletproof networks anymore.
Telephony is the original give nines application. In the past, and outage like this would probably have resulted in congressional hearings, but there have been numerous wide area outages from AT&T and other baby bells over the last few years, and the frequency of these outages just seems to get higher as years go on.