Why so many people believe the election was rigged

[rbhargan]

Why would anyone think that allowing a private company to use secret code to tabulate votes is a good idea? How stupid do you have to be to have faith in that?

 

[jamil]

When referring to Linux vs other operating systems, you are probably correct. But anyone has access to those programs. With the voting programs not quite so much, hence the lawsuits to gain access that have been filed.

Some places use weighting, ranked choice elections.

If voting software is open source, the code is available for anyone to see. And every .org that analyzes software for exploits will be scrutinizing it in a way that proprietary just never could be. This isn’t even controversial.

Weighted or rank-order elections is just a little more complicated to tabulate, but the algorithms should absolutely be open source to ensure the weighting is computed according to the laws that define it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Open source software is heavily scrutinized by experts all over the world in a way proprietary software cannot. Open source software is in use in many critical systems today, and I trust it in our systems way more than I’d trust proprietary software.

I'll take your word for that, seriously. And agree.

If voting software is open source, the code is available for anyone to see. And every .org that analyzes software for exploits will be scrutinizing it in a way that proprietary just never could be. This isn’t even controversial.

Weighted or rank-order elections is just a little more complicated to tabulate, but the algorithms should absolutely be open source to ensure the weighting is computed according to the laws that define it.

I mentioned the rank-ordered voting as to why there would be a need for a system that includes weighing.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If voting software is open source, the code is available for anyone to see. And every .org that analyzes software for exploits will be scrutinizing it in a way that proprietary just never could be. This isn’t even controversial.

Weighted or rank-order elections is just a little more complicated to tabulate, but the algorithms should absolutely be open source to ensure the weighting is computed according to the laws that define it.

Once again I believe you. I'm just having a problem seeing how it's easier to hack a program you don't have access to vs one you do. For most/all software on the open market, yes open source is better. But were not talking about software that is generally available on the open market.

I can go to my local shop and pick up a copy of Linux, Windows, Apple, etc. Can't quite do that with voting software.

 

[DadSmith]

View attachment 341922

Many use Brave instead?

 

[jamil]

I'll take your word for that, seriously. And agree.


I mentioned the rank-ordered voting as to why there would be a need for a system that includes weighing.

Right. And I think that’s a case that especially needs transparency since it’s not just simple tabulation, but requires an algorithm that is defined by the law. I don’t want to just trust some proprietary system that it is per the law, no matter how much testing is done. For one thing, if I see the code, I can determine edge cases that aren’t apparent from the specifications.

 

[jamil]

Once again I believe you. I'm just having a problem seeing how it's easier to hack a program you don't have access to vs one you do. For most/all software on the open market, yes open source is better. But were not talking about software that is generally available on the open market.

I can go to my local shop and pick up a copy of Linux, Windows, Apple, etc. Can't quite do that with voting software.

If it’s open source, yes, it’s available to the open market/general public. You only need to figure out where the repository is. In my world, if it’s java or JVM based, it’ll probably be in maven central. Or regardless, you’ll probably find it on github. Its availability is only obscured by lack of knowledge. Google is your friend for finding technical information. It’s only your enemy for political stuff.

 

[jamil]

Let me out it this way. The people whose job it is to find vulnerabilities in various systems know how to get it, and what to do with it once they have it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

When Dominion staff are worried about machines being accessed from Kosovo, and rather or not it was an authorized user(which would have been allowed) the entire "not internet connected" kind of goes out the window doesn't it. That apparently is just another lie they told to keep the sheep calm.

Hmmm... staffer accessing corporate email (Office 365 with Okta multi-factor authentication) via phone... and the geo-tag of the IP address investigated. (hint: it would be alarming if it had NOT been flaged/investigated)

Not the same as voting machines connected to the internet... at all. Not remotely even close... unless Dominion's Office 365 email service was hosted on Michigan voting machines instead of the Microsoft cloud.

The sources you are relying upon to interpret this for you are unreliable... grossly unreliable to the point of me questioning if they are intentional in this. Or just incompetent/ignorant.

Part of the reason I "don't believe"... because every time I look at the supposed smoking gun/Kracken evidence, it's proven to be bull**** under the even the most basic investigation based upon the evidence THEY present.

 

[Ingomike]

Hmmm... staffer accessing corporate email (Office 365 with Okta multi-factor authentication) via phone... and the geo-tag of the IP address investigated. (hint: it would be alarming if it had NOT been investigated)

Not the same as voting machines connected to the internet... at all. Not remotely even close... unless Dominion's Office 365 email service was hosted on Michigan voting machines instead of the Microsoft cloud.

The sources you are relying upon to interpret this for you are unreliable... grossly unreliable to the point of me questioning if they are intentional in this. Or just incompetent/ignorant.

Part of the reason I "don't believe"... because every time I look at the supposed smoking gun/Kracken evidence, it's proven to be bull**** under the even the most basic investigation based upon the evidence THEY present.

What “sources” would you deem reliable?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

If voting software is open source, the code is available for anyone to see. And every .org that analyzes software for exploits will be scrutinizing it in a way that proprietary just never could be. This isn’t even controversial.

In theory, yes. In reality... not so much.

One of the most used Java utility libraries (log4j) had to have an initial exploit uncovered in the wild to welcome the scrutiny that uncovered... multiple other vulnerabilities.

The Apache Log4j vulnerabilities: A timeline

The Apache Log4j vulnerability has impacted organizations around the globe. Here is a timeline of the key events surrounding the Log4j exploit as they have unfolded.

www.csoonline.com

I lived through this... no fun.

Personally, I'd take a white hat hacker community/conference bounty over "someone in the OS community is looking" every time.

Weighted or rank-order elections is just a little more complicated to tabulate, but the algorithms should absolutely be open source to ensure the weighting is computed according to the laws that define it.

 

[firecadet613]

What “sources” would you deem reliable?

CNN and MSNBC, of course...

 

[Ingomike]

Hmmmm, the tactics seem familiar…

This is What a Rigged Election Looks Like

hotair.com

 

[SheepDog4Life]

What “sources” would you deem reliable?

I didn't rely on any other source to debunk that claim other than the evidence "they" presented with their gross mis-representation... so definitely NOT this one.

This is Trump Tower/Russian Alfa Bank hyperventilating bs.

 

[Ingomike]

I didn't rely on any other source to debunk that claim other than the evidence "they" presented with their gross mis-representation... so definitely NOT this one.

This is Trump Tower/Russian Alfa Bank hyperventilating bs.

Do you believe any whistleblowers?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Do you believe any whistleblowers?

Any? Yes, if there stories and facts add up and are independently verifiable.

All? No, not by a long shot... just two examples:




Which has what to do with the leaked IP addresses/geo-tagging purported to be a smoking gun of Michigan voting machines connected to the internet? (but in fact was corp email service)

 

[jamil]

In theory, yes. In reality... not so much.

One of the most used Java utility libraries (log4j) had to have an initial exploit uncovered in the wild to welcome the scrutiny that uncovered... multiple other vulnerabilities.

The Apache Log4j vulnerabilities: A timeline

The Apache Log4j vulnerability has impacted organizations around the globe. Here is a timeline of the key events surrounding the Log4j exploit as they have unfolded.

www.csoonline.com

I lived through this... no fun.

Personally, I'd take a white hat hacker community/conference bounty over "someone in the OS community is looking" every time.

We dealt with log4j too. Nice thing about open source software is that when vulnerabilities are found there are lots of CI/CD tools to continuously scan for libraries that contain them. I’d trust open source voting software over proprietary any day. And not just because of being more robust. Does it tally correctly?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

We dealt with log4j too. Nice thing about open source software is that when vulnerabilities are found there are lots of CI/CD tools to continuously scan for libraries that contain them. I’d trust open source voting software over proprietary any day.

And all of the automated vulnerability, library dependency, etc scan tools are available and should be standard practice/gates to proprietary software as well.

Having said that, open source is no panacea... some OS has broad and lasting community support, other projects, that support lapses and those frameworks/libraries/etc increasingly become proprietary to keep relevant or must be re-factored out.

Not all OS has a retains rebust community support.

And not just because of being more robust. Does it tally correctly?

I must be dense... how can it not without being immediately apparent?

Each of these voting terminals prints a paper man/machine readable ballot which is then scanned at the drop box ('member the issue in Maricopa AZ where the ballots wouldn't scan for a couple hours?) There is literally a 'paper trail' as well as the equivalent of 'double entry accounting'... triple actually for in person voting... signed in voters, voters/votes at each terminal, the paper ballots. To 'stuff' the in person voting, you've got three checkpoints to cover.

And yes, i review my printed paper ballot... don't you?

 

[jamil]

And all of the automated vulnerability, library dependency, etc scan tools are available and should be standard practice/gates to proprietary software as well.

It is where I work. I don't write open source software. I write proprietary software. We use open source third party libraries and frameworks, almost exclusively. Our code is scanned for bugs, potential vulnerabilities, and use of library versions that have known vulnerabilities.

Having said that, open source is no panacea... some OS has broad and lasting community support, other projects, that support lapses and those frameworks/libraries/etc increasingly become proprietary to keep relevant or must be re-factored out.

No such claim has been made. But it's as close as we get. Sometimes there isn't an open source solution. But there should be. We do use some proprietary libraries. But we don't have transparency in those unless we reverse engineer it, which is a violation of terms of use. We trust it follows their published specifications.

Not all OS has a retains rebust community support.

Of course not. No one said otherwise. But, for most common tasks, OS has something robust with wide support. When we decide to use an open source technology, we have a process to vet it. It has to go through approvals. It has to be on the list of approved technologies. One of those considerations, of course, is active, ongoing updating. If activity on a project falls off, that technology falls off the list.

I must be dense... how can it not without being immediately apparent?

I wouldn't rule out the former.

Seriously, if I wrote code to tally votes, I think I could make it very difficult to detect that it's favoring one party over another, while still passing acceptance testing. Especially with something more complex like rank order voting. As long as I make it pass acceptance testing.

Each of these voting terminals prints a paper man/machine readable ballot which is then scanned at the drop box ('member the issue in Maricopa AZ where the ballots wouldn't scan for a couple hours?) There is literally a 'paper trail' as well as the equivalent of 'double entry accounting'... triple actually for in person voting... signed in voters, voters/votes at each terminal, the paper ballots. To 'stuff' the in person voting, you've got three checkpoints to cover.

Of course there's the paper trail. And yeah, it needs to be a team effort.

And yes, i review my printed paper ballot... don't you?

Is that really a serious question? Or are you trying to introduce a little passive aggression?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

It is where I work. I don't write open source software. I write proprietary software. We use open source third party libraries and frameworks, almost exclusively. Our code is scanned for bugs, potential vulnerabilities, and use of library versions that have known vulnerabilities.

Ditto.

No such claim has been made. But it's as close as we get. Sometimes there isn't an open source solution. But there should be. We do use some proprietary libraries. But we don't have transparency in those unless we reverse engineer it, which is a violation of terms of use. We trust it follows their published specifications.

And I would suggest that voting system software falls into this... more on my search of OS voting s/w below.

Of course not. No one said otherwise. But, for most common tasks, OS has something robust with wide support. When we decide to use an open source technology, we have a process to vet it. It has to go through approvals. It has to be on the list of approved technologies. One of those considerations, of course, is active, ongoing updating. If activity on a project falls off, that technology falls off the list.

Yup and the presumption is that voting is a common task and has (or should have) a well-supported OS community behind it. My limited search yielded the Open Voting Consortium. Their support site is not whatchumitecall trust-inspiring.

OVC website

Perhaps there is a widely supported alternative? My limited Google/Wiki searching indicates that the only time it's been used in practice, as opposed to pilot, was Choctaw County, Mississippi.

Does not sound ready-for-primetime to me.

If this is a debate about what should be versus options that exist, then yeah.

I wouldn't rule out the former.

Nor would I, hence the reason I offered it, lol!

Seriously, if I wrote code to tally votes, I think I could make it very difficult to detect that it's favoring one party over another, while still passing acceptance testing. Especially with something more complex like rank order voting. As long as I make it pass acceptance testing.

Ignoring rank order voting - IMO it's a solution in search of a problem, and the wrong solution at that - I'd say you need better QA's and better SMEs/Product Owners to define the acceptance criteria!

Whether willful or negligent (bug), the MVP for voting systems (like many other processing systems) is 100%. Add in whitebox testing and code reviews - yes we still do them - and you should be fired promptly on your first attempt.

Of course there's the paper trail. And yeah, it needs to be a team effort.

I think you're making light work here...

Hacking voting systems from afar if connected to the internet (they weren't) absolutely could happen as could happen with ANY connected system. The only 100% sure way to avoid it is to disconnect (and screen, scan, etc for trojans, malware, etc).

BUT, doing so without being detected (non-technically detected, not network/firewall/pen-alerts, etc) is not possible as far as I can see. Where did all of those electronic votes come from in excess of voters signed in? Where are the paper ballots with judges initials on the sleeve? Or is someone picking them up off the floor, lol?

Mail-in ballots... whole different story.

Is that really a serious question? Or are you trying to introduce a little passive aggression?

Perhaps I should have specifically phrased it with the indefinite "you" as in "doesn't everybody?" Which we know the answer to that is no.