Discussion:
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Add Reply
BOZ
2017-05-05 23:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde


Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.

The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
election was NOT HACKED.” (Emphasis in original.) It added:
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”

The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.

Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
coming-out party in the 2000 Democratic primary in Arizona:

In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.

The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.

How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?

Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
reported on November 18, 1960:

Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.

The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.

With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht told The New American:

Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.

Engelbrecht added:

Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.

Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.

Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?

Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.

University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
Matt Bernard were quick to point out in their presentation Recount 2016:
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.

Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.

Was There Tampering With the Totals?

This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.

Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.

The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.

For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."

While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Robert Harris
2017-05-07 00:10:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
John McAdams
2017-05-07 00:13:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
I ban posts that, just out of the blue, oppose or support Trump. Or
for that matter, Clinton.

But often somebody sneaks in a post about Trump under the guise of
talking about the assassination.

You need to look back at what I've approved. There are a lot of posts
about the 2016 election, pro- and anti-Trump, on the newsgroup.

So I approved this one.

Did you object when I let Mainframe blame the Trump victory on
Gerrymandering?
Post by Robert Harris
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-08 20:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
I ban posts that, just out of the blue, oppose or support Trump. Or
for that matter, Clinton.
You ban posts that conflict with your political beliefs. I'm sure that if
I praised Trump for passing health care you would let it slide. In my past
messages I had to sneak Trump in by stipulating that he was not the grassy
knoll shooter.
Post by John McAdams
But often somebody sneaks in a post about Trump under the guise of
talking about the assassination.
You need to look back at what I've approved. There are a lot of posts
about the 2016 election, pro- and anti-Trump, on the newsgroup.
So I approved this one.
Did you object when I let Mainframe blame the Trump victory on
Gerrymandering?
Post by Robert Harris
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton?s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump?s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ?The November 2016
?No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ?No
voter registration data was modified or deleted? and,
?Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.?
The NASS report cited the states? ?highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process? as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting?s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks ? denial of service and password-guessing
? all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump?s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states ? but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn?t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones? Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska?s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don?t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article ?American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2017-05-08 01:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
I posted it because of "1960 when there were credible doubts about the
election of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson."
bigdog
2017-05-08 21:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
I posted it because of "1960 when there were credible doubts about the
election of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson."
That was the year the Republicans accused the Democrats of cheating better
than them in Illinois.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 00:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Robert Harris
.john, when you banned posts about Trump because they were off topic,
did you actually mean to just ban posts that did not support him?
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.??? The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
The NASS report cited the states??? ???highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process??? as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting???s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks ??? denial of service and password-guessing
??? all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump???s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states ??? but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn???t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones??? Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska???s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don???t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article ???American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
I posted it because of "1960 when there were credible doubts about the
election of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson."
I can confirm that there was no Russian hacking of the Presidential
election in 1960. Yes, there was tons of voter fraud. Dead people voting,
some people voting 5 times and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake votes.
So much that Nixon wanted to take it to court, but Eisenhower talked him
out of it for the good of the country. I have often asked how things would
have happened if Nixon had been elected. How would he have handled the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Would he have used nuclear bombs? Or maybe there
would never have been a Cuban Missile Crisis because his invasion of Cuba
in 1961 would not have been at the Bay of Pigs and he would have used US
jets and bombers and then sent in the Marines.
claviger
2017-05-10 15:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
I can confirm that there was no Russian hacking of the Presidential
election in 1960. Yes, there was tons of voter fraud. Dead people voting,
some people voting 5 times and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake votes.
So much that Nixon wanted to take it to court, but Eisenhower talked him
out of it for the good of the country. I have often asked how things would
have happened if Nixon had been elected. How would he have handled the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Would he have used nuclear bombs? Or maybe there
would never have been a Cuban Missile Crisis because his invasion of Cuba
in 1961 would not have been at the Bay of Pigs and he would have used US
jets and bombers and then sent in the Marines.
Yes, all the hacking was homegrown right here in the good ole USA.
Chicago hacked the winning margin for the Democratic candidate. I doubt
JFK ever knew but what an exciting time when he and Jackie were in the
Whitehouse. It turned out to be a good thing that Castro stayed in power
long enough to prove beyond any doubt that Marxist economies don't work.
The Cuban economy was a disaster the whole time Castro was in power.
Even the Soviets gave up on Cuba. A Castro copycat wannabe just ruined
beautiful Venezuela in less than a decade in power.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 13:21:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I can confirm that there was no Russian hacking of the Presidential
election in 1960. Yes, there was tons of voter fraud. Dead people voting,
some people voting 5 times and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake votes.
So much that Nixon wanted to take it to court, but Eisenhower talked him
out of it for the good of the country. I have often asked how things would
have happened if Nixon had been elected. How would he have handled the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Would he have used nuclear bombs? Or maybe there
would never have been a Cuban Missile Crisis because his invasion of Cuba
in 1961 would not have been at the Bay of Pigs and he would have used US
jets and bombers and then sent in the Marines.
Yes, all the hacking was homegrown right here in the good ole USA.
Chicago hacked the winning margin for the Democratic candidate. I doubt
JFK ever knew but what an exciting time when he and Jackie were in the
Whitehouse. It turned out to be a good thing that Castro stayed in power
long enough to prove beyond any doubt that Marxist economies don't work.
You needed Castro to tell you that? And the US leading boycotts,
sanctions and sabotage had nothing to do with it?
Post by claviger
The Cuban economy was a disaster the whole time Castro was in power.
Even the Soviets gave up on Cuba. A Castro copycat wannabe just ruined
beautiful Venezuela in less than a decade in power.
It always does.
claviger
2017-05-12 19:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I can confirm that there was no Russian hacking of the Presidential
election in 1960. Yes, there was tons of voter fraud. Dead people voting,
some people voting 5 times and stuffing of ballot boxes with fake votes.
So much that Nixon wanted to take it to court, but Eisenhower talked him
out of it for the good of the country. I have often asked how things would
have happened if Nixon had been elected. How would he have handled the
Cuban Missile Crisis? Would he have used nuclear bombs? Or maybe there
would never have been a Cuban Missile Crisis because his invasion of Cuba
in 1961 would not have been at the Bay of Pigs and he would have used US
jets and bombers and then sent in the Marines.
Yes, all the hacking was homegrown right here in the good ole USA.
Chicago hacked the winning margin for the Democratic candidate. I doubt
JFK ever knew but what an exciting time when he and Jackie were in the
Whitehouse. It turned out to be a good thing that Castro stayed in power
long enough to prove beyond any doubt that Marxist economies don't work.
You needed Castro to tell you that? And the US leading boycotts,
sanctions and sabotage had nothing to do with it?
Where is the international law that requires a nation to trade with a
bellicose enemy?

The sabotage was unnecessary based on inherent defects of Marxist
economies. I believe JFK finally shut that part down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Cuban economy was a disaster the whole time Castro was in power.
Even the Soviets gave up on Cuba. A Castro copycat wannabe just ruined
beautiful Venezuela in less than a decade in power.
It always does.
Marxist Socialism reduces economic productivity to the lowest common
denominator.

In Venezuela they are down to 4 hours a day of electricity. That alone
cut their economy in half. Large companies are considering moving to more
stable countries.

There used to be a commercial "When your out of Schlitz, you're out of
beer!" In Venezuela that has become a reality, not a slogan.
https://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2016/04/25/polar-venezuela-halt-beer-production/
mainframetech
2017-05-07 00:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-07 21:55:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.

Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.

That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 01:16:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
False. They left their fingerprints. Cyrillic alphabet and code they had
used before.
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
You need to watch White Collar.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
No cover-up lasts forever.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
So you want us to reveal classified information so that you can use it
to do your own hacking?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
No.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
No hacking of the polls was successful.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
She won the popular vote because more Americans like her than Trump.
Live with it.
Post by bigdog
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
mainframetech
2017-05-09 14:31:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work. In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
bigdog
2017-05-10 16:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century. How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 02:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
Straw Man argument. No one claimed that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
So you want us to tell you how the Russians hack so that you can do it
yourself? Do you have a super-computer in your basement?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
Drivel. No one said hundreds of machines were hacked.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
It is more important to know how many African-Americans were denied
their Constitutional right to vote by the corrupt Republicans.
You just admitted that they are Americans, so why should you be allowed
to deny them their right to vote just because they are black>?
Post by bigdog
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
Nonsense. People changed their minds after Comey scared them.
Post by bigdog
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
Trump was surprised and unprepared when he won.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
Possibilities, not theories.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
They can be hacked. But they weren't and no votes were changed.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
It's not the chip. It's the software. But you can install a bogus chip
physically, just as they used to stuff ballots physically.
Post by bigdog
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
The computers know. You only want to shift the results within the margin
of error.
Post by bigdog
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century. How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
Votes have to be collated.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Bipartisan? Is that a joke?
Republican is not bipartisan.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
So what? Eventually the votes have to be collated and reported. You can
just intercept that process and change the results.
mainframetech
2017-05-11 17:42:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both. Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering. Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them.. They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made. If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.

When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.

Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want, for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election. I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking as involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored, and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
WRONG as usual! I've given complete instructions for determining if
vote counting was hacked. You may not have understood them, but they were
complete.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
WRONG! And I've shown you above how those machines can be hacked.
They can be hacked BEFORE certification, and during certification they
will perform normally. They are then sealed until the election, which is
on a specific date, and when voting starts for real, the hacked code takes
over and modifies counts as it was programmed. When voting is done, the
hacked code erases itself, leaving the normal code, and no one is the
wiser.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
Of course! It is believed that it has already happened and let a guy
become a senator when he wasn't favored and was unknown. By changing the
base chip, all chips made from that model will be changed and inserting
them in all machines hacks all machines in effect.

And remember, you've been handed a load of crap if someone tells you
that all machines are now protected. Many machines all over the US are
still old types for lack of money, and they are easily hacked. there have
been many demonstrations by computer science classes from colleges
demonstrating hacking of election machines.
Post by bigdog
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century.
WRONG! And you say you're a programmer. Sheesh! How did the US
hackers know they were hacking the Iranian centrifuges? It lasted for a
years or more and slowed them down to nothing in their project to make
nuclear devices.

https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/

That sample is not the method I described above, but it's one more
method that can be used. All computing machinery identifies itself by
some code or reaction to polling from the CPU or other element. Many give
back information about themselves when polled, when a call goes out for
devices to report.
Post by bigdog
How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
WRONG! Don't be so foolish. You've already tried that escape and I've
answered. The machine has to have a list of its 'slots' and which count
goes to which candidate, otherwise you'd get counts added to all the wrong
candidates. The machine HAS to know which slot to add to when a vote
comes in. So your rotating method doesn't help anything.
Post by bigdog
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
WRONG Again. You don't seem to have even the slightest programming
knowledge at all. Hacked code can be put into a chip and stay quiet and
not take any action during testing. And the election will be on a
specific date, which can then 'wake up' the hacked code to do its thing.
At the close of voting, the hacked code then erases itself and it's all
done.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
WRONG! See above where I answered that for the second time.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-12 00:41:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
Post by mainframetech
Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them..
So how could these hackers know that the major party candidates in 2016
would be Trump and Hillary and how did they know which candidate would be
assigned to which slot on the voting machines, especially since that slot
gets rotated from one machine to the next. This is where your lack of
specifics gets exposed.
Post by mainframetech
They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made.
To do that, one would have to know which candidate is going to be assigned
to which slot at the time the chips were hacked. How could they possibly
know that, especially since the position of the candidates on each machine
is varied from one machine to the next?
Post by mainframetech
If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.
Unless the hackers knew which candidate was assigned to which slot, they
couldn't possibly know which slot to take votes from and give to another
slot.
Post by mainframetech
When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.
All this presupposes the hackers knew which candidate was in which slot,
something they couldn't possibly know prior to the boards of elections
testing the machines and then assigning the candidates to the specific
slots on the machines, slots that vary from one machine to the next.
Post by mainframetech
Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
I've described the safeguards that are in effect to thwart your
theoretical hackers. If you can explain how your hackers could get around
those safeguards, I will be impressed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
What you describe couldn't defeat the safeguards because it requires the
hackers to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want,
Because you can't.
Post by mainframetech
for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election.
You come up with some of your funniest lines when you get backed into a
corner.
Post by mainframetech
I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
You still haven't explained how a hacker could know which slots to take
votes from and give to a candidate in another slot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking as involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored,
What about the ones who lie?
Post by mainframetech
and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
How would you know how many people would lie. Lots of people don't think
it's anybody's business whom they voted for. And they are right.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
WRONG as usual! I've given complete instructions for determining if
vote counting was hacked. You may not have understood them, but they were
complete.
As usual, those instructions were FUBAR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
WRONG! And I've shown you above how those machines can be hacked.
They can be hacked BEFORE certification, and during certification they
will perform normally. They are then sealed until the election, which is
on a specific date, and when voting starts for real, the hacked code takes
over and modifies counts as it was programmed. When voting is done, the
hacked code erases itself, leaving the normal code, and no one is the
wiser.
Same old question. How do they hackers know which slot to take votes from
and which slot to add votes to?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
Of course! It is believed that it has already happened and let a guy
become a senator when he wasn't favored and was unknown.
So the hackers knew before the machines ever left the factory which slot
that senator's name would be assigned to on all the various machines. How
could they know that?
Post by mainframetech
By changing the
base chip, all chips made from that model will be changed and inserting
them in all machines hacks all machines in effect.
So let's take this past election as an example. Each county decides what
method of voting will be used (machine, paper ballot, punch card, etc). If
the choose a machine each county chooses which manufacturer they will buy
their machines from and that can vary from one county to the next. In
addition those machines get used over and over, election after election.
So let's say my county purchased new machines right after the 2008
elections. If the machines were hacked at the factory, that would have
been done in late 2008 or early 2009 prior to them being delivered to my
county's board of election. In a typical year there would two elections a
year. Prior to each election, the machines are tested. So if they have
already been hacked, that means in each election, the chip is taking votes
from one slot and giving them to another. That could mean in one election
it could be stealing votes from on school board candidate and giving it to
another. In the next election it could be taking votes in favor of a tax
levy and changing them to votes against the levy. Each election different
candidates or issues are assigned to the various slots. In 2009 when you
imagine this hacking was done, how would the hackers know to change votes
for Hillary in slot 1 to Trump votes in slot 2? If that was done, how
would that not be revealed during testing? If that was done, that would
mean on the next machine where Trump is in slot 1 and Hillary is in slot
2, it would be stealing votes from Trump and giving them to Hillary.
Post by mainframetech
And remember, you've been handed a load of crap if someone tells you
that all machines are now protected. Many machines all over the US are
still old types for lack of money, and they are easily hacked. there have
been many demonstrations by computer science classes from colleges
demonstrating hacking of election machines.
Well if there have been many, you should have no trouble coming up with
one or two specific ones.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century.
WRONG! And you say you're a programmer. Sheesh! How did the US
hackers know they were hacking the Iranian centrifuges? It lasted for a
years or more and slowed them down to nothing in their project to make
nuclear devices.
How did the hackers at the factory know when they hacked the chip which
candidate would be assigned to which slot during the 2016 Presidential
election? That's a vital piece of information they would need to steal
votes from one candidate and give to another. That's the $64,000 question.
I'll bet you don't have a $64,000 answer.
Post by mainframetech
https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/
That sample is not the method I described above, but it's one more
method that can be used. All computing machinery identifies itself by
some code or reaction to polling from the CPU or other element. Many give
back information about themselves when polled, when a call goes out for
devices to report.
Post by bigdog
How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
WRONG! Don't be so foolish. You've already tried that escape and I've
answered. The machine has to have a list of its 'slots' and which count
goes to which candidate, otherwise you'd get counts added to all the wrong
candidates. The machine HAS to know which slot to add to when a vote
comes in. So your rotating method doesn't help anything.
All the machine knows is which slot the voter voted for. The machine
doesn't know which candidate any of the slots are assigned to. In that
regard they are no different than the mechanical voting machines used for
over a century in this country.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
WRONG Again. You don't seem to have even the slightest programming
knowledge at all. Hacked code can be put into a chip and stay quiet and
not take any action during testing. And the election will be on a
specific date, which can then 'wake up' the hacked code to do its thing.
At the close of voting, the hacked code then erases itself and it's all
done.
So if a machine was manufactured in 2010, you think it had a piece of code
in the chip which would tell it in 2016 to steal votes from slot 1 and
give it to the candidate in slot 2 even though no one would know at that
time who was going to be in slot 1 and who was going to be in slot 2.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
WRONG! See above where I answered that for the second time.
The one question you have consistently dodge is how the hackers could
possibly know which slot to steal votes from and give to a candidate in
another slot. Without that knowledge, there is no way to hack the machines
to steal votes unless you want to do it blindly without knowing who you
are stealing votes from and who you are giving them to.
mainframetech
2017-05-13 02:02:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
WRONG again! Polls taken at the exiting from voting are better and
closer to the vote itself, and more correct. And it comes from the voters
themselves.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
WRONG, and that has been explained to you. Hacker code can be present
in the machine and not take any action until the date of the election or
some other trigger. Until then, the hacker code remains dormant. It will
test just fine like the original code. When the election starts, the
trigger goes off and the hacker code takes over until the end of the
election, when the hacker code deletes itself, leaving nothing to find.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them.
So how could these hackers know that the major party candidates in 2016
would be Trump and Hillary and how did they know which candidate would be
assigned to which slot on the voting machines, especially since that slot
gets rotated from one machine to the next. This is where your lack of
specifics gets exposed.
Why do you keep thinking the Trump election had the voting machines
hacked? There's no proof of that. Each machine has to know which buckets
are for which vote. therefore the answer is already in the machine. It
doesn't matter which slot is assigned in any one machine, as long as the
machine knows which slot a vote goes into, the hacker code can put the
vote where it wants for whoever it was programmed for. That's the fourth
time I've explained that, so you're entering your repetitive phase where
you have no clue and just keep asking the same questions over and over.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made.
To do that, one would have to know which candidate is going to be assigned
to which slot at the time the chips were hacked. How could they possibly
know that, especially since the position of the candidates on each machine
is varied from one machine to the next?
WRONG! You're asking the same question you just asked a few lines
above. I'm not explaining it a fifth time.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.
Unless the hackers knew which candidate was assigned to which slot, they
couldn't possibly know which slot to take votes from and give to another
slot.
WRONG! Don't start that rotating slot crap again. That will be the
6th time. You really just can't understand about computers, can you?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.
All this presupposes the hackers knew which candidate was in which slot,
something they couldn't possibly know prior to the boards of elections
testing the machines and then assigning the candidates to the specific
slots on the machines, slots that vary from one machine to the next.
WRONG! That's the seventh time you are getting into the rotating slot
foolishness. See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
I've described the safeguards that are in effect to thwart your
theoretical hackers. If you can explain how your hackers could get around
those safeguards, I will be impressed.
WRONG! I've already done that with your rotating slots, and your
certified sealed machines. So now you must be impressed! But remember,
many hackers have shown the holes in the machines up to now. And many
states can't afford to buy new machines yet, the cost is too great, so
they're making do with the old easily hacked machines. Of course you're
not worried, since you know they're impervious to hacking.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
What you describe couldn't defeat the safeguards because it requires the
hackers to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.
WRONG! And now you're going to ask me for the eighth time about
rotating slots, aren't you? That was answered above. That the ninth
time.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want,
Because you can't.
Post by mainframetech
for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election.
You come up with some of your funniest lines when you get backed into a
corner.
I've given answers that any average programmer could understand.
You're not a programmer, and so it makes no sense to you. And you think
I've left something out, because you just can't understand what's been
said already.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
You still haven't explained how a hacker could know which slots to take
votes from and give to a candidate in another slot.
That was asked nine times so far, and explained by me at least 4 of
those times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking was involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored,
What about the ones who lie?
Post by mainframetech
and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
How would you know how many people would lie. Lots of people don't think
it's anybody's business whom they voted for. And they are right.
WRONG! You've arrived at the point where you know you're in the
corner and have started your nitpicking phase. It won't help. The exit
polls tell the tale if there's hacking of the vote counts. For further
elucidation I suggest to examine the website of Bev Harris,
www.blackboxvoting.org
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
WRONG as usual! I've given complete instructions for determining if
vote counting was hacked. You may not have understood them, but they were
complete.
As usual, those instructions were FUBAR.
LOL! Only because you weren't able to understand them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
WRONG! And I've shown you above how those machines can be hacked.
They can be hacked BEFORE certification, and during certification they
will perform normally. They are then sealed until the election, which is
on a specific date, and when voting starts for real, the hacked code takes
over and modifies counts as it was programmed. When voting is done, the
hacked code erases itself, leaving the normal code, and no one is the
wiser.
Same old question. How do they hackers know which slot to take votes from
and which slot to add votes to?
WRONG! That's the 10th time you've asked that. Se above for the
answer.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
Of course! It is believed that it has already happened and let a guy
become a senator when he wasn't favored and was unknown.
So the hackers knew before the machines ever left the factory which slot
that senator's name would be assigned to on all the various machines. How
could they know that?
WRONG! Your silly little rotating slots game wasn't used back then,
but the senator owned the company that made the election machines in his
state. It is believed he had his own people do the hacking of the chips.
It was early in the electronic voting machine period.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By changing the
base chip, all chips made from that model will be changed and inserting
them in all machines hacks all machines in effect.
So let's take this past election as an example. Each county decides what
method of voting will be used (machine, paper ballot, punch card, etc). If
the choose a machine each county chooses which manufacturer they will buy
their machines from and that can vary from one county to the next.
WRONG! Often a state buys machines, and the county just uses what they
are given.
Post by bigdog
In
addition those machines get used over and over, election after election.
So let's say my county purchased new machines right after the 2008
elections. If the machines were hacked at the factory, that would have
been done in late 2008 or early 2009 prior to them being delivered to my
county's board of election. In a typical year there would two elections a
year. Prior to each election, the machines are tested. So if they have
already been hacked, that means in each election, the chip is taking votes
from one slot and giving them to another.
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell you were ever a programmer. When
machines are manufactured they are made with a method to modify them
easily for each election. That is often by inserting chips with the right
information for the upcoming election in them. Each time an election
comes up, someone has to make a chip or board with information on it, and
probably patch code for any errors discovered since the last usage. By
adding code to them at that time, you've accomplished hacking all the
machines for that election.
Post by bigdog
That could mean in one election
it could be stealing votes from on school board candidate and giving it to
another. In the next election it could be taking votes in favor of a tax
levy and changing them to votes against the levy. Each election different
candidates or issues are assigned to the various slots. In 2009 when you
imagine this hacking was done, how would the hackers know to change votes
for Hillary in slot 1 to Trump votes in slot 2?
WRONG! I don't imagine any hacking has been done, but the method I've
outlined here will handle every election.
Post by bigdog
If that was done, how
would that not be revealed during testing? If that was done, that would
mean on the next machine where Trump is in slot 1 and Hillary is in slot
2, it would be stealing votes from Trump and giving them to Hillary.
WRONG! That's the eleventh time you've asked that. See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, you've been handed a load of crap if someone tells you
that all machines are now protected. Many machines all over the US are
still old types for lack of money, and they are easily hacked. there have
been many demonstrations by computer science classes from colleges
demonstrating hacking of election machines.
Well if there have been many, you should have no trouble coming up with
one or two specific ones.
You mean specific hacks? I've done that already. If you didn't
understand, them as I said, you were never a programmer.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century.
WRONG! And you say you're a programmer. Sheesh! How did the US
hackers know they were hacking the Iranian centrifuges? It lasted for a
years or more and slowed them down to nothing in their project to make
nuclear devices.
How did the hackers at the factory know when they hacked the chip which
candidate would be assigned to which slot during the 2016 Presidential
election? That's a vital piece of information they would need to steal
votes from one candidate and give to another. That's the $64,000 question.
I'll bet you don't have a $64,000 answer.
WRONG! That's the twelfth time you've asked about the rotating slots.
See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/
That sample is not the method I described above, but it's one more
method that can be used. All computing machinery identifies itself by
some code or reaction to polling from the CPU or other element. Many give
back information about themselves when polled, when a call goes out for
devices to report. On PCs it is handled by the USB chains or plug 'n play, or you need to specify the devices that are attached in the I/O section, which you can get to during boot up.
Post by bigdog
How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
WRONG! Don't be so foolish. You've already tried that escape and I've
answered. The machine has to have a list of its 'slots' and which count
goes to which candidate, otherwise you'd get counts added to all the wrong
candidates. The machine HAS to know which slot to add to when a vote
comes in. So your rotating method doesn't help anything.
All the machine knows is which slot the voter voted for. The machine
doesn't know which candidate any of the slots are assigned to. In that
regard they are no different than the mechanical voting machines used for
over a century in this country.
A voter doesn't vote for a slot, they vote for a name that is assigned
to some slot internally. They see the name and they hit the button or
touch the icon. That is recognized by the machine and the machine has to
know which slot is for which candidate so it can add it to the right
'slot'. That knowledge is there for the hacker code to use in determining
which 'slot' to add to incorrectly. Now that's the thirteenth time, and
the fifth time I've explained that the rotating slots of yours aren't
going ot work against hacker code.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
In addition, if the somehow the chip had been hacked, that would be
discovered during field testing of the machines which is done before each
election to make sure each machine is accurate totaling the votes.
WRONG Again. You don't seem to have even the slightest programming
knowledge at all. Hacked code can be put into a chip and stay quiet and
not take any action during testing. And the election will be on a
specific date, which can then 'wake up' the hacked code to do its thing.
At the close of voting, the hacked code then erases itself and it's all
done.
So if a machine was manufactured in 2010, you think it had a piece of code
in the chip which would tell it in 2016 to steal votes from slot 1 and
give it to the candidate in slot 2 even though no one would know at that
time who was going to be in slot 1 and who was going to be in slot 2.
WRONG! Stop with the stupid slots! And before any election, hacker
code has to be added to the chip to change votes from one name to another.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
By hacking the original chips inserted in each machine before the
testing, you can have them (by timer, or other gimmick) act properly to
pass any testing, then based on the timer change to the hacked code,
change to the hacked code and change the vote counts. When done and when
the close command is issued, have the hacked code delete itself and
restore everything to what it should be.
I just explained to you that they don't know which slot any candidate is
going to be assigned to on any given machine. If the chips were tampered
with, the field testing would reveal that the machine is not accurately
recording the votes.
WRONG! See above where I answered that for the second time.
The one question you have consistently dodge is how the hackers could
possibly know which slot to steal votes from and give to a candidate in
another slot. Without that knowledge, there is no way to hack the machines
to steal votes unless you want to do it blindly without knowing who you
are stealing votes from and who you are giving them to.
Consistently I've heard that question from you about 13 times. I've
answered it above about 5 times. That will have to do. Only a programmer
would understand my answer anyway.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-14 02:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
WRONG again! Polls taken at the exiting from voting are better and
closer to the vote itself, and more correct. And it comes from the voters
themselves.
It's still just a sample of the electorate and unless that sample
accurately reflects the electorate, the results will still be skewed. If a
group is oversampled or undersampled the results will be less than
accurate. In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, people were getting early
exit polling data from the Drudge Report website which seemed to indicate
Bush was going to lose both elections. What many failed to understand was
they were looking at just raw data which didn't accurately reflect the
electorate. Woman are more likely to vote early in the day and since woman
vote more for Democrats than men that skewed the numbers toward the
Democrats. A poll can only be as accurate as the model and if the model
weights various demographics inaccurately, the results won't be accurate.
That's way pollsters generally claim they are only accurate to plus or
minus 3%. That's a 6% swing. And you want to use such data to judge the
accuracy of the actual voting. Amazing.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
WRONG, and that has been explained to you. Hacker code can be present
in the machine and not take any action until the date of the election or
some other trigger. Until then, the hacker code remains dormant. It will
test just fine like the original code. When the election starts, the
trigger goes off and the hacker code takes over until the end of the
election, when the hacker code deletes itself, leaving nothing to find.
So tell us how the machines could be hacked at the factory for an election
in the future when the candidates aren't even known at that point.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them.
So how could these hackers know that the major party candidates in 2016
would be Trump and Hillary and how did they know which candidate would be
assigned to which slot on the voting machines, especially since that slot
gets rotated from one machine to the next. This is where your lack of
specifics gets exposed.
Why do you keep thinking the Trump election had the voting machines
hacked?
I don't. That seems to be what you are suggesting.
Post by mainframetech
There's no proof of that. Each machine has to know which buckets
are for which vote.
No, the machines don't know that any more than the old mechanical voting
machines knew that. They just count the number of votes for each slot. The
boards of election know which candidate was assigned to each slot and
therefore know who the votes in a particular slot belong to. The machine
is just a generic counter.
Post by mainframetech
therefore the answer is already in the machine. It
doesn't matter which slot is assigned in any one machine, as long as the
machine knows which slot a vote goes into, the hacker code can put the
vote where it wants for whoever it was programmed for. That's the fourth
time I've explained that, so you're entering your repetitive phase where
you have no clue and just keep asking the same questions over and over.
Here's where your lack of understanding of how the machines work gets
exposed. The machines are used from one election to the next and don't
need to be reprogramed. A template is placed over the screen indicating
the candidate that belongs to a particular slot and when the voter presses
the button next to that candidates name, the vote gets recorded in that
slot. Some of the newer touch screen machines actually put the candidates
names on the screen but that is done by the boards of election which
precludes a machine from being hacked at the factory to steal votes from
one candidate and give it to the other.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made.
To do that, one would have to know which candidate is going to be assigned
to which slot at the time the chips were hacked. How could they possibly
know that, especially since the position of the candidates on each machine
is varied from one machine to the next?
WRONG! You're asking the same question you just asked a few lines
above. I'm not explaining it a fifth time.
Your explanations the first for times failed to answer that question.
Hackers need knowledge to steal votes for a candidate, knowledge no one
could possibly have when the chips are installed at the factory and
shipped to the various counties that will use them.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.
Unless the hackers knew which candidate was assigned to which slot, they
couldn't possibly know which slot to take votes from and give to another
slot.
WRONG! Don't start that rotating slot crap again. That will be the
6th time. You really just can't understand about computers, can you?
Rotating slots is not crap. It is they way it is done in Ohio. I don't
have definitive information that it is done that way in all states, but I
would bet Ohio is not unique. Whether the slots are rotated or not, your
theoretical hackers still would need to know which slot a given candidate
is assigned to so they can add or subtract votes from that candidate.
Those slots are assigned by the boards of election whether they rotate the
candidates or not so no one hacking the chip at the factory could know
which slots to tamper with.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.
All this presupposes the hackers knew which candidate was in which slot,
something they couldn't possibly know prior to the boards of elections
testing the machines and then assigning the candidates to the specific
slots on the machines, slots that vary from one machine to the next.
WRONG! That's the seventh time you are getting into the rotating slot
foolishness. See above.
I'll keep bringing it up until you can answer how hackers at the factory
could know which slot to steal votes from or to add votes to.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
I've described the safeguards that are in effect to thwart your
theoretical hackers. If you can explain how your hackers could get around
those safeguards, I will be impressed.
WRONG! I've already done that with your rotating slots, and your
certified sealed machines.
No you haven't. Not even close. You've never explained how hackers could
know when the chips are installed at the factory which slots need to be
tampered with to steal votes for a particular candidate, especially since
they couldn't even know who the candidates will be. What you are
suggesting isn't remotely possible to do at the factory.
Post by mainframetech
So now you must be impressed! But remember,
many hackers have shown the holes in the machines up to now. And many
states can't afford to buy new machines yet, the cost is too great, so
they're making do with the old easily hacked machines. Of course you're
not worried, since you know they're impervious to hacking.
The machines are not easily hacked and unless your hackers can predict the
future and know who the candidates in a specific election are going to be
and which slots the boards of election are going to assign to those
candidates, they could possibly steal votes for the candidate of their
choice.

You could prove me wrong simply by giving us an actual scenario from start
to finish. You could do it for the actual presidential race between Trump
and Hillary or just do it for a theoretical election between Jane Doe and
Joe Schmoe for some non-specific office. Tell us how factory hackers could
steal votes from one candidate and give them to another. Specifics are
needed. Not some vague suggestion about what could be done.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
What you describe couldn't defeat the safeguards because it requires the
hackers to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.
WRONG! And now you're going to ask me for the eighth time about
rotating slots, aren't you? That was answered above. That the ninth
time.
Eight time and you still can't answer how hackers could steal votes
without knowing who the candidates would be and which slots they would be
assigned to.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want,
Because you can't.
Post by mainframetech
for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election.
You come up with some of your funniest lines when you get backed into a
corner.
I've given answers that any average programmer could understand.
You're not a programmer, and so it makes no sense to you. And you think
I've left something out, because you just can't understand what's been
said already.
You haven't been able to answer the specific questions, mainly how the
hackers could know who the candidates would be and which slots they would
be assigned to. Without that knowledge, they couldn't do what you
suggest.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
You still haven't explained how a hacker could know which slots to take
votes from and give to a candidate in another slot.
That was asked nine times so far, and explained by me at least 4 of
those times.
And dodged nine times so far. I will stop asking when you either answer or
admit what you suggest isn't possible.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking was involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored,
What about the ones who lie?
Post by mainframetech
and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
How would you know how many people would lie. Lots of people don't think
it's anybody's business whom they voted for. And they are right.
WRONG! You've arrived at the point where you know you're in the
corner and have started your nitpicking phase. It won't help. The exit
polls tell the tale if there's hacking of the vote counts. For further
elucidation I suggest to examine the website of Bev Harris,
www.blackboxvoting.org
You do put a lot of faith in your kook websites. Exit polling told us Gore
won the 2000 election and Kerry won the 2004 election. Then they counted
the actual votes and found out the exit polling was wrong.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
WRONG as usual! I've given complete instructions for determining if
vote counting was hacked. You may not have understood them, but they were
complete.
As usual, those instructions were FUBAR.
LOL! Only because you weren't able to understand them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
WRONG! And I've shown you above how those machines can be hacked.
They can be hacked BEFORE certification, and during certification they
will perform normally. They are then sealed until the election, which is
on a specific date, and when voting starts for real, the hacked code takes
over and modifies counts as it was programmed. When voting is done, the
hacked code erases itself, leaving the normal code, and no one is the
wiser.
Same old question. How do they hackers know which slot to take votes from
and which slot to add votes to?
WRONG! That's the 10th time you've asked that. Se above for the
answer.
10th time you've dodged the question.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
Of course! It is believed that it has already happened and let a guy
become a senator when he wasn't favored and was unknown.
So the hackers knew before the machines ever left the factory which slot
that senator's name would be assigned to on all the various machines. How
could they know that?
WRONG! Your silly little rotating slots game wasn't used back then,
but the senator owned the company that made the election machines in his
state. It is believed he had his own people do the hacking of the chips.
It was early in the electronic voting machine period.
It doesn't matter if the slots are rotated or not. The hackers still need
to know which slot their candidate is going to be assigned to if they are
going to hack the machines at the factory as you suggest. There is no way
they could know what. At least you haven't been able to tell us how they
could know that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By changing the
base chip, all chips made from that model will be changed and inserting
them in all machines hacks all machines in effect.
So let's take this past election as an example. Each county decides what
method of voting will be used (machine, paper ballot, punch card, etc). If
the choose a machine each county chooses which manufacturer they will buy
their machines from and that can vary from one county to the next.
WRONG! Often a state buys machines, and the county just uses what they
are given.
No, that is not how elections are conducted. The state might provide funds
but each county determines the method of voting and if they use machines,
which machine they use. That's why we had the infamous butterfly ballot in
Broward County in 2000. My county in rural Ohio was using electronic
machines while Franklin County (Columbus) was still using the old
mechanical voting machines. I believe all those old mechanical machines
have since been retired, but each county decides which method of voting is
used. My county decided to go back to paper ballots this past election
cycle because they had too many machines that had gone bad and didn't want
to spend the money on new ones.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
In
addition those machines get used over and over, election after election.
So let's say my county purchased new machines right after the 2008
elections. If the machines were hacked at the factory, that would have
been done in late 2008 or early 2009 prior to them being delivered to my
county's board of election. In a typical year there would two elections a
year. Prior to each election, the machines are tested. So if they have
already been hacked, that means in each election, the chip is taking votes
from one slot and giving them to another.
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell you were ever a programmer. When
machines are manufactured they are made with a method to modify them
easily for each election.
Before we got the touch screen machines the method was to simply place a
template next to the buttons to indicate which candidate was assigned to a
particular button. The touch screen machines do have to be programmed but
that isn't done by swapping out the chips. That is done by personnel at
the county who are the ones who assign the candidates to the various
locations on the screen. There is no involvement by the factory in the
process.
Post by mainframetech
That is often by inserting chips with the right
information for the upcoming election in them. Each time an election
comes up, someone has to make a chip or board with information on it, and
probably patch code for any errors discovered since the last usage. By
adding code to them at that time, you've accomplished hacking all the
machines for that election.
So you think the normal way you reprogram a machine is by replacing a
chip. You think the county boards actually install brand new chips in each
machine for each election. Now I'm wondering if you were ever a
programmer.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That could mean in one election
it could be stealing votes from on school board candidate and giving it to
another. In the next election it could be taking votes in favor of a tax
levy and changing them to votes against the levy. Each election different
candidates or issues are assigned to the various slots. In 2009 when you
imagine this hacking was done, how would the hackers know to change votes
for Hillary in slot 1 to Trump votes in slot 2?
WRONG! I don't imagine any hacking has been done, but the method I've
outlined here will handle every election.
Not even remotely possible which is why you can't give any specific
examples of how it could be done to defeat the safeguards built into the
systems. There a checks and counter checks to guard against the kind of
widespread fraud you suggest.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If that was done, how
would that not be revealed during testing? If that was done, that would
mean on the next machine where Trump is in slot 1 and Hillary is in slot
2, it would be stealing votes from Trump and giving them to Hillary.
WRONG! That's the eleventh time you've asked that. See above.
Eleventh time you've dodged.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, you've been handed a load of crap if someone tells you
that all machines are now protected. Many machines all over the US are
still old types for lack of money, and they are easily hacked. there have
been many demonstrations by computer science classes from colleges
demonstrating hacking of election machines.
Well if there have been many, you should have no trouble coming up with
one or two specific ones.
You mean specific hacks? I've done that already. If you didn't
understand, them as I said, you were never a programmer.
You have shown very little understanding of programming in this discussion.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
How do the hackers at the factory know which totals to monkey with. The
machines are nothing more than generic counters, much like the old
mechanical voting machines which were in use for over a century.
WRONG! And you say you're a programmer. Sheesh! How did the US
hackers know they were hacking the Iranian centrifuges? It lasted for a
years or more and slowed them down to nothing in their project to make
nuclear devices.
How did the hackers at the factory know when they hacked the chip which
candidate would be assigned to which slot during the 2016 Presidential
election? That's a vital piece of information they would need to steal
votes from one candidate and give to another. That's the $64,000 question.
I'll bet you don't have a $64,000 answer.
WRONG! That's the twelfth time you've asked about the rotating slots.
See above.
12th time you dodged.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/
That sample is not the method I described above, but it's one more
method that can be used. All computing machinery identifies itself by
some code or reaction to polling from the CPU or other element. Many give
back information about themselves when polled, when a call goes out for
devices to report. On PCs it is handled by the USB chains or plug 'n play, or you need to specify the devices that are attached in the I/O section, which you can get to during boot up.
Post by bigdog
How is
somebody at the factory going to know when the machines are shipped out
that Slot #1 is for Hillary and Slot #2 is for Trump, Slot #3 is for Gary
Johnson, and Slot #4 is for Jill Stein. In addition the slots are rotated
from one machine to the next so each candidate appears a roughly equal
amount of time in each slot. Makes it kind of hard to hack the chip to
steal votes when you don't know which slot is assigned to which candidate.
WRONG! Don't be so foolish. You've already tried that escape and I've
answered. The machine has to have a list of its 'slots' and which count
goes to which candidate, otherwise you'd get counts added to all the wrong
candidates. The machine HAS to know which slot to add to when a vote
comes in. So your rotating method doesn't help anything.
All the machine knows is which slot the voter voted for. The machine
doesn't know which candidate any of the slots are assigned to. In that
regard they are no different than the mechanical voting machines used for
over a century in this country.
A voter doesn't vote for a slot, they vote for a name that is assigned
to some slot internally.
Actually they do vote for a slot and the machine tells them which candidate
that slot is assigned to.
Post by mainframetech
They see the name and they hit the button or
touch the icon.
Even the touch screen machines have separate counters for each candidate.
The screen simply tells them which candidate their vote will be recorded
for when the touch a specific place on the screen, i.e. a slot. With the
old push button machines there was a template next to a row of buttons and
a light new to the candidates name would come on when the button was
pushed. Mechanical machines, push button machines, and touch screen
machines all work essentially the same way. The voter flips a lever,
pushes a button, or touches a location an the screen that the machine
indicates is for a specific candidate and the machine then records that
vote in that candidates counter.
Post by mainframetech
That is recognized by the machine and the machine has to
know which slot is for which candidate so it can add it to the right
'slot'.
Only the touch screen machines have that knowledge and that knowledge is
programmed into the machine each election by board of elections personnel.
There is no involvement by the factory and no replacing chips.
Post by mainframetech
That knowledge is there for the hacker code to use in determining
which 'slot' to add to incorrectly. Now that's the thirteenth time, and
the fifth time I've explained that the rotating slots of yours aren't
going ot work against hacker code.
How could hacker code be installed at the factory when candidates names
aren't even known? What trigger could be imbedded in the chip that for a
specific election would steal votes from or give votes to a specific
candidate that wouldn't require the hacker to know the candidates names?
mainframetech
2017-05-15 00:55:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 10:42:47 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:



Since this 'swamp post' is getting too large, this is my last entry
today.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
WRONG again! Polls taken at the exiting from voting are better and
closer to the vote itself, and more correct. And it comes from the voters
themselves.
It's still just a sample of the electorate and unless that sample
accurately reflects the electorate, the results will still be skewed. If a
group is oversampled or undersampled the results will be less than
accurate.
In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, people were getting early
exit polling data from the Drudge Report website which seemed to indicate
Bush was going to lose both elections. What many failed to understand was
they were looking at just raw data which didn't accurately reflect the
electorate. Woman are more likely to vote early in the day and since woman
vote more for Democrats than men that skewed the numbers toward the
Democrats. A poll can only be as accurate as the model and if the model
weights various demographics inaccurately, the results won't be accurate.
That's way pollsters generally claim they are only accurate to plus or
minus 3%. That's a 6% swing. And you want to use such data to judge the
accuracy of the actual voting. Amazing.
Now you're pretending to be an expert pollster! Is there no end to your
supposed talents?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
WRONG, and that has been explained to you. Hacker code can be present
in the machine and not take any action until the date of the election or
some other trigger. Until then, the hacker code remains dormant. It will
test just fine like the original code. When the election starts, the
trigger goes off and the hacker code takes over until the end of the
election, when the hacker code deletes itself, leaving nothing to find.
So tell us how the machines could be hacked at the factory for an election
in the future when the candidates aren't even known at that point.
If the candidates aren't yet known, the chips can't be programmed
because the candidates aren't yet known. Simple. A programmer would have
thought of it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them.
So how could these hackers know that the major party candidates in 2016
would be Trump and Hillary and how did they know which candidate would be
assigned to which slot on the voting machines, especially since that slot
gets rotated from one machine to the next. This is where your lack of
specifics gets exposed.
Why do you keep thinking the Trump election had the voting machines
hacked?
I don't. That seems to be what you are suggesting.
Please don't do that about what I say. I say what I mean. If I had
some proof that the election counts were hacked, I'd say so clearly.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There's no proof of that. Each machine has to know which buckets
are for which vote.
No, the machines don't know that any more than the old mechanical voting
machines knew that. They just count the number of votes for each slot. The
boards of election know which candidate was assigned to each slot and
therefore know who the votes in a particular slot belong to. The machine
is just a generic counter.
You'll have to think that through. When the person votes, THEY know
the name of the person they are voting for, and they have to be able to
find that name on the voting machine. When a vote comes in, the machine
has to know which 'slot' that vote has to go to. The only way to identify
the correct slot to add the vote to is if the slots are identified within
the machine. Think it through. The rotating 'slot' theory of yours will
fail.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
therefore the answer is already in the machine. It
doesn't matter which slot is assigned in any one machine, as long as the
machine knows which slot a vote goes into, the hacker code can put the
vote where it wants for whoever it was programmed for. That's the fourth
time I've explained that, so you're entering your repetitive phase where
you have no clue and just keep asking the same questions over and over.
Here's where your lack of understanding of how the machines work gets
exposed. The machines are used from one election to the next and don't
need to be reprogramed.
WRONG! You're attempts to figure out the election machines are
laughable. And in the case where the machine doesn't get a new chip every
election, the method I have described here will only work for the first
election, and one of the other methods will have to be used for succeeding
elections.


One of the most prevalent hacks is that done by the election personnel
themselves. If an area is Republican, and there's no democrats watching,
the Republicans that are in control of the counts and sending them on to
the state can mess with the counts, and they have done in the past.
There are some machines out there that have control of disk files on the
machines, and there file on them that hold the vote counts. Those files
can be manipulated by the election personnel before copying off on to a
medium. The result is then transmitted to the state center, or carried
there id close enough.
Post by bigdog
A template is placed over the screen indicating
the candidate that belongs to a particular slot and when the voter presses
the button next to that candidates name, the vote gets recorded in that
slot. Some of the newer touch screen machines actually put the candidates
names on the screen but that is done by the boards of election which
precludes a machine from being hacked at the factory to steal votes from
one candidate and give it to the other.
Other methods of hacking vote counts must be used in that case, as
noted above. The counts have to be affected AFTER the votes are taken by
the machines. Most machines have corrections that have to be made to them
or they will operate improperly, so that code can be introduced easily.
As well, most sites have to transmit counts to a state center or
collection point, and are vulnerable at that time. A hacker can easily
insert themselves into the working personnel at a facility and from there
get to the programming area, where they can get at the counts.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made.
To do that, one would have to know which candidate is going to be assigned to which slot at the time the chips were hacked. How could they possibly know that, especially since the position of the candidates on each machine is varied from one machine to the next?
WRONG! You're asking the same question you just asked a few lines
above. I'm not explaining it a fifth time.
Your explanations the first for times failed to answer that question.
Hackers need knowledge to steal votes for a candidate, knowledge no one
could possibly have when the chips are installed at the factory and
shipped to the various counties that will use them. Chips usually have to be programmed AFTER the candidates are selected. Once the candidates are known, and where in the machine candidate #1 and others are being added up, that is all that is needed to generate the hacking code.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.
Unless the hackers knew which candidate was assigned to which slot, they
couldn't possibly know which slot to take votes from and give to another
slot.
WRONG! Don't start that rotating slot crap again. That will be the
6th time. You really just can't understand about computers, can you?
Rotating slots is not crap. It is they way it is done in Ohio. I don't
have definitive information that it is done that way in all states, but I
would bet Ohio is not unique. Whether the slots are rotated or not, your
theoretical hackers still would need to know which slot a given candidate
is assigned to so they can add or subtract votes from that candidate.
Those slots are assigned by the boards of election whether they rotate the
candidates or not so no one hacking the chip at the factory could know
which slots to tamper with.
I'm not explaining the answer again. The chip has to know which slot
is where to put the vote for this or that candidate,. Once that is known,
the hacker code will use the knowledge to add or subtract vote counts when
the voter makes a choice.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.
All this presupposes the hackers knew which candidate was in which slot,
something they couldn't possibly know prior to the boards of elections
testing the machines and then assigning the candidates to the specific
slots on the machines, slots that vary from one machine to the next.
WRONG! That's the seventh time you are getting into the rotating slot
foolishness. See above.
I'll keep bringing it up until you can answer how hackers at the factory
could know which slot to steal votes from or to add votes to.
I have answered that, but your lack of programming ability means you'll
never understand it. Once it's known which slot is for which candidate,
hacker code can be generated to use those slots.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
I've described the safeguards that are in effect to thwart your
theoretical hackers. If you can explain how your hackers could get around
those safeguards, I will be impressed.
WRONG! I've already done that with your rotating slots, and your
certified sealed machines.
No you haven't. Not even close. You've never explained how hackers could
know when the chips are installed at the factory which slots need to be
tampered with to steal votes for a particular candidate, especially since
they couldn't even know who the candidates will be. What you are
suggesting isn't remotely possible to do at the factory.
What's the matter with you? So you can't understand how it can be
done when I spell it out for you. That's your problem, not mine. The
slots have to be assigned for each machine, so that the machine knows
which 'bucket' to add to when the voter makes a choice. Once that info is
in the machine, hacker code uses that info to determine which 'bucket' to
add to or not. You use the word 'slot' so just substitute 'bucket' for
it. Same thing.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now you must be impressed! But remember,
many hackers have shown the holes in the machines up to now. And many
states can't afford to buy new machines yet, the cost is too great, so
they're making do with the old easily hacked machines. Of course you're
not worried, since you know they're impervious to hacking.
The machines are not easily hacked and unless your hackers can predict the
future and know who the candidates in a specific election are going to be
and which slots the boards of election are going to assign to those
candidates, they could possibly steal votes for the candidate of their
choice.
Your not thinking like a programmer. Most machines have chips that
tell each machine which 'bucket' to add to for which name the voter
selects. That code is programmed into the chip before the chip goes into
the machine. When a new election comes up, a new chip is programmed with
the candidates for that election, and the chance for hacking is repeated.
A hacker may or may not make changes in the successive elections. All
will still look normal.
Post by bigdog
You could prove me wrong simply by giving us an actual scenario from start
to finish. You could do it for the actual presidential race between Trump
and Hillary or just do it for a theoretical election between Jane Doe and
Joe Schmoe for some non-specific office. Tell us how factory hackers could
steal votes from one candidate and give them to another. Specifics are
needed. Not some vague suggestion about what could be done.
Why are you so interested in exact instructions to hack an election
machine and its counts? If you were a programmer like you said you were,
you'd have that by now. I've given complete instructions for a programmer
or an intelligent person to know that the method I've described will work
based on the machine you've described. If you contemplate a different
machine, then there may be a different method of hacking necessary. By
reading up on the machines and real cases, you can learn all that you
desire, like I did. That is, IF you're a programmer of average ability.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
What you describe couldn't defeat the safeguards because it requires the
hackers to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.
WRONG! And now you're going to ask me for the eighth time about
rotating slots, aren't you? That was answered above. That the ninth
time.
Eight time and you still can't answer how hackers could steal votes
without knowing who the candidates would be and which slots they would be
assigned to.
That was indeed answered, you just didn't understand the method.
I've explained it 4-5 times already. If you didn't understand it then,
you won't have gotten any smarter by now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want,
Because you can't.
Post by mainframetech
for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election.
You come up with some of your funniest lines when you get backed into a
corner.
I've given answers that any average programmer could understand.
You're not a programmer, and so it makes no sense to you. And you think
I've left something out, because you just can't understand what's been
said already.
You haven't been able to answer the specific questions, mainly how the
hackers could know who the candidates would be and which slots they would
be assigned to. Without that knowledge, they couldn't do what you
suggest.
I've answered that specific question 5 times already. To prove it
once again, I'll answer it a 6th time, but don't expect it again.
Listening? Here we go:

The 'slots' (as you call them) have to be known to the machine so that
when a voter picks a name on the outside of the machine, on the inside the
machine knows which 'slot' to add to. Since the inside of the machine
knows which 'slot' belongs to which candidate, hacker code in the same
machine can use that knowledge to either add or not to the correct 'slot'
based on what the hacker wanted. Now I'll give you an exact example:

Mary Doe and John Doe are candidates in an election. Mary has been
assigned 'slot' #2 in a particular machine, and John has been assigned
'slot' #1. The hacker is working for John Doe and wants to steal votes
from Mary Doe so John will win. Someone goes to the machine and chooses a
button that says John Doe on it, and hits the button registering a vote
for John Doe.

The machine has to know that a vote for John Doe is added to 'slot' #1,
and so it looks up its internal table of names and 'slots' and finds that
slot #1 is for John, and it adds a vote to 'slot' #1. A new voter comes
along and wants to vote for Mary, and they hit the button that says 'Mary
Doe' on the outside of the machine. The machine has to know which 'slot'
to add the vote to, and it searches the internal table of names and finds
that 'slot' #2 is where to add to the vote count for Mary.

At that point, the hacker code takes over and sees that there is a vote
for Mary, and it wants to avoid adding to Mary's slot #2, and it then
checks the internal table for John's name and finds his votes are added to
slot #1, and it adds the vote to 'slot' #1. Mary's vote has been stolen
and added to the count for John. When the voting is closed, the hacker
code will go through and erase itself so that there is no evidence of
hacking left.


Now I've done it so simply that no average person could make a mistake
in understanding it. If YOU don't understand it, then you have the IQ of
a rock garden.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
You still haven't explained how a hacker could know which slots to take
votes from and give to a candidate in another slot.
That was asked nine times so far, and explained by me at least 4 of
those times.
And dodged nine times so far. I will stop asking when you either answer or
admit what you suggest isn't possible.
Don't you dare accuse me of lying! I said I explained it above, and
you will indeed find an answer above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking was involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored,
What about the ones who lie?
Post by mainframetech
and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
How would you know how many people would lie. Lots of people don't think
it's anybody's business whom they voted for. And they are right.
WRONG! You've arrived at the point where you know you're in the
corner and have started your nitpicking phase. It won't help. The exit
polls tell the tale if there's hacking of the vote counts. For further
elucidation I suggest you examine the website of Bev Harris,
www.blackboxvoting.org
You do put a lot of faith in your kook websites. Exit polling told us Gore
won the 2000 election and Kerry won the 2004 election. Then they counted
the actual votes and found out the exit polling was wrong.
If the exit polling was "wrong" then there is the possibility that the
election counts were hacked.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They can print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Each situation is different than the last. Pick a vote and tell me
what the exit polls were and the official counts and it will be easy to
tell if there has been any messing with the counts.
So you really can't provide any specifics. Just vague theories.
WRONG as usual! I've given complete instructions for determining if
vote counting was hacked. You may not have understood them, but they were
complete.
As usual, those instructions were FUBAR.
LOL! Only because you weren't able to understand them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
Ah, finally listening to me, eh? Catching on I see.
Obviously you aren't listening to me because I just explained to you why
the machines can't be hacked after they are certified by the county boards
of elections.
WRONG! And I've shown you above how those machines can be hacked.
They can be hacked BEFORE certification, and during certification they
will perform normally. They are then sealed until the election, which is
on a specific date, and when voting starts for real, the hacked code takes
over and modifies counts as it was programmed. When voting is done, the
hacked code erases itself, leaving the normal code, and no one is the
wiser.
Same old question. How do they hackers know which slot to take votes from
and which slot to add votes to?
WRONG! That's the 10th time you've asked that. See above for the
answer.
10th time you've dodged the question.
See above for the exact example too.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
How foolish can you be? You can't have ever been a programmer. The
answers would have occurred to you by now. Often you don't need to hack
EVERY machine in a territory, you need only hack the chip that will be
inserted in each machine. ALL machines will then make the same errors in
favor of the chosen candidate. As well, all machines in a territory will
have to summarize their totals and send them into a state center, and
there will usually be a machine there. Hack that one machine, and you've
hacked the number of all 500 machines in an area. If there is an internet
connection, it will also be easy to grab the totals, change them and send
them on changed.
Just where do you suppose the hacking of the chip is done? At the factory?
Of course! It is believed that it has already happened and let a guy
become a senator when he wasn't favored and was unknown.
So the hackers knew before the machines ever left the factory which slot
that senator's name would be assigned to on all the various machines. How
could they know that?
WRONG! Your silly little rotating slots game wasn't used back then,
but the senator owned the company that made the election machines in his
state. It is believed he had his own people do the hacking of the chips.
It was early in the electronic voting machine period.
It doesn't matter if the slots are rotated or not. The hackers still need
to know which slot their candidate is going to be assigned to if they are
going to hack the machines at the factory as you suggest. There is no way
they could know what. At least you haven't been able to tell us how they
could know that.
GODDAMNIT! WHAT DO YOU THINK I'VE BEEN DOING? ARE YOU SO DENSE THAT
YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND, OR WAS IF FALSE THAT YOU WERE A PROGRAMER?

The question was answered and a simple example was supplied this time.
Don't start complaining again because now the problem HAS TO BE YOU.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
By changing the
base chip, all chips made from that model will be changed and inserting
them in all machines hacks all machines in effect.
So let's take this past election as an example. Each county decides what
method of voting will be used (machine, paper ballot, punch card, etc). If
the choose a machine each county chooses which manufacturer they will buy
their machines from and that can vary from one county to the next.
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc771298(v=ws.10).aspx

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-16 00:16:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Since this 'swamp post' is getting too large, this is my last entry
today.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
WRONG again! Polls taken at the exiting from voting are better and
closer to the vote itself, and more correct. And it comes from the voters
themselves.
It's still just a sample of the electorate and unless that sample
accurately reflects the electorate, the results will still be skewed. If a
group is oversampled or undersampled the results will be less than
accurate.
In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, people were getting early
exit polling data from the Drudge Report website which seemed to indicate
Bush was going to lose both elections. What many failed to understand was
they were looking at just raw data which didn't accurately reflect the
electorate. Woman are more likely to vote early in the day and since woman
vote more for Democrats than men that skewed the numbers toward the
Democrats. A poll can only be as accurate as the model and if the model
weights various demographics inaccurately, the results won't be accurate.
That's way pollsters generally claim they are only accurate to plus or
minus 3%. That's a 6% swing. And you want to use such data to judge the
accuracy of the actual voting. Amazing.
Now you're pretending to be an expert pollster! Is there no end to your
supposed talents?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
WRONG, and that has been explained to you. Hacker code can be present
in the machine and not take any action until the date of the election or
some other trigger. Until then, the hacker code remains dormant. It will
test just fine like the original code. When the election starts, the
trigger goes off and the hacker code takes over until the end of the
election, when the hacker code deletes itself, leaving nothing to find.
So tell us how the machines could be hacked at the factory for an election
in the future when the candidates aren't even known at that point.
If the candidates aren't yet known, the chips can't be programmed
because the candidates aren't yet known. Simple. A programmer would have
thought of it.
Which means the hacking could not occur at the factory which is what I
have been saying all along and what you have been disputing until now. The
push button voting machines are nothing but glorified adding machines. All
they know is which buttons the voter pushed and it adds a vote to those
counters. The touch screen machines need to have the candidates programmed
onto the machines so they are displayed on the screen. That is done
through the software by personnel at the boards of elections. It is not
done by replacing or modifying the chips at the factor which is what you
were suggesting. A programmer would have thought of that. After the
machines are programmed with the candidates names they are tested and
certified. If any tampering of the machines were done it would have to be
done at that point and would require collusion by Republicans and
Democrats. Once certified, the machines are powered down, closed up, and a
seal placed on them. That seal must still be in place when the machine is
opened and powered up at the polling places by the poll workers. Smart
people figured out a long time ago where the vulnerabilities in the
various voting machines were and they devised safeguards to prevent the
kind of malfeasance you have suggested.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them.
So how could these hackers know that the major party candidates in 2016
would be Trump and Hillary and how did they know which candidate would be
assigned to which slot on the voting machines, especially since that slot
gets rotated from one machine to the next. This is where your lack of
specifics gets exposed.
Why do you keep thinking the Trump election had the voting machines
hacked?
I don't. That seems to be what you are suggesting.
Please don't do that about what I say. I say what I mean. If I had
some proof that the election counts were hacked, I'd say so clearly.
So instead you just suggest it through innuendo rather than just admit the
election results were fair and square.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There's no proof of that. Each machine has to know which buckets
are for which vote.
No, the machines don't know that any more than the old mechanical voting
machines knew that. They just count the number of votes for each slot. The
boards of election know which candidate was assigned to each slot and
therefore know who the votes in a particular slot belong to. The machine
is just a generic counter.
You'll have to think that through. When the person votes, THEY know
the name of the person they are voting for, and they have to be able to
find that name on the voting machine. When a vote comes in, the machine
has to know which 'slot' that vote has to go to. The only way to identify
the correct slot to add the vote to is if the slots are identified within
the machine. Think it through. The rotating 'slot' theory of yours will
fail.
That depends on the type of machine. A push button machine has a template,
not a screen which identifies to a voter which button belongs to which
candidate. There is nothing in the electronics which identify which button
is assigned to a candidate. All the machine knows is which button the
voter pushed and counts it. Touch screen machines do need to have the
candidates names displayed on the screen so that must be programmed into
the machine along with the office the candidates are running for. That is
done through the software by board of elections personnel for each
election. Only board of elections personnel could tamper with the machines
at that point and both Democrats and Republicans are on those boards and
would have to collude in order to tamper with the vote totals.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
therefore the answer is already in the machine. It
doesn't matter which slot is assigned in any one machine, as long as the
machine knows which slot a vote goes into, the hacker code can put the
vote where it wants for whoever it was programmed for. That's the fourth
time I've explained that, so you're entering your repetitive phase where
you have no clue and just keep asking the same questions over and over.
Here's where your lack of understanding of how the machines work gets
exposed. The machines are used from one election to the next and don't
need to be reprogramed.
WRONG! You're attempts to figure out the election machines are
laughable. And in the case where the machine doesn't get a new chip every
election, the method I have described here will only work for the first
election, and one of the other methods will have to be used for succeeding
elections.
One of the most prevalent hacks is that done by the election personnel
themselves. If an area is Republican, and there's no democrats watching,
the Republicans that are in control of the counts and sending them on to
the state can mess with the counts, and they have done in the past.
There are some machines out there that have control of disk files on the
machines, and there file on them that hold the vote counts. Those files
can be manipulated by the election personnel before copying off on to a
medium. The result is then transmitted to the state center, or carried
there id close enough.
In Ohio, each county board is comprised of two Republicans and two
Democrats. They all take part in the setting up of the machines to ensure
it is done fairly. I don't have first hand knowledge that is the case in
every state but I would be amazed if the various counties don't have a
similar arrangement in which both parties take part in setting up,
testing, and certifying the machines. In 2004 when outsiders suggested
that the machines stole Ohio for Bush which was the deciding state, the
DEMOCRATS on the various county boards bristled at that suggestion because
it would mean they had been derelict in their duty. It didn't happen and
anyone who knows how the process works knows it didn't happen. Not in 2004
and not in 2016.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A template is placed over the screen indicating
the candidate that belongs to a particular slot and when the voter presses
the button next to that candidates name, the vote gets recorded in that
slot. Some of the newer touch screen machines actually put the candidates
names on the screen but that is done by the boards of election which
precludes a machine from being hacked at the factory to steal votes from
one candidate and give it to the other.
Other methods of hacking vote counts must be used in that case, as
noted above. The counts have to be affected AFTER the votes are taken by
the machines. Most machines have corrections that have to be made to them
or they will operate improperly, so that code can be introduced easily.
As well, most sites have to transmit counts to a state center or
collection point, and are vulnerable at that time. A hacker can easily
insert themselves into the working personnel at a facility and from there
get to the programming area, where they can get at the counts.
You must think no one has though of that before. There are redundancies
built into the process that would expose any attempt to tamper with the
tallying of votes. The machines counts are recorded on paper at the
polling places and signed by all poll workers, two Republicans and two
Democrats. Those totals can be cross checked at anytime against the
machine totals. Both Democrats and Republicans are involved in all parts
of the process.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made.
To do that, one would have to know which candidate is going to be assigned to which slot at the time the chips were hacked. How could they possibly know that, especially since the position of the candidates on each machine is varied from one machine to the next?
WRONG! You're asking the same question you just asked a few lines
above. I'm not explaining it a fifth time.
Your explanations the first for times failed to answer that question.
Hackers need knowledge to steal votes for a candidate, knowledge no one
could possibly have when the chips are installed at the factory and
shipped to the various counties that will use them. Chips usually have to be programmed AFTER the candidates are selected. Once the candidates are known, and where in the machine candidate #1 and others are being added up, that is all that is needed to generate the hacking code.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.
Unless the hackers knew which candidate was assigned to which slot, they
couldn't possibly know which slot to take votes from and give to another
slot.
WRONG! Don't start that rotating slot crap again. That will be the
6th time. You really just can't understand about computers, can you?
Rotating slots is not crap. It is they way it is done in Ohio. I don't
have definitive information that it is done that way in all states, but I
would bet Ohio is not unique. Whether the slots are rotated or not, your
theoretical hackers still would need to know which slot a given candidate
is assigned to so they can add or subtract votes from that candidate.
Those slots are assigned by the boards of election whether they rotate the
candidates or not so no one hacking the chip at the factory could know
which slots to tamper with.
I'm not explaining the answer again.
To explain it again you would have had to explain it before and you never
have.
Post by mainframetech
The chip has to know which slot
is where to put the vote for this or that candidate,. Once that is known,
the hacker code will use the knowledge to add or subtract vote counts when
the voter makes a choice.
The chip knows no such thing which means it couldn't be done at the
factory which you admitted earlier in this post. Software is used to
program the candidates into the machine. There is no swapping of computer
chips to put the candidates names into the machine.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.
All this presupposes the hackers knew which candidate was in which slot,
something they couldn't possibly know prior to the boards of elections
testing the machines and then assigning the candidates to the specific
slots on the machines, slots that vary from one machine to the next.
WRONG! That's the seventh time you are getting into the rotating slot
foolishness. See above.
I'll keep bringing it up until you can answer how hackers at the factory
could know which slot to steal votes from or to add votes to.
I have answered that, but your lack of programming ability means you'll
never understand it. Once it's known which slot is for which candidate,
hacker code can be generated to use those slots.
Your answer was that the hackers couldn't do that at the factory. In case
you forgot you wrote, "If the candidates aren't yet known, the chips can't
be programmed because the candidates aren't yet known.  Simple.
 A programmer would have thought of it.". If you had simply
acknowledged that from the start we both could have saved a lot of time.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
I've described the safeguards that are in effect to thwart your
theoretical hackers. If you can explain how your hackers could get around
those safeguards, I will be impressed.
WRONG! I've already done that with your rotating slots, and your
certified sealed machines.
No you haven't. Not even close. You've never explained how hackers could
know when the chips are installed at the factory which slots need to be
tampered with to steal votes for a particular candidate, especially since
they couldn't even know who the candidates will be. What you are
suggesting isn't remotely possible to do at the factory.
What's the matter with you? So you can't understand how it can be
done when I spell it out for you.
You haven't spelled out how it could be done at the factory. You
acknowledged that it couldn't be done without knowing who the candidates
are and nobody knows that when the machines leave the factory. It follows
then that the machines couldn't be hacked at the factory.
Post by mainframetech
That's your problem, not mine. The
slots have to be assigned for each machine, so that the machine knows
which 'bucket' to add to when the voter makes a choice. Once that info is
in the machine, hacker code uses that info to determine which 'bucket' to
add to or not. You use the word 'slot' so just substitute 'bucket' for
it. Same thing.
OK, Mr. Programmer. Tell us what instructions you would imbed in the chip
at the factory that would steal votes from Hillary and give them to Trump
on Election Day 2016. We don't need the programming language, just the
logic involved. You do know what logic is, don't you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now you must be impressed! But remember,
many hackers have shown the holes in the machines up to now. And many
states can't afford to buy new machines yet, the cost is too great, so
they're making do with the old easily hacked machines. Of course you're
not worried, since you know they're impervious to hacking.
The machines are not easily hacked and unless your hackers can predict the
future and know who the candidates in a specific election are going to be
and which slots the boards of election are going to assign to those
candidates, they could possibly steal votes for the candidate of their
choice.
Your not thinking like a programmer. Most machines have chips that
tell each machine which 'bucket' to add to for which name the voter
selects. That code is programmed into the chip before the chip goes into
the machine. When a new election comes up, a new chip is programmed with
the candidates for that election, and the chance for hacking is repeated.
A hacker may or may not make changes in the successive elections. All
will still look normal.
That couldn't be done at the factory. The hackers would have to have
access to the machines between elections at the county HQ. They are locked
away. When the machines are powered down they are physically closed up and
sealed. If someone did get access to them they would have to break the
seal in order to open up the machines and power them up. People thought of
these things a long time ago which is why we have processes in place to
thwart such chicanery.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You could prove me wrong simply by giving us an actual scenario from start
to finish. You could do it for the actual presidential race between Trump
and Hillary or just do it for a theoretical election between Jane Doe and
Joe Schmoe for some non-specific office. Tell us how factory hackers could
steal votes from one candidate and give them to another. Specifics are
needed. Not some vague suggestion about what could be done.
Why are you so interested in exact instructions to hack an election
machine and its counts?
Because it is central to your argument that the vote totals in the 2016
election could have been tampered with on a wide scale basis. The margin
of victor in the blue wall states was tens of thousands of votes. You
can't steal that many votes in just a few precincts. You would have to do
it across county lines and in this case across several states. Since each
county has it's own method of voting, you would need to hack lots of
different machines in different counties and states.
Post by mainframetech
If you were a programmer like you said you were,
you'd have that by now. I've given complete instructions for a programmer
or an intelligent person to know that the method I've described will work
based on the machine you've described. If you contemplate a different
machine, then there may be a different method of hacking necessary. By
reading up on the machines and real cases, you can learn all that you
desire, like I did. That is, IF you're a programmer of average ability.
The hacking would have to be done locally. You admitted from the start
that to hack the machines one would have to know the candidates names.
That isn't know when the machines leave the factories. That could only be
done at the county level. I have told you of the safeguards in place to
thwart such hacking. To steal enough votes to have given Trump upset
victories in the blue wall states, you would have to do the hacking not
just in one county but many.

Liberal icon Michael Moore predicted several weeks before the election
that Hillary was likely to lose Michigan. That's his home state and he
knew from talking to people there that many of them were fed up with the
Democrats and were going to vote Republican in 2016. That turned out to be
the case. That's why Hillary lost. Not because of tampering with the
voting.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
What you describe couldn't defeat the safeguards because it requires the
hackers to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.
WRONG! And now you're going to ask me for the eighth time about
rotating slots, aren't you? That was answered above. That the ninth
time.
Eight time and you still can't answer how hackers could steal votes
without knowing who the candidates would be and which slots they would be
assigned to.
That was indeed answered, you just didn't understand the method.
I've explained it 4-5 times already. If you didn't understand it then,
you won't have gotten any smarter by now.
You finally admitted it couldn't be done at the factory. To do it locally
would require collusion by both Democrats and Republicans on the county
boards.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want,
Because you can't.
Post by mainframetech
for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election.
You come up with some of your funniest lines when you get backed into a
corner.
I've given answers that any average programmer could understand.
You're not a programmer, and so it makes no sense to you. And you think
I've left something out, because you just can't understand what's been
said already.
You haven't been able to answer the specific questions, mainly how the
hackers could know who the candidates would be and which slots they would
be assigned to. Without that knowledge, they couldn't do what you
suggest.
I've answered that specific question 5 times already. To prove it
once again, I'll answer it a 6th time, but don't expect it again.
The 'slots' (as you call them) have to be known to the machine so that
when a voter picks a name on the outside of the machine, on the inside the
machine knows which 'slot' to add to. Since the inside of the machine
knows which 'slot' belongs to which candidate, hacker code in the same
machine can use that knowledge to either add or not to the correct 'slot'
Mary Doe and John Doe are candidates in an election. Mary has been
assigned 'slot' #2 in a particular machine, and John has been assigned
'slot' #1. The hacker is working for John Doe and wants to steal votes
from Mary Doe so John will win. Someone goes to the machine and chooses a
button that says John Doe on it, and hits the button registering a vote
for John Doe.
The machine has to know that a vote for John Doe is added to 'slot' #1,
and so it looks up its internal table of names and 'slots' and finds that
slot #1 is for John, and it adds a vote to 'slot' #1. A new voter comes
along and wants to vote for Mary, and they hit the button that says 'Mary
Doe' on the outside of the machine. The machine has to know which 'slot'
to add the vote to, and it searches the internal table of names and finds
that 'slot' #2 is where to add to the vote count for Mary.
At that point, the hacker code takes over and sees that there is a vote
for Mary, and it wants to avoid adding to Mary's slot #2, and it then
checks the internal table for John's name and finds his votes are added to
slot #1, and it adds the vote to 'slot' #1. Mary's vote has been stolen
and added to the count for John. When the voting is closed, the hacker
code will go through and erase itself so that there is no evidence of
hacking left.
Very good. Now at least we have a specific example to work with. First of
all, as I have already explained, the push button machines don't know the
vote is for Mary. The machine only knows that the voter pressed the button
for slot 2 and the template told the voter that slot 2 belonged to Mary.
At the end of the day the machine knows voters pressed the button for slot
1 x number of times and slot 2 y number of times. The personnel doing the
tallying know that on a given machine slot 1 was for John and slot 2 was
for Mary. That is pretty much the same way the old mechanical voting
machines worked which were used for over 100 years. For all I know those
machines are still used in places. Now the touch screen machines do need
to have the candidates names programmed into them. I've never been
involved in that process but I imagine the set up prompts the board of
election personnel to first type in the office and then list all the
candidates for such an office. In some cases, such as a school board race,
it must allow the voter to vote for more than one person depending on the
number of seats to be filled but in most cases the voter is allowed to
vote for only one candidate for each office. That is the point where the
machines could theoretically be hacked to steal votes for a candidate. To
do that the hacker would need to know how to access the internal code and
would also have to do it under the watchful eye of the board members from
the opposing party. That's why I have said it would require collusion by
both parties to fraudulently set up the machines to steal votes.
Post by mainframetech
Now I've done it so simply that no average person could make a mistake
in understanding it. If YOU don't understand it, then you have the IQ of
a rock garden.
Yes you finally have and I have told you the obstacles that would prevent
such hacking on a scale required to have stolen even one state for Trump.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
You still haven't explained how a hacker could know which slots to take
votes from and give to a candidate in another slot.
That was asked nine times so far, and explained by me at least 4 of
those times.
And dodged nine times so far. I will stop asking when you either answer or
admit what you suggest isn't possible.
Don't you dare accuse me of lying! I said I explained it above, and
you will indeed find an answer above.
Yes, you finally did after much badgering from me. You could have saved us
both lots of time by doing that from the start.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking was involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored,
What about the ones who lie?
Post by mainframetech
and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
How would you know how many people would lie. Lots of people don't think
it's anybody's business whom they voted for. And they are right.
WRONG! You've arrived at the point where you know you're in the
corner and have started your nitpicking phase. It won't help. The exit
polls tell the tale if there's hacking of the vote counts. For further
elucidation I suggest you examine the website of Bev Harris,
www.blackboxvoting.org
You do put a lot of faith in your kook websites. Exit polling told us Gore
won the 2000 election and Kerry won the 2004 election. Then they counted
the actual votes and found out the exit polling was wrong.
If the exit polling was "wrong" then there is the possibility that the
election counts were hacked.
Neither the Gore nor the Kerry camps even suggested that had happened
because it would have made them look foolish and petty. That comes from
the far out fringes of the Democrat Party.

All polling, whether pre-election or exit polling, requires an accurate
sampling of the electorate. If the sampling is wrong, so will the results.
That's why pollsters only claim their polls are accurate to + or - 3
points and as this last election showed, even that claim is dubious. The
consensus polling showed Trump losing states by more than 3 points that he
ended up winning. Polling can get you in the ballpark provided it's a big
ballpark.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-17 01:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this 'swamp post' is getting too large, this is my last entry
today.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.???
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
WRONG again! Polls taken at the exiting from voting are better and
closer to the vote itself, and more correct. And it comes from the voters
themselves.
It's still just a sample of the electorate and unless that sample
accurately reflects the electorate, the results will still be skewed. If a
group is oversampled or undersampled the results will be less than
accurate.
In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, people were getting early
exit polling data from the Drudge Report website which seemed to indicate
Bush was going to lose both elections. What many failed to understand was
they were looking at just raw data which didn't accurately reflect the
electorate. Woman are more likely to vote early in the day and since woman
vote more for Democrats than men that skewed the numbers toward the
Democrats. A poll can only be as accurate as the model and if the model
weights various demographics inaccurately, the results won't be accurate.
That's way pollsters generally claim they are only accurate to plus or
minus 3%. That's a 6% swing. And you want to use such data to judge the
accuracy of the actual voting. Amazing.
Now you're pretending to be an expert pollster! Is there no end to your
supposed talents?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
WRONG, and that has been explained to you. Hacker code can be present
in the machine and not take any action until the date of the election or
some other trigger. Until then, the hacker code remains dormant. It will
test just fine like the original code. When the election starts, the
trigger goes off and the hacker code takes over until the end of the
election, when the hacker code deletes itself, leaving nothing to find.
So tell us how the machines could be hacked at the factory for an election
in the future when the candidates aren't even known at that point.
If the candidates aren't yet known, the chips can't be programmed
because the candidates aren't yet known. Simple. A programmer would have
thought of it.
Which means the hacking could not occur at the factory which is what I
have been saying all along and what you have been disputing until now. The
push button voting machines are nothing but glorified adding machines. All
they know is which buttons the voter pushed and it adds a vote to those
counters. The touch screen machines need to have the candidates programmed
onto the machines so they are displayed on the screen. That is done
through the software by personnel at the boards of elections. It is not
done by replacing or modifying the chips at the factor which is what you
were suggesting. A programmer would have thought of that. After the
machines are programmed with the candidates names they are tested and
certified. If any tampering of the machines were done it would have to be
done at that point and would require collusion by Republicans and
Democrats. Once certified, the machines are powered down, closed up, and a
seal placed on them. That seal must still be in place when the machine is
opened and powered up at the polling places by the poll workers. Smart
people figured out a long time ago where the vulnerabilities in the
various voting machines were and they devised safeguards to prevent the
kind of malfeasance you have suggested.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them.
So how could these hackers know that the major party candidates in 2016
would be Trump and Hillary and how did they know which candidate would be
assigned to which slot on the voting machines, especially since that slot
gets rotated from one machine to the next. This is where your lack of
specifics gets exposed.
Why do you keep thinking the Trump election had the voting machines
hacked?
I don't. That seems to be what you are suggesting.
Please don't do that about what I say. I say what I mean. If I had
some proof that the election counts were hacked, I'd say so clearly.
So instead you just suggest it through innuendo rather than just admit the
election results were fair and square.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There's no proof of that. Each machine has to know which buckets
are for which vote.
No, the machines don't know that any more than the old mechanical voting
machines knew that. They just count the number of votes for each slot. The
boards of election know which candidate was assigned to each slot and
therefore know who the votes in a particular slot belong to. The machine
is just a generic counter.
You'll have to think that through. When the person votes, THEY know
the name of the person they are voting for, and they have to be able to
find that name on the voting machine. When a vote comes in, the machine
has to know which 'slot' that vote has to go to. The only way to identify
the correct slot to add the vote to is if the slots are identified within
the machine. Think it through. The rotating 'slot' theory of yours will
fail.
That depends on the type of machine. A push button machine has a template,
not a screen which identifies to a voter which button belongs to which
candidate. There is nothing in the electronics which identify which button
is assigned to a candidate. All the machine knows is which button the
voter pushed and counts it. Touch screen machines do need to have the
candidates names displayed on the screen so that must be programmed into
the machine along with the office the candidates are running for. That is
done through the software by board of elections personnel for each
election. Only board of elections personnel could tamper with the machines
at that point and both Democrats and Republicans are on those boards and
would have to collude in order to tamper with the vote totals.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
therefore the answer is already in the machine. It
doesn't matter which slot is assigned in any one machine, as long as the
machine knows which slot a vote goes into, the hacker code can put the
vote where it wants for whoever it was programmed for. That's the fourth
time I've explained that, so you're entering your repetitive phase where
you have no clue and just keep asking the same questions over and over.
Here's where your lack of understanding of how the machines work gets
exposed. The machines are used from one election to the next and don't
need to be reprogramed.
WRONG! You're attempts to figure out the election machines are
laughable. And in the case where the machine doesn't get a new chip every
election, the method I have described here will only work for the first
election, and one of the other methods will have to be used for succeeding
elections.
One of the most prevalent hacks is that done by the election personnel
themselves. If an area is Republican, and there's no democrats watching,
the Republicans that are in control of the counts and sending them on to
the state can mess with the counts, and they have done in the past.
There are some machines out there that have control of disk files on the
machines, and there file on them that hold the vote counts. Those files
can be manipulated by the election personnel before copying off on to a
medium. The result is then transmitted to the state center, or carried
there id close enough.
In Ohio, each county board is comprised of two Republicans and two
Democrats. They all take part in the setting up of the machines to ensure
it is done fairly. I don't have first hand knowledge that is the case in
every state but I would be amazed if the various counties don't have a
similar arrangement in which both parties take part in setting up,
testing, and certifying the machines. In 2004 when outsiders suggested
that the machines stole Ohio for Bush which was the deciding state, the
DEMOCRATS on the various county boards bristled at that suggestion because
it would mean they had been derelict in their duty. It didn't happen and
anyone who knows how the process works knows it didn't happen. Not in 2004
and not in 2016.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A template is placed over the screen indicating
the candidate that belongs to a particular slot and when the voter presses
the button next to that candidates name, the vote gets recorded in that
slot. Some of the newer touch screen machines actually put the candidates
names on the screen but that is done by the boards of election which
precludes a machine from being hacked at the factory to steal votes from
one candidate and give it to the other.
Other methods of hacking vote counts must be used in that case, as
noted above. The counts have to be affected AFTER the votes are taken by
the machines. Most machines have corrections that have to be made to them
or they will operate improperly, so that code can be introduced easily.
As well, most sites have to transmit counts to a state center or
collection point, and are vulnerable at that time. A hacker can easily
insert themselves into the working personnel at a facility and from there
get to the programming area, where they can get at the counts.
You must think no one has though of that before. There are redundancies
built into the process that would expose any attempt to tamper with the
tallying of votes. The machines counts are recorded on paper at the
polling places and signed by all poll workers, two Republicans and two
Democrats. Those totals can be cross checked at anytime against the
machine totals. Both Democrats and Republicans are involved in all parts
of the process.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made.
To do that, one would have to know which candidate is going to be assigned to which slot at the time the chips were hacked. How could they possibly know that, especially since the position of the candidates on each machine is varied from one machine to the next?
WRONG! You're asking the same question you just asked a few lines
above. I'm not explaining it a fifth time.
Your explanations the first for times failed to answer that question.
Hackers need knowledge to steal votes for a candidate, knowledge no one
could possibly have when the chips are installed at the factory and
shipped to the various counties that will use them. Chips usually have to be programmed AFTER the candidates are selected. Once the candidates are known, and where in the machine candidate #1 and others are being added up, that is all that is needed to generate the hacking code.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.
Unless the hackers knew which candidate was assigned to which slot, they
couldn't possibly know which slot to take votes from and give to another
slot.
WRONG! Don't start that rotating slot crap again. That will be the
6th time. You really just can't understand about computers, can you?
Rotating slots is not crap. It is they way it is done in Ohio. I don't
have definitive information that it is done that way in all states, but I
would bet Ohio is not unique. Whether the slots are rotated or not, your
theoretical hackers still would need to know which slot a given candidate
is assigned to so they can add or subtract votes from that candidate.
Those slots are assigned by the boards of election whether they rotate the
candidates or not so no one hacking the chip at the factory could know
which slots to tamper with.
I'm not explaining the answer again.
To explain it again you would have had to explain it before and you never
have.
Post by mainframetech
The chip has to know which slot
is where to put the vote for this or that candidate,. Once that is known,
the hacker code will use the knowledge to add or subtract vote counts when
the voter makes a choice.
The chip knows no such thing which means it couldn't be done at the
factory which you admitted earlier in this post. Software is used to
program the candidates into the machine. There is no swapping of computer
chips to put the candidates names into the machine.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.
All this presupposes the hackers knew which candidate was in which slot,
something they couldn't possibly know prior to the boards of elections
testing the machines and then assigning the candidates to the specific
slots on the machines, slots that vary from one machine to the next.
WRONG! That's the seventh time you are getting into the rotating slot
foolishness. See above.
I'll keep bringing it up until you can answer how hackers at the factory
could know which slot to steal votes from or to add votes to.
I have answered that, but your lack of programming ability means you'll
never understand it. Once it's known which slot is for which candidate,
hacker code can be generated to use those slots.
Your answer was that the hackers couldn't do that at the factory. In case
you forgot you wrote, "If the candidates aren't yet known, the chips can't
be programmed because the candidates aren't yet known. Simple.
A programmer would have thought of it.". If you had simply
acknowledged that from the start we both could have saved a lot of time.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
I've described the safeguards that are in effect to thwart your
theoretical hackers. If you can explain how your hackers could get around
those safeguards, I will be impressed.
WRONG! I've already done that with your rotating slots, and your
certified sealed machines.
No you haven't. Not even close. You've never explained how hackers could
know when the chips are installed at the factory which slots need to be
tampered with to steal votes for a particular candidate, especially since
they couldn't even know who the candidates will be. What you are
suggesting isn't remotely possible to do at the factory.
What's the matter with you? So you can't understand how it can be
done when I spell it out for you.
You haven't spelled out how it could be done at the factory. You
acknowledged that it couldn't be done without knowing who the candidates
are and nobody knows that when the machines leave the factory. It follows
then that the machines couldn't be hacked at the factory.
Post by mainframetech
That's your problem, not mine. The
slots have to be assigned for each machine, so that the machine knows
which 'bucket' to add to when the voter makes a choice. Once that info is
in the machine, hacker code uses that info to determine which 'bucket' to
add to or not. You use the word 'slot' so just substitute 'bucket' for
it. Same thing.
OK, Mr. Programmer. Tell us what instructions you would imbed in the chip
at the factory that would steal votes from Hillary and give them to Trump
on Election Day 2016. We don't need the programming language, just the
logic involved. You do know what logic is, don't you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now you must be impressed! But remember,
many hackers have shown the holes in the machines up to now. And many
states can't afford to buy new machines yet, the cost is too great, so
they're making do with the old easily hacked machines. Of course you're
not worried, since you know they're impervious to hacking.
The machines are not easily hacked and unless your hackers can predict the
future and know who the candidates in a specific election are going to be
and which slots the boards of election are going to assign to those
candidates, they could possibly steal votes for the candidate of their
choice.
Your not thinking like a programmer. Most machines have chips that
tell each machine which 'bucket' to add to for which name the voter
selects. That code is programmed into the chip before the chip goes into
the machine. When a new election comes up, a new chip is programmed with
the candidates for that election, and the chance for hacking is repeated.
A hacker may or may not make changes in the successive elections. All
will still look normal.
That couldn't be done at the factory. The hackers would have to have
access to the machines between elections at the county HQ. They are locked
away. When the machines are powered down they are physically closed up and
sealed. If someone did get access to them they would have to break the
seal in order to open up the machines and power them up. People thought of
these things a long time ago which is why we have processes in place to
thwart such chicanery.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You could prove me wrong simply by giving us an actual scenario from start
to finish. You could do it for the actual presidential race between Trump
and Hillary or just do it for a theoretical election between Jane Doe and
Joe Schmoe for some non-specific office. Tell us how factory hackers could
steal votes from one candidate and give them to another. Specifics are
needed. Not some vague suggestion about what could be done.
Why are you so interested in exact instructions to hack an election
machine and its counts?
Because it is central to your argument that the vote totals in the 2016
election could have been tampered with on a wide scale basis. The margin
of victor in the blue wall states was tens of thousands of votes. You
can't steal that many votes in just a few precincts. You would have to do
it across county lines and in this case across several states. Since each
county has it's own method of voting, you would need to hack lots of
different machines in different counties and states.
Post by mainframetech
If you were a programmer like you said you were,
you'd have that by now. I've given complete instructions for a programmer
or an intelligent person to know that the method I've described will work
based on the machine you've described. If you contemplate a different
machine, then there may be a different method of hacking necessary. By
reading up on the machines and real cases, you can learn all that you
desire, like I did. That is, IF you're a programmer of average ability.
The hacking would have to be done locally. You admitted from the start
that to hack the machines one would have to know the candidates names.
That isn't know when the machines leave the factories. That could only be
done at the county level. I have told you of the safeguards in place to
thwart such hacking. To steal enough votes to have given Trump upset
victories in the blue wall states, you would have to do the hacking not
just in one county but many.
Liberal icon Michael Moore predicted several weeks before the election
that Hillary was likely to lose Michigan. That's his home state and he
knew from talking to people there that many of them were fed up with the
Democrats and were going to vote Republican in 2016. That turned out to be
the case. That's why Hillary lost. Not because of tampering with the
voting.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
What you describe couldn't defeat the safeguards because it requires the
hackers to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.
WRONG! And now you're going to ask me for the eighth time about
rotating slots, aren't you? That was answered above. That the ninth
time.
Eight time and you still can't answer how hackers could steal votes
without knowing who the candidates would be and which slots they would be
assigned to.
That was indeed answered, you just didn't understand the method.
I've explained it 4-5 times already. If you didn't understand it then,
you won't have gotten any smarter by now.
You finally admitted it couldn't be done at the factory. To do it locally
would require collusion by both Democrats and Republicans on the county
boards.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states??? ???highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process??? as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want,
Because you can't.
Post by mainframetech
for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election.
You come up with some of your funniest lines when you get backed into a
corner.
I've given answers that any average programmer could understand.
You're not a programmer, and so it makes no sense to you. And you think
I've left something out, because you just can't understand what's been
said already.
You haven't been able to answer the specific questions, mainly how the
hackers could know who the candidates would be and which slots they would
be assigned to. Without that knowledge, they couldn't do what you
suggest.
I've answered that specific question 5 times already. To prove it
once again, I'll answer it a 6th time, but don't expect it again.
The 'slots' (as you call them) have to be known to the machine so that
when a voter picks a name on the outside of the machine, on the inside the
machine knows which 'slot' to add to. Since the inside of the machine
knows which 'slot' belongs to which candidate, hacker code in the same
machine can use that knowledge to either add or not to the correct 'slot'
Mary Doe and John Doe are candidates in an election. Mary has been
assigned 'slot' #2 in a particular machine, and John has been assigned
'slot' #1. The hacker is working for John Doe and wants to steal votes
from Mary Doe so John will win. Someone goes to the machine and chooses a
button that says John Doe on it, and hits the button registering a vote
for John Doe.
The machine has to know that a vote for John Doe is added to 'slot' #1,
and so it looks up its internal table of names and 'slots' and finds that
slot #1 is for John, and it adds a vote to 'slot' #1. A new voter comes
along and wants to vote for Mary, and they hit the button that says 'Mary
Doe' on the outside of the machine. The machine has to know which 'slot'
to add the vote to, and it searches the internal table of names and finds
that 'slot' #2 is where to add to the vote count for Mary.
At that point, the hacker code takes over and sees that there is a vote
for Mary, and it wants to avoid adding to Mary's slot #2, and it then
checks the internal table for John's name and finds his votes are added to
slot #1, and it adds the vote to 'slot' #1. Mary's vote has been stolen
and added to the count for John. When the voting is closed, the hacker
code will go through and erase itself so that there is no evidence of
hacking left.
Very good. Now at least we have a specific example to work with. First of
all, as I have already explained, the push button machines don't know the
vote is for Mary. The machine only knows that the voter pressed the button
for slot 2 and the template told the voter that slot 2 belonged to Mary.
At the end of the day the machine knows voters pressed the button for slot
1 x number of times and slot 2 y number of times. The personnel doing the
tallying know that on a given machine slot 1 was for John and slot 2 was
for Mary. That is pretty much the same way the old mechanical voting
machines worked which were used for over 100 years. For all I know those
machines are still used in places. Now the touch screen machines do need
to have the candidates names programmed into them. I've never been
involved in that process but I imagine the set up prompts the board of
election personnel to first type in the office and then list all the
candidates for such an office. In some cases, such as a school board race,
it must allow the voter to vote for more than one person depending on the
number of seats to be filled but in most cases the voter is allowed to
vote for only one candidate for each office. That is the point where the
machines could theoretically be hacked to steal votes for a candidate. To
do that the hacker would need to know how to access the internal code and
would also have to do it under the watchful eye of the board members from
the opposing party. That's why I have said it would require collusion by
both parties to fraudulently set up the machines to steal votes.
Post by mainframetech
Now I've done it so simply that no average person could make a mistake
in understanding it. If YOU don't understand it, then you have the IQ of
a rock garden.
Yes you finally have and I have told you the obstacles that would prevent
such hacking on a scale required to have stolen even one state for Trump.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
You still haven't explained how a hacker could know which slots to take
votes from and give to a candidate in another slot.
That was asked nine times so far, and explained by me at least 4 of
those times.
And dodged nine times so far. I will stop asking when you either answer or
admit what you suggest isn't possible.
Don't you dare accuse me of lying! I said I explained it above, and
you will indeed find an answer above.
Yes, you finally did after much badgering from me. You could have saved us
both lots of time by doing that from the start.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting???s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks ??? denial of service and password-guessing
??? all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump???s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
WRONG! Think that foolishness through! Exit polling results are taken
face to face by pollsters, who wait at the polling places and ask voters
who they voted for. They then add up the totals by hand or calculator and
compare with the official vote counts. Of course, you were unable to
figure that out.
I know how exit polling works. First it assumes the people are honest with
the pollsters about who that voted for. But let's assume just for the sake
of argument everyone told the pollsters who they voted for. The pollsters
only poll a small sample of the electorate. The easy part is totaling the
responses. The hard part of polling is creating the data model and making
sure your polling sample accurately reflects the electorate. Exit polling
might tell you that 90% of African-Americans voted for Hillary but it is
just as important to know what percentage of all voters were
African-American. Pollsters anticipate there would be a drop of from
African-American turnout from what it was for Obama but it dropped below
historical norms as well which is why the pollsters oversampled
African-Americans and under sampled white blue collar voters and white
rural voters in the battleground states. It is why their projection were
so wrong in Hillary's blue wall. Trumps internal polling proved to be far
more accurate than the traditional polling agencies. They were not caught
by surprise on election day the way most of the media was.
WRONG! Still trying to convince everyone you know what you're talking
about. All that is useful for some polls, but the polls needed to
determine if hacking was involved are simply who a person voted for. Those
that don't want to answer get ignored,
What about the ones who lie?
Post by mainframetech
and the rest are counted as they
told the pollster. Very few will lie for some reason, and that won't
offset the total by much if a good sampling is taken.
How would you know how many people would lie. Lots of people don't think
it's anybody's business whom they voted for. And they are right.
WRONG! You've arrived at the point where you know you're in the
corner and have started your nitpicking phase. It won't help. The exit
polls tell the tale if there's hacking of the vote counts. For further
elucidation I suggest you examine the website of Bev Harris,
www.blackboxvoting.org
You do put a lot of faith in your kook websites. Exit polling told us Gore
won the 2000 election and Kerry won the 2004 election. Then they counted
the actual votes and found out the exit polling was wrong.
If the exit polling was "wrong" then there is the possibility that the
election counts were hacked.
Neither the Gore nor the Kerry camps even suggested that had happened
because it would have made them look foolish and petty. That comes from
the far out fringes of the Democrat Party.
All polling, whether pre-election or exit polling, requires an accurate
sampling of the electorate. If the sampling is wrong, so will the results.
That's why pollsters only claim their polls are accurate to + or - 3
points and as this last election showed, even that claim is dubious. The
consensus polling showed Trump losing states by more than 3 points that he
ended up winning. Polling can get you in the ballpark provided it's a big
ballpark.
Meaningless. You and Trump only like a poll when it says something you
like. If it is not favorable you call it fake.
mainframetech
2017-05-17 10:34:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this 'swamp post' is getting too large, this is my last entry
today.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
WRONG again! Polls taken at the exiting from voting are better and
closer to the vote itself, and more correct. And it comes from the voters
themselves.
It's still just a sample of the electorate and unless that sample
accurately reflects the electorate, the results will still be skewed. If a
group is oversampled or undersampled the results will be less than
accurate.
In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, people were getting early
exit polling data from the Drudge Report website which seemed to indicate
Bush was going to lose both elections. What many failed to understand was
they were looking at just raw data which didn't accurately reflect the
electorate. Woman are more likely to vote early in the day and since woman
vote more for Democrats than men that skewed the numbers toward the
Democrats. A poll can only be as accurate as the model and if the model
weights various demographics inaccurately, the results won't be accurate.
That's way pollsters generally claim they are only accurate to plus or
minus 3%. That's a 6% swing. And you want to use such data to judge the
accuracy of the actual voting. Amazing.
Now you're pretending to be an expert pollster! Is there no end to your
supposed talents?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
WRONG, and that has been explained to you. Hacker code can be present
in the machine and not take any action until the date of the election or
some other trigger. Until then, the hacker code remains dormant. It will
test just fine like the original code. When the election starts, the
trigger goes off and the hacker code takes over until the end of the
election, when the hacker code deletes itself, leaving nothing to find.
So tell us how the machines could be hacked at the factory for an election
in the future when the candidates aren't even known at that point.
If the candidates aren't yet known, the chips can't be programmed
because the candidates aren't yet known. Simple. A programmer would have
thought of it.
Which means the hacking could not occur at the factory which is what I
have been saying all along and what you have been disputing until now. The
push button voting machines are nothing but glorified adding machines. All
they know is which buttons the voter pushed and it adds a vote to those
counters. The touch screen machines need to have the candidates programmed
onto the machines so they are displayed on the screen. That is done
through the software by personnel at the boards of elections. It is not
done by replacing or modifying the chips at the factor which is what you
were suggesting.
WRONG, WRONG and WRONG! You'll never learn. You keep acting like all
machines are alike, when there are many different types, which I've
mentioned to you. I also made it clear that the method I was describing
to you was not the only method, which varies depending on the type of
machine. As well, I have told you that certain mechanical machines can
defeat the hackers, as long as they are completely mechanical, and the
counts are read from their backs. Those numbers are added by hand
calculator (not computer) and summarized by hand. The totals are hand
carried to the state center and manually added to the totals for the state
with the other hand totals from out lying areas.

Does that sound familiar? It below in this swamp post you're creating
again.
Post by bigdog
A programmer would have thought of that. After the
machines are programmed with the candidates names they are tested and
certified.
WRONG! You've just made a statement that should have told you
something, but not with your kind of mind. You see, when the programming
is down to put in the names of the candidates, it's a perfect time to put
in the hacking code too. Whether some one else does it when no one is
looking, or if they have all night to modify the code, or whatever, once
the hacker code in is, the testing and certifying will proceed normally.
The hacker code will not take effect until the election.


Try and remember that I also explained to you that other hacker
methods may be necessary along the way. It all depends on the situation,
which varies from machine type to machine type. An example is that it may
be necessary to use social engineering to get the info needed to access
the code that will go on a chip to be inserted into the machines, so they
will make the calls and do the work to get the info and then armed with
that, they can break in and modify the code that is waiting to be
installed in the chips, or in the machines, depending on the machine type.

This is a swamp post, which I'm not going to play with. I've answered
your first ridiculous complaint and explained that the situation is more
complex than you keep thinking it is. I've explained that there are many
machine types and situations. I've explained that many methods are used
for the various methods of recording votes. If you want to get more
answers, open a new thread and ask your questions. And try to learn, not
just complain because you don't understand.

Chris
Post by bigdog
If any tampering of the machines were done it would have to be
done at that point and would require collusion by Republicans and
Democrats. Once certified, the machines are powered down, closed up, and a
seal placed on them. That seal must still be in place when the machine is
opened and powered up at the polling places by the poll workers. Smart
people figured out a long time ago where the vulnerabilities in the
various voting machines were and they devised safeguards to prevent the
kind of malfeasance you have suggested.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Once into the company's
offices, changes can be made to the main chip that will go into the
machines. After that, all copies for the many machines will have the
hacker code in them.
So how could these hackers know that the major party candidates in 2016
would be Trump and Hillary and how did they know which candidate would be
assigned to which slot on the voting machines, especially since that slot
gets rotated from one machine to the next. This is where your lack of
specifics gets exposed.
Why do you keep thinking the Trump election had the voting machines
hacked?
I don't. That seems to be what you are suggesting.
Please don't do that about what I say. I say what I mean. If I had
some proof that the election counts were hacked, I'd say so clearly.
So instead you just suggest it through innuendo rather than just admit the
election results were fair and square.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There's no proof of that. Each machine has to know which buckets
are for which vote.
No, the machines don't know that any more than the old mechanical voting
machines knew that. They just count the number of votes for each slot. The
boards of election know which candidate was assigned to each slot and
therefore know who the votes in a particular slot belong to. The machine
is just a generic counter.
You'll have to think that through. When the person votes, THEY know
the name of the person they are voting for, and they have to be able to
find that name on the voting machine. When a vote comes in, the machine
has to know which 'slot' that vote has to go to. The only way to identify
the correct slot to add the vote to is if the slots are identified within
the machine. Think it through. The rotating 'slot' theory of yours will
fail.
That depends on the type of machine. A push button machine has a template,
not a screen which identifies to a voter which button belongs to which
candidate. There is nothing in the electronics which identify which button
is assigned to a candidate. All the machine knows is which button the
voter pushed and counts it. Touch screen machines do need to have the
candidates names displayed on the screen so that must be programmed into
the machine along with the office the candidates are running for. That is
done through the software by board of elections personnel for each
election. Only board of elections personnel could tamper with the machines
at that point and both Democrats and Republicans are on those boards and
would have to collude in order to tamper with the vote totals.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
therefore the answer is already in the machine. It
doesn't matter which slot is assigned in any one machine, as long as the
machine knows which slot a vote goes into, the hacker code can put the
vote where it wants for whoever it was programmed for. That's the fourth
time I've explained that, so you're entering your repetitive phase where
you have no clue and just keep asking the same questions over and over.
Here's where your lack of understanding of how the machines work gets
exposed. The machines are used from one election to the next and don't
need to be reprogramed.
WRONG! You're attempts to figure out the election machines are
laughable. And in the case where the machine doesn't get a new chip every
election, the method I have described here will only work for the first
election, and one of the other methods will have to be used for succeeding
elections.
One of the most prevalent hacks is that done by the election personnel
themselves. If an area is Republican, and there's no democrats watching,
the Republicans that are in control of the counts and sending them on to
the state can mess with the counts, and they have done in the past.
There are some machines out there that have control of disk files on the
machines, and there file on them that hold the vote counts. Those files
can be manipulated by the election personnel before copying off on to a
medium. The result is then transmitted to the state center, or carried
there id close enough.
In Ohio, each county board is comprised of two Republicans and two
Democrats. They all take part in the setting up of the machines to ensure
it is done fairly. I don't have first hand knowledge that is the case in
every state but I would be amazed if the various counties don't have a
similar arrangement in which both parties take part in setting up,
testing, and certifying the machines. In 2004 when outsiders suggested
that the machines stole Ohio for Bush which was the deciding state, the
DEMOCRATS on the various county boards bristled at that suggestion because
it would mean they had been derelict in their duty. It didn't happen and
anyone who knows how the process works knows it didn't happen. Not in 2004
and not in 2016.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A template is placed over the screen indicating
the candidate that belongs to a particular slot and when the voter presses
the button next to that candidates name, the vote gets recorded in that
slot. Some of the newer touch screen machines actually put the candidates
names on the screen but that is done by the boards of election which
precludes a machine from being hacked at the factory to steal votes from
one candidate and give it to the other.
Other methods of hacking vote counts must be used in that case, as
noted above. The counts have to be affected AFTER the votes are taken by
the machines. Most machines have corrections that have to be made to them
or they will operate improperly, so that code can be introduced easily.
As well, most sites have to transmit counts to a state center or
collection point, and are vulnerable at that time. A hacker can easily
insert themselves into the working personnel at a facility and from there
get to the programming area, where they can get at the counts.
You must think no one has though of that before. There are redundancies
built into the process that would expose any attempt to tamper with the
tallying of votes. The machines counts are recorded on paper at the
polling places and signed by all poll workers, two Republicans and two
Democrats. Those totals can be cross checked at anytime against the
machine totals. Both Democrats and Republicans are involved in all parts
of the process.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They will act normal for testing, and then upon
real voting, will act to modify the counts as the votes are made.
To do that, one would have to know which candidate is going to be assigned to which slot at the time the chips were hacked. How could they possibly know that, especially since the position of the candidates on each machine is varied from one machine to the next?
WRONG! You're asking the same question you just asked a few lines
above. I'm not explaining it a fifth time.
Your explanations the first for times failed to answer that question.
Hackers need knowledge to steal votes for a candidate, knowledge no one
could possibly have when the chips are installed at the factory and
shipped to the various counties that will use them. Chips usually have to be programmed AFTER the candidates are selected. Once the candidates are known, and where in the machine candidate #1 and others are being added up, that is all that is needed to generate the hacking code.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If a
paper trail is required, paper will be printed out saying all is well and
saying the vote that was just made was accepted as is. In reality, the
hacked code has recorded a count for the wrong candidate.
Unless the hackers knew which candidate was assigned to which slot, they
couldn't possibly know which slot to take votes from and give to another
slot.
WRONG! Don't start that rotating slot crap again. That will be the
6th time. You really just can't understand about computers, can you?
Rotating slots is not crap. It is they way it is done in Ohio. I don't
have definitive information that it is done that way in all states, but I
would bet Ohio is not unique. Whether the slots are rotated or not, your
theoretical hackers still would need to know which slot a given candidate
is assigned to so they can add or subtract votes from that candidate.
Those slots are assigned by the boards of election whether they rotate the
candidates or not so no one hacking the chip at the factory could know
which slots to tamper with.
I'm not explaining the answer again.
To explain it again you would have had to explain it before and you never
have.
Post by mainframetech
The chip has to know which slot
is where to put the vote for this or that candidate,. Once that is known,
the hacker code will use the knowledge to add or subtract vote counts when
the voter makes a choice.
The chip knows no such thing which means it couldn't be done at the
factory which you admitted earlier in this post. Software is used to
program the candidates into the machine. There is no swapping of computer
chips to put the candidates names into the machine.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the closedown commands is given at the end of voting, the
summaries will be printed out or a disk will be burned with the fake
counts, and the hacked code will remove itself and leave nothing to see.
All this presupposes the hackers knew which candidate was in which slot,
something they couldn't possibly know prior to the boards of elections
testing the machines and then assigning the candidates to the specific
slots on the machines, slots that vary from one machine to the next.
WRONG! That's the seventh time you are getting into the rotating slot
foolishness. See above.
I'll keep bringing it up until you can answer how hackers at the factory
could know which slot to steal votes from or to add votes to.
I have answered that, but your lack of programming ability means you'll
never understand it. Once it's known which slot is for which candidate,
hacker code can be generated to use those slots.
Your answer was that the hackers couldn't do that at the factory. In case
you forgot you wrote, "If the candidates aren't yet known, the chips can't
be programmed because the candidates aren't yet known.  Simple.
 A programmer would have thought of it.". If you had simply
acknowledged that from the start we both could have saved a lot of time.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Now I've described one of the methods for hacking voting machines for
the third time. And there are other methods that a real programmer would
be able to develop or figure out.
I've described the safeguards that are in effect to thwart your
theoretical hackers. If you can explain how your hackers could get around
those safeguards, I will be impressed.
WRONG! I've already done that with your rotating slots, and your
certified sealed machines.
No you haven't. Not even close. You've never explained how hackers could
know when the chips are installed at the factory which slots need to be
tampered with to steal votes for a particular candidate, especially since
they couldn't even know who the candidates will be. What you are
suggesting isn't remotely possible to do at the factory.
What's the matter with you? So you can't understand how it can be
done when I spell it out for you.
You haven't spelled out how it could be done at the factory. You
acknowledged that it couldn't be done without knowing who the candidates
are and nobody knows that when the machines leave the factory. It follows
then that the machines couldn't be hacked at the factory.
Post by mainframetech
That's your problem, not mine. The
slots have to be assigned for each machine, so that the machine knows
which 'bucket' to add to when the voter makes a choice. Once that info is
in the machine, hacker code uses that info to determine which 'bucket' to
add to or not. You use the word 'slot' so just substitute 'bucket' for
it. Same thing.
OK, Mr. Programmer. Tell us what instructions you would imbed in the chip
at the factory that would steal votes from Hillary and give them to Trump
on Election Day 2016. We don't need the programming language, just the
logic involved. You do know what logic is, don't you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now you must be impressed! But remember,
many hackers have shown the holes in the machines up to now. And many
states can't afford to buy new machines yet, the cost is too great, so
they're making do with the old easily hacked machines. Of course you're
not worried, since you know they're impervious to hacking.
The machines are not easily hacked and unless your hackers can predict the
future and know who the candidates in a specific election are going to be
and which slots the boards of election are going to assign to those
candidates, they could possibly steal votes for the candidate of their
choice.
Your not thinking like a programmer. Most machines have chips that
tell each machine which 'bucket' to add to for which name the voter
selects. That code is programmed into the chip before the chip goes into
the machine. When a new election comes up, a new chip is programmed with
the candidates for that election, and the chance for hacking is repeated.
A hacker may or may not make changes in the successive elections. All
will still look normal.
That couldn't be done at the factory. The hackers would have to have
access to the machines between elections at the county HQ. They are locked
away. When the machines are powered down they are physically closed up and
sealed. If someone did get access to them they would have to break the
seal in order to open up the machines and power them up. People thought of
these things a long time ago which is why we have processes in place to
thwart such chicanery.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You could prove me wrong simply by giving us an actual scenario from start
to finish. You could do it for the actual presidential race between Trump
and Hillary or just do it for a theoretical election between Jane Doe and
Joe Schmoe for some non-specific office. Tell us how factory hackers could
steal votes from one candidate and give them to another. Specifics are
needed. Not some vague suggestion about what could be done.
Why are you so interested in exact instructions to hack an election
machine and its counts?
Because it is central to your argument that the vote totals in the 2016
election could have been tampered with on a wide scale basis. The margin
of victor in the blue wall states was tens of thousands of votes. You
can't steal that many votes in just a few precincts. You would have to do
it across county lines and in this case across several states. Since each
county has it's own method of voting, you would need to hack lots of
different machines in different counties and states.
Post by mainframetech
If you were a programmer like you said you were,
you'd have that by now. I've given complete instructions for a programmer
or an intelligent person to know that the method I've described will work
based on the machine you've described. If you contemplate a different
machine, then there may be a different method of hacking necessary. By
reading up on the machines and real cases, you can learn all that you
desire, like I did. That is, IF you're a programmer of average ability.
The hacking would have to be done locally. You admitted from the start
that to hack the machines one would have to know the candidates names.
That isn't know when the machines leave the factories. That could only be
done at the county level. I have told you of the safeguards in place to
thwart such hacking. To steal enough votes to have given Trump upset
victories in the blue wall states, you would have to do the hacking not
just in one county but many.
Liberal icon Michael Moore predicted several weeks before the election
that Hillary was likely to lose Michigan. That's his home state and he
knew from talking to people there that many of them were fed up with the
Democrats and were going to vote Republican in 2016. That turned out to be
the case. That's why Hillary lost. Not because of tampering with the
voting.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
WRONG! I explained that above and in previous posts. Where were you?
So you are just claiming it is theoretically possible without explaining
how it could have defeated all the safeguards built into the system.
I've described one of the ways above, but there are many. We're
dealing with Swiss cheese here.
What you describe couldn't defeat the safeguards because it requires the
hackers to have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.
WRONG! And now you're going to ask me for the eighth time about
rotating slots, aren't you? That was answered above. That the ninth
time.
Eight time and you still can't answer how hackers could steal votes
without knowing who the candidates would be and which slots they would be
assigned to.
That was indeed answered, you just didn't understand the method.
I've explained it 4-5 times already. If you didn't understand it then,
you won't have gotten any smarter by now.
You finally admitted it couldn't be done at the factory. To do it locally
would require collusion by both Democrats and Republicans on the county
boards.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
I listed many ways already...where were you when I did that? Off
trying to convince someone you know what you're talking about?
You have done nothing more than make vague suggestions that such hacking
could have been done without providing any specifics to explain how the
safeguards could have been defeated. He can't even explain how even one
machine COULD have been hacked and one machine at most could only steal a
couple hundred votes. Hillary lost the key battle ground states be tens of
thousands of votes. That would mean hundreds of machines would have to be
hacked.
WRONG! I'm not going to give the kind of detail you want,
Because you can't.
Post by mainframetech
for all I
know you plan on using that info in a real election.
You come up with some of your funniest lines when you get backed into a
corner.
I've given answers that any average programmer could understand.
You're not a programmer, and so it makes no sense to you. And you think
I've left something out, because you just can't understand what's been
said already.
You haven't been able to answer the specific questions, mainly how the
hackers could know who the candidates would be and which slots they would
be assigned to. Without that knowledge, they couldn't do what you
suggest.
I've answered that specific question 5 times already. To prove it
once again, I'll answer it a 6th time, but don't expect it again.
The 'slots' (as you call them) have to be known to the machine so that
when a voter picks a name on the outside of the machine, on the inside the
machine knows which 'slot' to add to. Since the inside of the machine
knows which 'slot' belongs to which candidate, hacker code in the same
machine can use that knowledge to either add or not to the correct 'slot'
Mary Doe and John Doe are candidates in an election. Mary has been
assigned 'slot' #2 in a particular machine, and John has been assigned
'slot' #1. The hacker is working for John Doe and wants to steal votes
from Mary Doe so John will win. Someone goes to the machine and chooses a
button that says John Doe on it, and hits the button registering a vote
for John Doe.
The machine has to know that a vote for John Doe is added to 'slot' #1,
and so it looks up its internal table of names and 'slots' and finds that
slot #1 is for John, and it adds a vote to 'slot' #1. A new voter comes
along and wants to vote for Mary, and they hit the button that says 'Mary
Doe' on the outside of the machine. The machine has to know which 'slot'
to add the vote to, and it searches the internal table of names and finds
that 'slot' #2 is where to add to the vote count for Mary.
At that point, the hacker code takes over and sees that there is a vote
for Mary, and it wants to avoid adding to Mary's slot #2, and it then
checks the internal table for John's name and finds his votes are added to
slot #1, and it adds the vote to 'slot' #1. Mary's vote has been stolen
and added to the count for John. When the voting is closed, the hacker
code will go through and erase itself so that there is no evidence of
hacking left.
Very good. Now at least we have a specific example to work with. First of
all, as I have already explained, the push button machines don't know the
vote is for Mary. The machine only knows that the voter pressed the button
for slot 2 and the template told the voter that slot 2 belonged to Mary.
At the end of the day the machine knows voters pressed the button for slot
1 x number of times and slot 2 y number of times. The personnel doing the
tallying know that on a given machine slot 1 was for John and slot 2 was
for Mary. That is pretty much the same way the old mechanical voting
machines worked which were used for over 100 years. For all I know those
machines are still used in places. Now the touch screen machines do need
to have the candidates names programmed into them. I've never been
involved in that process but I imagine the set up prompts the board of
election personnel to first type in the office and then list all the
candidates for such an office. In some cases, such as a school board race,
it must allow the voter to vote for more than one person depending on the
number of seats to be filled but in most cases the voter is allowed to
vote for only one candidate for each office. That is the point where the
machines could theoretically be hacked to steal votes for a candidate. To
do that the hacker would need to know how to access the internal code and
would also have to do it under the watchful eye of the board members from
the opposing party. That's why I have said it would require collusion by
both parties to fraudulently set up the machines to steal votes.
Post by mainframetech
Now I've done it so simply that no average person could make a mistake
in understanding it. If YOU don't understand it, then you have the IQ of
a rock garden.
Yes you finally have and I have told you the obstacles that would prevent
such hacking on a scale required to have stolen even one state for Trump.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I've given enough
info that a programmer would know it is a workable method I've described
above. And I've listed other methods in other posts. If you're a
programmer, you'll know what I've described will get past the 'seals'
you've mentioned.
You still haven't explained how a hacker could know which slots to take
votes from and give to a candidate in another slot.
That was asked nine times so far, and explained by me at least 4 of
those times.
And dodged nine times so far. I will stop asking when you either answer or
admit what you suggest isn't possible.
Don't you dare accuse me of lying! I said I explained it above, and
you will indeed find an answer above.
Yes, you finally did after much badgering from me. You could have saved us
both lots of time by doing that from the start.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
bigdog
2017-05-18 01:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this 'swamp post' is getting too large, this is my last entry
today.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
WRONG again! Polls taken at the exiting from voting are better and
closer to the vote itself, and more correct. And it comes from the voters
themselves.
It's still just a sample of the electorate and unless that sample
accurately reflects the electorate, the results will still be skewed. If a
group is oversampled or undersampled the results will be less than
accurate.
In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, people were getting early
exit polling data from the Drudge Report website which seemed to indicate
Bush was going to lose both elections. What many failed to understand was
they were looking at just raw data which didn't accurately reflect the
electorate. Woman are more likely to vote early in the day and since woman
vote more for Democrats than men that skewed the numbers toward the
Democrats. A poll can only be as accurate as the model and if the model
weights various demographics inaccurately, the results won't be accurate.
That's way pollsters generally claim they are only accurate to plus or
minus 3%. That's a 6% swing. And you want to use such data to judge the
accuracy of the actual voting. Amazing.
Now you're pretending to be an expert pollster! Is there no end to your
supposed talents?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
WRONG, and that has been explained to you. Hacker code can be present
in the machine and not take any action until the date of the election or
some other trigger. Until then, the hacker code remains dormant. It will
test just fine like the original code. When the election starts, the
trigger goes off and the hacker code takes over until the end of the
election, when the hacker code deletes itself, leaving nothing to find.
So tell us how the machines could be hacked at the factory for an election
in the future when the candidates aren't even known at that point.
If the candidates aren't yet known, the chips can't be programmed
because the candidates aren't yet known. Simple. A programmer would have
thought of it.
Which means the hacking could not occur at the factory which is what I
have been saying all along and what you have been disputing until now. The
push button voting machines are nothing but glorified adding machines. All
they know is which buttons the voter pushed and it adds a vote to those
counters. The touch screen machines need to have the candidates programmed
onto the machines so they are displayed on the screen. That is done
through the software by personnel at the boards of elections. It is not
done by replacing or modifying the chips at the factor which is what you
were suggesting.
WRONG, WRONG and WRONG! You'll never learn.
Certainly not from you.
Post by mainframetech
You keep acting like all
machines are alike,
I have described two different types of machines that I am familiar with
having worked with them, push button and touch screens. I have never said
those are the only two types of machines.
Post by mainframetech
when there are many different types, which I've
mentioned to you.
Thank you for telling me what I already knew.
Post by mainframetech
I also made it clear that the method I was describing
to you was not the only method, which varies depending on the type of
machine.
Which was the whole point of the NASS report cited in the OP. The voting
process is decentralized and the machines are not connected which makes
wide scale hacking virtually impossible.
Post by mainframetech
As well, I have told you that certain mechanical machines can
defeat the hackers, as long as they are completely mechanical, and the
counts are read from their backs.
There are ways the mechanical machines could be hacked as well, they use
cogs to turn the numbers each time a vote is cast for a candidate. One
could hack one of those machines by filing a few teeth from one of the
cogs so it doesn't record every vote. When the voting is done simple
replace the damaged cog and there would be no evidence of the hack. Of
course when those machines were in use there were safeguards in place to
make it difficult to tamper with the machines similar to what is in place
today with the electronic machines.
Post by mainframetech
Those numbers are added by hand
calculator (not computer) and summarized by hand. The totals are hand
carried to the state center and manually added to the totals for the state
with the other hand totals from out lying areas.
Does that sound familiar? It below in this swamp post you're creating
again.
The process for reporting the vote totals hasn't changed with the advent
of electronic machines to take the place of paper ballots or mechanical
machines. The poll workers still manually record the totals for each race
and every poll worker signs the tally sheet affirming it is correct. That
provides a paper trail in the event a recount is requested. My first time
as a poll worker was in 1972 and I have worked with mechanical machines,
electronic machines, and paper ballots. The process for tallying the votes
hasn't changed. Two Democrats and two Republicans in each polling place
manually record the vote totals from the precinct.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A programmer would have thought of that. After the
machines are programmed with the candidates names they are tested and
certified.
WRONG! You've just made a statement that should have told you
something, but not with your kind of mind. You see, when the programming
is down to put in the names of the candidates, it's a perfect time to put
in the hacking code too.
The boards of election are bipartisan with two Democrats and two
Republicans and they both take part in setting up the machines so it would
require collusion by both parties to manipulate the machine to steal
votes. Do you think the Democrat board members would just sit idly by
twiddling their thumbs while the Republicans monkeyed with the machines to
steal votes.
Post by mainframetech
Whether some one else does it when no one is
looking, or if they have all night to modify the code, or whatever, once
the hacker code in is, the testing and certifying will proceed normally.
The hacker code will not take effect until the election.
At no time does personnel from one party have access to the machines when
the other party is not around. Claiming the Republicans could have set up
the machines to steal votes amounts to claiming the Democrats on the
boards were derelict in their duties. When that charge was made following
the 2004 election in which Bush narrowly carried Ohio giving him the
election, the Democrat election board members from around the state
denounced those accusations because it was the same as accusing them of
not doing their due diligence.
Post by mainframetech
Try and remember that I also explained to you that other hacker
methods may be necessary along the way.
You are very good at presenting vague ideas. Not so good at filling in the
details.
Post by mainframetech
It all depends on the situation,
which varies from machine type to machine type.
Exactly the point of the NASS report. Voting is decentralized. It varies
from county to county. That means you can't just come up with one hack,
you have to come up with many. In Ohio we have 88 counties and they all
choose differnet methods of voting. Those using machines use different
machines. You aren't going to tip and election by stealing votes in just a
few counties when the final margin of victory is in the tens of thousands
as it was in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Post by mainframetech
An example is that it may
be necessary to use social engineering to get the info needed to access
the code that will go on a chip to be inserted into the machines,
The chips are installed at the factory and you have already acknowledged
the hacking can't be done at the point because they don't know who the
candidates are going to be.
Post by mainframetech
so they
will make the calls and do the work to get the info and then armed with
that, they can break in and modify the code that is waiting to be
installed in the chips, or in the machines, depending on the machine type.
You're forgetting that once the machines are set up, the are powered down,
locked up, and a seal is placed on the machine which isn't broken until
the poll workers open up the machines on election day. If they found the
seal broken, the machine is not supposed to be used. It's not as if nobody
every thought of the kind of shenanigans you have suggested which is why
there are procedures in place to thwart those shenanigans.
Post by mainframetech
This is a swamp post, which I'm not going to play with. I've answered
your first ridiculous complaint and explained that the situation is more
complex than you keep thinking it is. I've explained that there are many
machine types and situations. I've explained that many methods are used
for the various methods of recording votes. If you want to get more
answers, open a new thread and ask your questions. And try to learn, not
just complain because you don't understand.
For every means of hacking you have suggested, I have told you of the
safeguards built into the process to thwart the hacking and you have been
unable to describe a method that would defeat those safeguards. I don't
need any more answers from you because the ones you gave were FUBAR.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-20 19:15:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this 'swamp post' is getting too large, this is my last entry
today.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
WRONG! I'm NOT making any excuse, I'm supplying a piece of information
for anyone that's wants to listen. I'm NOT saying that the election was
hacked, because I don't know that it has. I haven't seen the exit polls
and compared them with the real vote counts, which is the only way to
determine if there was something wrong with the election counting.
Why of course. The pollsters demonstrated last November how accurate their
data models were. Why go by the actual vote counts when we can just ask
the pollsters who really won. In 2000, exit polls led to Florida first
being called a win for Gore, then it was retracted, then called a win for
Bush, and then that was retracted. Five weeks later it was determined that
Bush won the state by a little over 500 votes. Had the exit polling been
accurate, they would have declared Florida "too close to call" and stuck
with that. 500 votes in a state with so many millions is simply well
within the margin of error which should have dictated the state not be
called at all. So much for the reliability of data models on which such
projections are made.
WRONG! Are you out of your mind? Pollsters have nothing to contribute
except if they do exit polls as noted above.
So polls based on a sampling of the electorate prior to the election have
no validity but exit polls based on a sampling of the electorate are
gospel in your eyes.
WRONG again! Polls taken at the exiting from voting are better and
closer to the vote itself, and more correct. And it comes from the voters
themselves.
It's still just a sample of the electorate and unless that sample
accurately reflects the electorate, the results will still be skewed. If a
group is oversampled or undersampled the results will be less than
accurate.
In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, people were getting early
exit polling data from the Drudge Report website which seemed to indicate
Bush was going to lose both elections. What many failed to understand was
they were looking at just raw data which didn't accurately reflect the
electorate. Woman are more likely to vote early in the day and since woman
vote more for Democrats than men that skewed the numbers toward the
Democrats. A poll can only be as accurate as the model and if the model
weights various demographics inaccurately, the results won't be accurate.
That's way pollsters generally claim they are only accurate to plus or
minus 3%. That's a 6% swing. And you want to use such data to judge the
accuracy of the actual voting. Amazing.
Now you're pretending to be an expert pollster! Is there no end to your
supposed talents?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Fortunately, there are simple ways to determine if a forger did the
work.
Not if you're clever enough like I was. Or to quote you my forgery "is
considered successful if no one knows it was done."
WRONG! There's not a chance in Hell that you're clever enough.
Fooled you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In the case of hacking an election machine, there is a way to
completely eliminate ALL evidence, but apparently you have no clue about
that.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the machines could be hacked after
testing when they are powered down, closed up, and marked with a physical
seal which would reveal that the machine had been tampered with after the
testing was completed.
I've made a list twice now and it appears you've ignored both.
You've only made vague suggestions for how the machines could be hacked
without ever giving any details or explained how the safeguards I have
pointed out to you could be defeated.
Post by mainframetech
Each
machine (depending on manufacture) has a chip installed in it that covers
the candidates and their positions on the 'voting board'. That chip can
be hacked at the point of manufacture by normal hacking of the company
offices, or the use of social engineering.
If it were hacked at that point, that would become apparent when the
machines are tested by the bipartisan boards of elections.
WRONG, and that has been explained to you. Hacker code can be present
in the machine and not take any action until the date of the election or
some other trigger. Until then, the hacker code remains dormant. It will
test just fine like the original code. When the election starts, the
trigger goes off and the hacker code takes over until the end of the
election, when the hacker code deletes itself, leaving nothing to find.
So tell us how the machines could be hacked at the factory for an election
in the future when the candidates aren't even known at that point.
If the candidates aren't yet known, the chips can't be programmed
because the candidates aren't yet known. Simple. A programmer would have
thought of it.
Which means the hacking could not occur at the factory which is what I
have been saying all along and what you have been disputing until now. The
push button voting machines are nothing but glorified adding machines. All
they know is which buttons the voter pushed and it adds a vote to those
counters. The touch screen machines need to have the candidates programmed
onto the machines so they are displayed on the screen. That is done
through the software by personnel at the boards of elections. It is not
done by replacing or modifying the chips at the factor which is what you
were suggesting.
WRONG, WRONG and WRONG! You'll never learn.
Certainly not from you.
Post by mainframetech
You keep acting like all
machines are alike,
I have described two different types of machines that I am familiar with
having worked with them, push button and touch screens. I have never said
those are the only two types of machines.
Post by mainframetech
when there are many different types, which I've
mentioned to you.
Thank you for telling me what I already knew.
Post by mainframetech
I also made it clear that the method I was describing
to you was not the only method, which varies depending on the type of
machine.
Which was the whole point of the NASS report cited in the OP. The voting
process is decentralized and the machines are not connected which makes
wide scale hacking virtually impossible.
Post by mainframetech
As well, I have told you that certain mechanical machines can
defeat the hackers, as long as they are completely mechanical, and the
counts are read from their backs.
There are ways the mechanical machines could be hacked as well, they use
cogs to turn the numbers each time a vote is cast for a candidate. One
could hack one of those machines by filing a few teeth from one of the
cogs so it doesn't record every vote. When the voting is done simple
replace the damaged cog and there would be no evidence of the hack. Of
course when those machines were in use there were safeguards in place to
make it difficult to tamper with the machines similar to what is in place
today with the electronic machines.
Post by mainframetech
Those numbers are added by hand
calculator (not computer) and summarized by hand. The totals are hand
carried to the state center and manually added to the totals for the state
with the other hand totals from out lying areas.
Does that sound familiar? It below in this swamp post you're creating
again.
The process for reporting the vote totals hasn't changed with the advent
of electronic machines to take the place of paper ballots or mechanical
machines. The poll workers still manually record the totals for each race
and every poll worker signs the tally sheet affirming it is correct. That
provides a paper trail in the event a recount is requested. My first time
as a poll worker was in 1972 and I have worked with mechanical machines,
electronic machines, and paper ballots. The process for tallying the votes
hasn't changed. Two Democrats and two Republicans in each polling place
manually record the vote totals from the precinct.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A programmer would have thought of that. After the
machines are programmed with the candidates names they are tested and
certified.
WRONG! You've just made a statement that should have told you
something, but not with your kind of mind. You see, when the programming
is down to put in the names of the candidates, it's a perfect time to put
in the hacking code too.
The boards of election are bipartisan with two Democrats and two
Republicans and they both take part in setting up the machines so it would
require collusion by both parties to manipulate the machine to steal
votes. Do you think the Democrat board members would just sit idly by
twiddling their thumbs while the Republicans monkeyed with the machines to
steal votes.
Post by mainframetech
Whether some one else does it when no one is
looking, or if they have all night to modify the code, or whatever, once
the hacker code in is, the testing and certifying will proceed normally.
The hacker code will not take effect until the election.
At no time does personnel from one party have access to the machines when
the other party is not around. Claiming the Republicans could have set up
the machines to steal votes amounts to claiming the Democrats on the
boards were derelict in their duties. When that charge was made following
the 2004 election in which Bush narrowly carried Ohio giving him the
election, the Democrat election board members from around the state
denounced those accusations because it was the same as accusing them of
not doing their due diligence.
Post by mainframetech
Try and remember that I also explained to you that other hacker
methods may be necessary along the way.
You are very good at presenting vague ideas. Not so good at filling in the
details.
Post by mainframetech
It all depends on the situation,
which varies from machine type to machine type.
Exactly the point of the NASS report. Voting is decentralized. It varies
from county to county. That means you can't just come up with one hack,
you have to come up with many. In Ohio we have 88 counties and they all
choose differnet methods of voting. Those using machines use different
machines. You aren't going to tip and election by stealing votes in just a
few counties when the final margin of victory is in the tens of thousands
as it was in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Post by mainframetech
An example is that it may
be necessary to use social engineering to get the info needed to access
the code that will go on a chip to be inserted into the machines,
The chips are installed at the factory and you have already acknowledged
the hacking can't be done at the point because they don't know who the
candidates are going to be.
Post by mainframetech
so they
will make the calls and do the work to get the info and then armed with
that, they can break in and modify the code that is waiting to be
installed in the chips, or in the machines, depending on the machine type.
You're forgetting that once the machines are set up, the are powered down,
locked up, and a seal is placed on the machine which isn't broken until
the poll workers open up the machines on election day. If they found the
seal broken, the machine is not supposed to be used. It's not as if nobody
every thought of the kind of shenanigans you have suggested which is why
there are procedures in place to thwart those shenanigans.
Post by mainframetech
This is a swamp post, which I'm not going to play with. I've answered
your first ridiculous complaint and explained that the situation is more
complex than you keep thinking it is. I've explained that there are many
machine types and situations. I've explained that many methods are used
for the various methods of recording votes. If you want to get more
answers, open a new thread and ask your questions. And try to learn, not
just complain because you don't understand.
For every means of hacking you have suggested, I have told you of the
safeguards built into the process to thwart the hacking and you have been
unable to describe a method that would defeat those safeguards. I don't
need any more answers from you because the ones you gave were FUBAR.
It's a Red Herring. There was no hacking of the voting booths, period.
But you still want to play footsy with the Russians. Nice friends you
have there.
mainframetech
2017-05-09 14:38:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
FACE THE MUSIC YOURSELF. YOU HAVE FAILED AT EVERYTHING YOU'VE TRIED TO
ARGUE OUT ON THE JFK CASE. YOU'RE ANGRY AT YOURSELF, BUT NEED TO BLAME
SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT THE FAILURE. I'M
THE CONSTANT REMINDER OF YOUR FAILURE, AND SO YOU HAVE TO TRY TO UNLOAD ON
ME, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.

It's OK, I understand. Take a deep breath and let it out and go on
about your business of pretending you're the wisest of the denizens of
this forum. And peruse the above info to see how to hack an election.
bigdog
2017-05-10 16:09:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
FACE THE MUSIC YOURSELF. YOU HAVE FAILED AT EVERYTHING YOU'VE TRIED TO
ARGUE OUT ON THE JFK CASE. YOU'RE ANGRY AT YOURSELF, BUT NEED TO BLAME
SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT THE FAILURE. I'M
THE CONSTANT REMINDER OF YOUR FAILURE, AND SO YOU HAVE TO TRY TO UNLOAD ON
ME, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.
Are you using Rossley's machine. The CAPS LOCK key seems to be stuck.
Post by mainframetech
It's OK, I understand. Take a deep breath and let it out and go on
about your business of pretending you're the wisest of the denizens of
this forum. And peruse the above info to see how to hack an election.
I'm not the one who just went on an uncontrolled rant ala Steven Colbert.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 02:55:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton???s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump???s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: ???The November 2016
???No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.???
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, ???No
voter registration data was modified or deleted??? and,
???Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.???
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states??? ???highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process??? as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting???s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks ??? denial of service and password-guessing
??? all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump???s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states ??? but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn???t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones??? Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska???s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are ???highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process???. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don???t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article ???American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
FACE THE MUSIC YOURSELF. YOU HAVE FAILED AT EVERYTHING YOU'VE TRIED TO
ARGUE OUT ON THE JFK CASE. YOU'RE ANGRY AT YOURSELF, BUT NEED TO BLAME
SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT THE FAILURE. I'M
THE CONSTANT REMINDER OF YOUR FAILURE, AND SO YOU HAVE TO TRY TO UNLOAD ON
ME, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.
Are you using Rossley's machine. The CAPS LOCK key seems to be stuck.
ALL CAPS is SHOUTING on the InterNet. In Rossley's case it's a physical
disability. In the other case it's a mental disability. He thinks the
louder he shouts the more true it becomes.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's OK, I understand. Take a deep breath and let it out and go on
about your business of pretending you're the wisest of the denizens of
this forum. And peruse the above info to see how to hack an election.
I'm not the one who just went on an uncontrolled rant ala Steven Colbert.
Is that meant as an anti-Liberal attack from the Alt-Right?
mainframetech
2017-05-11 17:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
Humorous, if not sad. The statements of 17 security agencies of the
USA are ignored completely to subscribe to an outside report. Just
ridiculous!
Post by BOZ
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.”
As a programmer for 44 years and more, I'm telling you that hacking of
an election or any operation is considered successful if no one knows it
was done.
So that is your excuse for not having any evidence for the things you
allege happened. The perpetrators were so successful they didn't leave any
evidence of their crimes. If they didn't leave any evidence of their
crimes, how do you know there were any crimes.
Did I ever tell you about the time I painted a forgery of the Mona Lisa
and while nobody was looking I swapped it for the real thing. I was so
slick that nobody ever knew I did it. The one hanging in the Louvre is the
fake I painted. The original is now hanging over my fireplace.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
How would they know if the hack was kept secret?
How would you know?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Secretaries of state are not about to advertise the weaknesses in
their systems, and may not even know their systems are vulnerable.
Still waiting for you to tell us how this hack COULD have occurred. I
won't even ask you to supply evidence that it was done. Just tell us how
it could have been done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
To determine if election totals were hacked and modified, exit polls
have to be compared to the real vote counts. Any sizable difference is
evidence of foul play of one kind or another.
You mean somebody might have hacked the exit polling results?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
Programs in election machines can print out whatever the programmer
wants. They an print false totals on paper that match the false totals
they have reported and counted. Checking paper trails will NOT prove that
no hacking occurred.
So when and where did this hacking occur and by whom?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
That procedure will NOT catch hacking of the totals in election
machines. For example, a voter presses a key to vote for candidate #1,
and the machine prints out that #1 was selected. The voter sees the paper
result and agrees with it, and is happy. But the machine has counted a
vote for candidate #2, and no one is the wiser. Later, when printing
summaries, the wrong vote counts from the paper trail are printed and
verified. When all is done, the program code that made the changes
deletes itself and leaves only the good original code to be examined by
someone who will say there's nothing wrong in the machine.
The key phrases in the report are “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. To significantly alter the
vote totals you can't just hack one machine or a few machines. You have to
hack many machines and many locations because these machines are not
online. To do that you need access. Lot's of access because each county
has their own method of voting. They us different machines and some still
use paper ballots or punch cards. The latter use machines to count the
ballots but they can be manually recounted and checked against the machine
count. Any widespread fraud would be instantly recognizable. Counties
using machines test and retest them prior to them being shipped to the
various precincts and both Democrats and Republicans take part in the
testing. After the machines are tested, a manual seal is placed on the
machine so if there was any tampering done after the tests are completed,
the seal would have to be broken. One of the standard procedures at the
start of any election day is for the poll workers to verify that the seal
has not been broken before approving the machine for use that day. You
can't even power the machines up without opening them up and you can't
open them up without breaking the seal. That eliminates the possibility of
remote hacking because the machines aren't powered up from the time they
are certified until the time the are made available for voting.
That tells you the obstacles to hacking even one machine. Now multiply
that by a few thousand and that is what your theoretical hackers would be
up against. It won't do you much good to hack just one machine. One
machine might register 500 votes in a single day. If the vote total was
300-200 in favor of candidate A and you managed to hack it so that it
broke 300-200 for candidate B you've stolen all of 100 votes. A drop in
the bucket in a statewide race.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
Public disclosure is not an answer to changing vote totals in election
machines. Paper can be printed saying anything the programmer wants to
say, including false information.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the hackers could access the machines
after they are tested by the bipartisan county boards of election.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
"highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016" vote,
but it is possible, and if not known about, highly successful. Paper
trails will NOT protect from hacking.
Face the music. Hillary lost. She lost because she is a loser. Nobody
stole the election from her. She blew it. And she won't even admit it. It
was all somebody else's fault. It was misogyny. It was Comey. It was the
Russians. All excuses to avoid facing up to HER failures.
FACE THE MUSIC YOURSELF. YOU HAVE FAILED AT EVERYTHING YOU'VE TRIED TO
ARGUE OUT ON THE JFK CASE. YOU'RE ANGRY AT YOURSELF, BUT NEED TO BLAME
SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADMIT THE FAILURE. I'M
THE CONSTANT REMINDER OF YOUR FAILURE, AND SO YOU HAVE TO TRY TO UNLOAD ON
ME, IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.
Are you using Rossley's machine. The CAPS LOCK key seems to be stuck.
Post by mainframetech
It's OK, I understand. Take a deep breath and let it out and go on
about your business of pretending you're the wisest of the denizens of
this forum. And peruse the above info to see how to hack an election.
I'm not the one who just went on an uncontrolled rant ala Steven Colbert.
WRONG! Apparently you're unable to notice that after being angry at
your ridiculous comments, I immediately calmed down because I appreciate
how hard it is for you to be wrong so often, when you have an overriding
need to be right publicly.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-07 02:19:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Straw Man argument. No one claimed that the Russians hacked the voting
booths and changed any votes. The Russian hacking too place BEFORE the
election and only leaked Democratic documents.
Post by BOZ
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
claviger
2017-05-07 21:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
bigdog
2017-05-08 20:06:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
Didn't you get the memo? Nothing bad that happens is ever the fault of the
Clintons.

The Russians were hacking the DNC because like most people they thought
Hillary was going to win and they thought they might dig up something they
could later use against her. I think they were probably as surprised as
most people that Trump won. Had they known that would happen, they
probably would have hacked his email too.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 02:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
Didn't you get the memo? Nothing bad that happens is ever the fault of the
Clintons.
The Russians were hacking the DNC because like most people they thought
Hillary was going to win and they thought they might dig up something they
could later use against her. I think they were probably as surprised as
most people that Trump won. Had they known that would happen, they
probably would have hacked his email too.
That's what they said. They did not know that they would get some extra
help from inside the US, Comey.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 01:14:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election. A combination
of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help tip the election
for Trump.
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server. Others have had the same type of private
server and they weren't arrested. It was a stupid mistake.
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play? There are
many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent? Did you suggest the same thing
about working with Hitler in 1937?
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
John McAdams
2017-05-09 01:16:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8 May 2017 21:14:21 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
That's about the most silly statement I've seen today.

And as moderator of this newsgroup, that's saying a lot!

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-10 02:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 8 May 2017 21:14:21 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
That's about the most silly statement I've seen today.
And as moderator of this newsgroup, that's saying a lot!
You don't get out much do you?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2017-05-10 16:19:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election.
So Republicans stole the election not the Russians. That's a relief.
How did Republicans steal the election? Did they make it easy for non
citizens to vote like they do in California? Did a bunch of Russian
tourists vote somewhere we don't know about?
Post by Anthony Marsh
A combination of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help
tip the election for Trump.
Comey tried hard to hideout until the election was over but that didn't
work. He had to answer questions under oath and still did a good job of
equivocating.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Did what? Who were they?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
So YOU know the inside story on Benghazi?! That means you have
connections with the CIA. I've suspected that for a long time because you
always claim to have information the general public doesn't know.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server.
Yes it was by US State Department Regulations.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Others have had the same type of private server and they weren't
arrested.
So two wrongs make a right? Very original of you to come with that
kindergarten excuse.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was a stupid mistake.
It cost her the election because the common people realized she was
incredibly stupid, careless, and arrogant. A real bad combination. One
obvious questions came up, if the Russians did hack her server could they
blackmail her if elected president?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play?
What about it? No personal attacks on Trump?! Questions of pay for play
surfaced with the Clinton Foundation World Tour at taxpayer's expense when
Hillary was pretending to be Secretary of State so she could get free
airfare and rack up bonus points.
Post by Anthony Marsh
There are many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
You can ask Hillary the same question. While she was dodging the press
for 9 months Trump was getting all the face time coverage, good and bad.
Old saying in politics: "Don't care what you say about me just spell my
name right." The worst problem for a politician is to be ignored.
Hillary ignored the media so in effect she ignored potential voters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent?
I talked to a Russian once. Guess I violated the Logan Act. I just
couldn't help myself. She was a beautiful woman and I gave her money too.
Had no choice, she was my waitress at a popular steakhouse here in the
USA.

As for a better relationship with Russia wasn't that what the JFK speech
at American University was all about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20130304_JFK_AU_Speech_Legacy.cfm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you suggest the same thing about working with Hitler in 1937?
No I wasn't born yet but JFK's dad was Ambassador to Great Britain. He
supported appeasement with the aggressive new German Chancellor who was
taking a bellicose attitude toward the Allies. The reason Witt was at the
parade pumping his umbrella up and down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
No, she was a SoS on the make for foreign contributions to the Clinton
Foundation. As to US foreign policy what President would not want a
better relationship with Russia? It was JFK who set that peace initiative
in motion. RR kept the momentum going with Gorbachev. If Hillary was
being tough on Putin why approve the uranium deal? Obviously she was
sending a message it's time to play ball with each other.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
So tell me she didn't vote to sell the Russians 20% of US Uranium and I'll
retract my statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
How?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
Maybe the thought of Hillary as LOTFW made him laugh so hard he was
crying.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 03:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election.
So Republicans stole the election not the Russians. That's a relief.
How did Republicans steal the election? Did they make it easy for non
citizens to vote like they do in California? Did a bunch of Russian
tourists vote somewhere we don't know about?
Post by Anthony Marsh
A combination of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help
tip the election for Trump.
Comey tried hard to hideout until the election was over but that didn't
work. He had to answer questions under oath and still did a good job of
equivocating.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Did what? Who were they?
Flynn, Manafort, Page. They assured Putin that if he helped Trump win that
Trump would lift the Obama sanctions against Russia. Quid Pro Quo. Pay to
play. Kickback. Corruption. Treason.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
So YOU know the inside story on Benghazi?! That means you have
connections with the CIA. I've suspected that for a long time because you
always claim to have information the general public doesn't know.
Yes, so what?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server.
Yes it was by US State Department Regulations.
No. Powell wasn't prosecuted. Others were not prosecuted. Hillary was
not prosecuted.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Others have had the same type of private server and they weren't
arrested.
So two wrongs make a right? Very original of you to come with that
kindergarten excuse.
No, silly. Precedent.
Not many people are executed for blasphemy any more.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was a stupid mistake.
It cost her the election because the common people realized she was
Common people? You mean Trump's favorite low information voters? They
have to be told what to think.
Post by claviger
incredibly stupid, careless, and arrogant. A real bad combination. One
So, you think you are more informed about servers?
Was Powell? You know, the guy who told her to use a private server?
Post by claviger
obvious questions came up, if the Russians did hack her server could they
blackmail her if elected president?
Sure. Why don't you claim they were blackmailing her about her Lesbian
orgies? Try EVERY trick in the book. Wimp!
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play?
What about it? No personal attacks on Trump?! Questions of pay for play
Who made the personal attacks on Trump? You mean the women he raped?
I like your logic. When a murder victim complains about being murdered
you call that a personal attack.
Post by claviger
surfaced with the Clinton Foundation World Tour at taxpayer's expense when
Hillary was pretending to be Secretary of State so she could get free
airfare and rack up bonus points.
Show me the money trail, not just Fox News talking points. How about when
she used GOVERNMENT MONEY to travel all over the world when she was the
Secretary of State? Isn't that a scandal? How about Hairgate when Clinton
used GOVERNMENT MONEY to get a haircut? Isn't that grounds for
impeachment?

What about Nixon getting a free dog? Isn't that grounds for impeachment?
Do you remember Checkersgate? No, because it happened BEFORE Watergate and
only after Watergate do we call every scandal ...-gate.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There are many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
You can ask Hillary the same question. While she was dodging the press
for 9 months Trump was getting all the face time coverage, good and bad.
So, this is a contest?
Post by claviger
Old saying in politics: "Don't care what you say about me just spell my
name right." The worst problem for a politician is to be ignored.
Hillary ignored the media so in effect she ignored potential voters.
False, she was on the news every day. Some politicians use aides to
speak for them.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent?
I talked to a Russian once. Guess I violated the Logan Act. I just
Yup. Turn yourself in.
As I said before, I talked to a KGB agent.
Post by claviger
couldn't help myself. She was a beautiful woman and I gave her money too.
Had no choice, she was my waitress at a popular steakhouse here in the
USA.
But she was no longer a Russian citizen. You don't seem to understand
the difference.
Post by claviger
As for a better relationship with Russia wasn't that what the JFK speech
at American University was all about?
Why didn't you try to make a better relationship with the Russian
waitress? I always tried to make better relationships with the foreign
students my family housed. So much so that we changed the name of the
organization to Experiment in International Loving.

No one knew at the time that my father was working for the CIA. And don't
even ask about the funding for the East-West Foundation.
Post by claviger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20130304_JFK_AU_Speech_Legacy.cfm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you suggest the same thing about working with Hitler in 1937?
No I wasn't born yet but JFK's dad was Ambassador to Great Britain. He
supported appeasement with the aggressive new German Chancellor who was
taking a bellicose attitude toward the Allies. The reason Witt was at the
parade pumping his umbrella up and down.
Yes, exactly. And the British Royalty was very pro-German. Could be
because their heritage was German.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
No, she was a SoS on the make for foreign contributions to the Clinton
Foundation. As to US foreign policy what President would not want a
Sure, why just US contribtions if it was meant to be a Global Initiative.
Exactly how many billions did Putin personally contribute?
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia? It was JFK who set that peace initiative
Obama did not want better relations with Russia as long as Putin was
there.
Post by claviger
in motion. RR kept the momentum going with Gorbachev. If Hillary was
RR helped Gorbachev bring down the Soviet System. It was one of his
greatest accopmplishments.
Post by claviger
being tough on Putin why approve the uranium deal? Obviously she was
Maybe you should research what the uranium deal really was all about. I'll
give you a hint? Watch the news on TV today. Google Hanford. We have tons
of nuclear material to get rid of and Russia is more than happy to take it
off our hands.
Post by claviger
sending a message it's time to play ball with each other.
She didn't. Trump sent a message it's time for Pay to Play.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
So now you're watering down your argument because you know you lost the
argument. It wasn't Clinton making the decision, now she was just PART of
making the decision. She didn't have the power to do it all by herself,
but you tried to place all the blame on her. Now you're backing down.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
So tell me she didn't vote to sell the Russians 20% of US Uranium and I'll
retract my statement.
Vote? When? Was she the only vote? Was she the deciding vote?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians picked their preferred candidate and helped him win.
How?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Anybody but Hillary. She was too tough for them and made Putin cry.
Maybe the thought of Hillary as LOTFW made him laugh so hard he was
crying.
Many people voted against Hillary because they were afraid of what
acronym to call Bill Clinton if she won. I voted for First Dude, but I
couldn't pronounce the acronym.

Many women voted against Hillary because they didn't want to see Bill's
stains all over the WH furniture.
claviger
2017-05-13 00:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election.
So Republicans stole the election not the Russians. That's a relief.
How did Republicans steal the election? Did they make it easy for non
citizens to vote like they do in California? Did a bunch of Russian
tourists vote somewhere we don't know about?
Post by Anthony Marsh
A combination of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help
tip the election for Trump.
Comey tried hard to hideout until the election was over but that didn't
work. He had to answer questions under oath and still did a good job of
equivocating.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Did what? Who were they?
Flynn, Manafort, Page. They assured Putin that if he helped Trump win that
Trump would lift the Obama sanctions against Russia. Quid Pro Quo. Pay to
play. Kickback. Corruption. Treason.
So how did Putin help Trump win? Trump wanted to lift sanctions anyway to
do more business with Russia, therefore Trump already had incentive for a
better relationship with Putin.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
So YOU know the inside story on Benghazi?! That means you have
connections with the CIA. I've suspected that for a long time because you
always claim to have information the general public doesn't know.
Yes, so what?
CIA personnel are welcome here too like any other US citizen. Are you on
the payroll as a provocateur or just messing with folks for the fun of it?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server.
Yes it was by US State Department Regulations.
No. Powell wasn't prosecuted. Others were not prosecuted. Hillary was
not prosecuted.
All of them should have been prosecuted if they broke Federal Law.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Others have had the same type of private server and they weren't
arrested.
So two wrongs make a right? Very original of you to come with that
kindergarten excuse.
No, silly. Precedent.
So negligence automatically renders any Federal Law null and void?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not many people are executed for blasphemy any more.
Was blasphemy a Federal Law?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was a stupid mistake.
It cost her the election because the common people realized she was
Common people? You mean Trump's favorite low information voters? They
have to be told what to think.
What makes you think they are low information voters? Are you
perpetuating Hillary's "Deplorables" smear job?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incredibly stupid, careless, and arrogant. A real bad combination. One>
So, you think you are more informed about servers?
Was Powell? You know, the guy who told her to use a private server?
Don't need to be an expert on servers. The news media claims privater
servers are not authorized for certain high ranking Federal officers.
Are they correct?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
obvious questions came up, if the Russians did hack her server could they
blackmail her if elected president?
Sure. Why don't you claim they were blackmailing her about her Lesbian
orgies? Try EVERY trick in the book. Wimp!
Hillary has lesbian orgies?! Is this more of your secret CIA info? Do
the Russians know and are they blackmailing her? I don't care about
lesbian orgies. All I care about is her policies.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play?
What about it? No personal attacks on Trump?! Questions of pay for play
Who made the personal attacks on Trump? You mean the women he raped?
I like your logic. When a murder victim complains about being murdered
you call that a personal attack.
Rape and sexual harassment are only relevant if you are Republican. If
you are a Democrat you get a free pass. The voters set that precedent
when they put Billy Bill back in office for a second term. Remember all
the "bimbo eruptions" Hillary had to deal with?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
surfaced with the Clinton Foundation World Tour at taxpayer's expense when
Hillary was pretending to be Secretary of State so she could get free
airfare and rack up bonus points.
Show me the money trail, not just Fox News talking points. How about when
she used GOVERNMENT MONEY to travel all over the world when she was the
Secretary of State? Isn't that a scandal? How about Hairgate when Clinton
used GOVERNMENT MONEY to get a haircut? Isn't that grounds for
impeachment?
What about Nixon getting a free dog? Isn't that grounds for impeachment?
Do you remember Checkersgate? No, because it happened BEFORE Watergate and
only after Watergate do we call every scandal ...-gate.
Where did the 300 million come from in the Clinton Foundation? There were
several foreign donors who thought Hillary was going to win.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There are many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
You can ask Hillary the same question. While she was dodging the press
for 9 months Trump was getting all the face time coverage, good and bad.
So, this is a contest?
Yes, running for President is the biggest contest in the USA. In second
place is "Dancing With The Stars". Maybe Hillary will give that a try.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Old saying in politics: "Don't care what you say about me just spell my
name right." The worst problem for a politician is to be ignored.
Hillary ignored the media so in effect she ignored potential voters.
False, she was on the news every day. Some politicians use aides to
speak for them.
The news was about her avoiding Q&A interviews for 9 months. That's a
record that will never be broken. A no interview policy then show up for
a couple of debates. Most unique campaign in US history. I think it was
hilarious or should I say hillaryous. IMO all elections should take place
in six months with no debates. In fact I like the old convention system.
Pick those candidates and let them debate one time, then let's vote.
That will never happen because elections are now an established industry
more than just a process.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent?
I talked to a Russian once. Guess I violated the Logan Act. I just
Yup. Turn yourself in.
As I said before, I talked to a KGB agent.
Post by claviger
couldn't help myself. She was a beautiful woman and I gave her money too.
Had no choice, she was my waitress at a popular steakhouse here in the
USA.
But she was no longer a Russian citizen. You don't seem to understand
the difference.
Actually she and her husband somehow got a temporary visa to the US and
decided to stay. Both were well educated and ended up working for
engineering firms. Don't know if they defected or simply never went home.
No idea if they became US citizens or not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
As for a better relationship with Russia wasn't that what the JFK speech
at American University was all about?
Why didn't you try to make a better relationship with the Russian
waitress?
She worked at the popular restaurant for almost a year before finding a
high paying job. A classic American success story.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I always tried to make better relationships with the foreign students my
family housed. So much so that we changed the name of the organization
to Experiment in International Loving.
No one knew at the time that my father was working for the CIA. And don't
even ask about the funding for the East-West Foundation.
Post by claviger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20130304_JFK_AU_Speech_Legacy.cfm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you suggest the same thing about working with Hitler in 1937?
No I wasn't born yet but JFK's dad was Ambassador to Great Britain. He
supported appeasement with the aggressive new German Chancellor who was
taking a bellicose attitude toward the Allies. The reason Witt was at the
parade pumping his umbrella up and down.
Yes, exactly. And the British Royalty was very pro-German. Could be
because their heritage was German.
The UK Liberal Party praised Hitler as an economic hero and chastised
Churchill for warning this fanatic posed a threat to European peace and
prosperity.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
No, she was a SoS on the make for foreign contributions to the Clinton
Foundation. As to US foreign policy what President would not want a
Sure, why just US contribtions if it was meant to be a Global Initiative.
Exactly how many billions did Putin personally contribute?
Good question.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia? It was JFK who set that peace initiative
Obama did not want better relations with Russia as long as Putin was
there.
My impression is Obama wanted a better relationship with Russia.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
in motion. RR kept the momentum going with Gorbachev. If Hillary was
RR helped Gorbachev bring down the Soviet System. It was one of his
greatest accopmplishments.
Thanks for reminding us.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
being tough on Putin why approve the uranium deal? Obviously she was
Maybe you should research what the uranium deal really was all about. I'll
give you a hint? Watch the news on TV today. Google Hanford. We have tons
of nuclear material to get rid of and Russia is more than happy to take it
off our hands.
Did Hillary vote to sell Russia 20% of US uranium, yes or no?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
sending a message it's time to play ball with each other.
She didn't. Trump sent a message it's time for Pay to Play.
Pay to Play what?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
So now you're watering down your argument because you know you lost the
argument. It wasn't Clinton making the decision, now she was just PART of
making the decision. She didn't have the power to do it all by herself,
but you tried to place all the blame on her. Now you're backing down.
Did Hillary vote to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia, yes or no?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
So tell me she didn't vote to sell the Russians 20% of US Uranium and I'll
retract my statement.
Vote? When? Was she the only vote? Was she the deciding vote?
Doesn't matter. She could have been a courageous minority vote of one.
The simple question is did she vote to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia?
Maybe Putin was blackmailing her to vote for the deal after they hacked
her server.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-14 02:24:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election.
So Republicans stole the election not the Russians. That's a relief.
How did Republicans steal the election? Did they make it easy for non
citizens to vote like they do in California? Did a bunch of Russian
tourists vote somewhere we don't know about?
Post by Anthony Marsh
A combination of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help
tip the election for Trump.
Comey tried hard to hideout until the election was over but that didn't
work. He had to answer questions under oath and still did a good job of
equivocating.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Did what? Who were they?
Flynn, Manafort, Page. They assured Putin that if he helped Trump win that
Trump would lift the Obama sanctions against Russia. Quid Pro Quo. Pay to
play. Kickback. Corruption. Treason.
So how did Putin help Trump win? Trump wanted to lift sanctions anyway to
Wikileaks. Trump said, "I love Wikileaks." He loves traitors when they
help him.
Post by claviger
do more business with Russia, therefore Trump already had incentive for a
better relationship with Putin.
Yeah, $$.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
So YOU know the inside story on Benghazi?! That means you have
connections with the CIA. I've suspected that for a long time because you
always claim to have information the general public doesn't know.
Yes, so what?
CIA personnel are welcome here too like any other US citizen. Are you on
the payroll as a provocateur or just messing with folks for the fun of it?
I never said that CIA people are not allowed to post here.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server.
Yes it was by US State Department Regulations.
No. Powell wasn't prosecuted. Others were not prosecuted. Hillary was
not prosecuted.
All of them should have been prosecuted if they broke Federal Law.
Silly. It wasn't good practice, but it was common practice at the time.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Others have had the same type of private server and they weren't
arrested.
So two wrongs make a right? Very original of you to come with that
kindergarten excuse.
No, silly. Precedent.
So negligence automatically renders any Federal Law null and void?
No one said that. It wasn't a Federal law.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not many people are executed for blasphemy any more.
Was blasphemy a Federal Law?
I didn't say Federal. It is only a state law, in my state. Guess who
fought to repeal it?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was a stupid mistake.
It cost her the election because the common people realized she was
Common people? You mean Trump's favorite low information voters? They
have to be told what to think.
What makes you think they are low information voters? Are you
perpetuating Hillary's "Deplorables" smear job
Yes, that is my job here. It was Trump who called them low information
voters, not Hillary.


?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incredibly stupid, careless, and arrogant. A real bad combination. One>
So, you think you are more informed about servers?
Was Powell? You know, the guy who told her to use a private server?
Don't need to be an expert on servers. The news media claims privater
servers are not authorized for certain high ranking Federal officers.
Wrong.
Post by claviger
Are they correct?
No.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
obvious questions came up, if the Russians did hack her server could they
blackmail her if elected president?
Sure. Why don't you claim they were blackmailing her about her Lesbian
orgies? Try EVERY trick in the book. Wimp!
Hillary has lesbian orgies?! Is this more of your secret CIA info? Do
That was Alt-Right propaganda. Surely you also remember PizzaGate.
Breitbart and National Enquirer, maybe even Fox News sometimes.
Post by claviger
the Russians know and are they blackmailing her? I don't care about
lesbian orgies. All I care about is her policies.
It wasn't the Russians who made it up.
It was Roger Stone.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play?
What about it? No personal attacks on Trump?! Questions of pay for play
Who made the personal attacks on Trump? You mean the women he raped?
I like your logic. When a murder victim complains about being murdered
you call that a personal attack.
Rape and sexual harassment are only relevant if you are Republican. If
Are you saying that Republicans never get away with it? So you mean
Trump was a Democrat when he got away with it? Did Bill Clinton get away
with it?
Post by claviger
you are a Democrat you get a free pass. The voters set that precedent
when they put Billy Bill back in office for a second term. Remember all
the "bimbo eruptions" Hillary had to deal with?
Yes, so what. Some were just plain ugly.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
surfaced with the Clinton Foundation World Tour at taxpayer's expense when
Wrong. You can't prove that. It just another Alt-Right lie.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hillary was pretending to be Secretary of State so she could get free
airfare and rack up bonus points.
Pretending to be? So does Trump pay for his own airfare now?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Show me the money trail, not just Fox News talking points. How about when
she used GOVERNMENT MONEY to travel all over the world when she was the
Secretary of State? Isn't that a scandal? How about Hairgate when Clinton
used GOVERNMENT MONEY to get a haircut? Isn't that grounds for
impeachment?
What about Nixon getting a free dog? Isn't that grounds for impeachment?
Do you remember Checkersgate? No, because it happened BEFORE Watergate and
only after Watergate do we call every scandal ...-gate.
Where did the 300 million come from in the Clinton Foundation? There were
Wealthy philanthropists. You know, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
So you are against philanthropy?

Or are you just against all charities? Let the children starve to death?
Post by claviger
several foreign donors who thought Hillary was going to win.
AH, yeah!
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There are many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
You can ask Hillary the same question. While she was dodging the press
for 9 months Trump was getting all the face time coverage, good and bad.
So, this is a contest?
Yes, running for President is the biggest contest in the USA. In second
place is "Dancing With The Stars". Maybe Hillary will give that a try.
Wait a minute. Are you forgetting Trump appearing on that wrestling show?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Old saying in politics: "Don't care what you say about me just spell my
name right." The worst problem for a politician is to be ignored.
Hillary ignored the media so in effect she ignored potential voters.
False, she was on the news every day. Some politicians use aides to
speak for them.
The news was about her avoiding Q&A interviews for 9 months. That's a
You mean like Trump not having a news conference and then refusing to
answer questions?
Post by claviger
record that will never be broken. A no interview policy then show up for
There was no such policy.
Post by claviger
a couple of debates. Most unique campaign in US history. I think it was
hilarious or should I say hillaryous. IMO all elections should take place
in six months with no debates. In fact I like the old convention system.
I like your idea. How come you don't push it more?
Maybe you can pass a law.
Post by claviger
Pick those candidates and let them debate one time, then let's vote.
One debate, 44 hours straight, no breaks?
Post by claviger
That will never happen because elections are now an established industry
more than just a process.
Jeez, you never heard of the Lincoln-Douglas debates? No TVs then. Oh, I
forgot, low information voters never study history.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent?
I talked to a Russian once. Guess I violated the Logan Act. I just
Yup. Turn yourself in.
As I said before, I talked to a KGB agent.
Post by claviger
couldn't help myself. She was a beautiful woman and I gave her money too.
Had no choice, she was my waitress at a popular steakhouse here in the
USA.
But she was no longer a Russian citizen. You don't seem to understand
the difference.
Actually she and her husband somehow got a temporary visa to the US and
decided to stay. Both were well educated and ended up working for
engineering firms. Don't know if they defected or simply never went home.
Illegal aliens?
It's your duty to turn them in.
BTW, I live in a Sanctuary city.
Post by claviger
No idea if they became US citizens or not.
Turn them in.
Trump demands it.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
As for a better relationship with Russia wasn't that what the JFK speech
at American University was all about?
Why didn't you try to make a better relationship with the Russian
waitress?
She worked at the popular restaurant for almost a year before finding a
high paying job. A classic American success story.
That's what immigrants do.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I always tried to make better relationships with the foreign students my
family housed. So much so that we changed the name of the organization
to Experiment in International Loving.
No one knew at the time that my father was working for the CIA. And don't
even ask about the funding for the East-West Foundation.
Post by claviger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20130304_JFK_AU_Speech_Legacy.cfm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you suggest the same thing about working with Hitler in 1937?
No I wasn't born yet but JFK's dad was Ambassador to Great Britain. He
supported appeasement with the aggressive new German Chancellor who was
taking a bellicose attitude toward the Allies. The reason Witt was at the
parade pumping his umbrella up and down.
Yes, exactly. And the British Royalty was very pro-German. Could be
because their heritage was German.
The UK Liberal Party praised Hitler as an economic hero and chastised
Churchill for warning this fanatic posed a threat to European peace and
prosperity.
Duh! what did you expect. CHurchill was disliked by the royalty.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
No, she was a SoS on the make for foreign contributions to the Clinton
Foundation. As to US foreign policy what President would not want a
Sure, why just US contribtions if it was meant to be a Global Initiative.
Exactly how many billions did Putin personally contribute?
Good question.
You are not allowed to answer.
So I will: ZERO
Putin Hates Hillary.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia? It was JFK who set that peace initiative
Obama did not want better relations with Russia as long as Putin was
there.
My impression is Obama wanted a better relationship with Russia.
Reduction in nuclear weapons. Better control of former Soviet nukes.
Obama is the one who put the sanctions on Russia.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
in motion. RR kept the momentum going with Gorbachev. If Hillary was
RR helped Gorbachev bring down the Soviet System. It was one of his
greatest accopmplishments.
Thanks for reminding us.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
being tough on Putin why approve the uranium deal? Obviously she was
Maybe you should research what the uranium deal really was all about. I'll
give you a hint? Watch the news on TV today. Google Hanford. We have tons
of nuclear material to get rid of and Russia is more than happy to take it
off our hands.
Did Hillary vote to sell Russia 20% of US uranium, yes or no?
Something like that. Close enough for an Alt-Right low information voter.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
sending a message it's time to play ball with each other.
She didn't. Trump sent a message it's time for Pay to Play.
Pay to Play what?
So you don't know what Trump mean by Pay to Play? Ask him.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
So now you're watering down your argument because you know you lost the
argument. It wasn't Clinton making the decision, now she was just PART of
making the decision. She didn't have the power to do it all by herself,
but you tried to place all the blame on her. Now you're backing down.
Did Hillary vote to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia, yes or no?
Something like that.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
So tell me she didn't vote to sell the Russians 20% of US Uranium and I'll
retract my statement.
Vote? When? Was she the only vote? Was she the deciding vote?
Doesn't matter. She could have been a courageous minority vote of one.
The simple question is did she vote to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia?
Maybe Putin was blackmailing her to vote for the deal after they hacked
her server.
False.
The uranium deal was long before the hacking. 2010.



Trending Tech Insider Finance Politics Strategy Life Sports Video All

The truth about the Hillary Clinton-Russia-Uranium 'scandal'
The Washington Post

Paul Waldman, The Washington Post

Apr. 28, 2015, 8:53 AM 137,690

facebook
linkedin
twitter
email
print

Clinton family, Clinton FoundationChelsea Clinton (L), U.S. Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, and former U.S. President Bill
Clinton.REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

The Clinton foundation has now acknowledged mistakes in its accounting
and has pledged greater transparency into its foreign donations, after
the author of a forthcoming book on the foundation's finances ??? and
their alleged connections to Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of
State ??? did a tour on the Sunday shows promoting his forthcoming
revelations.

The first glimpse of these came at the end of last week, when the New
York Times came out with an investigation into the Clinton Foundation,
the State Department, and some very nefarious-sounding players
(Russians! Uranium!), growing out of the book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter
Schweizer.

There are some rather outlandish allegations being made (Mitt Romney
said "It looks like bribery"), so we thought it would be good to break
this story down, clarify what's known and what isn't, and understand
what we should take away from it, because it could be a topic of
discussion for some time.

The basic facts: This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in
a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic
energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the
United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign
Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch.

A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton
Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008
and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a
Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who
had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One (according
to the Times, Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, before
the Rosatom deal).

RTR4P2TDFrank Giustra, founder of the Clinton Giustra Enterprise
Partnership, speaks during the Clinton Global Initiative's 2015 Winter
Meeting in New York February 10, 2015. REUTERS / Brendan McDermid

In addition, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 in 2010 to give a speech to
a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government. The U.S. government
eventually approved the deal in 2010.

What's the allegation against Hillary Clinton? The reason this is a
story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that
in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech
Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as
Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be
explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between
donations and official action that Clinton took.

What's the evidence for that allegation? There isn't any, at least not
yet. The only evidence is timing: people who would benefit from the sale
made donations to the foundation at around the same time the matter was
before the government.

What's the evidence in Clinton's favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to
make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn't have been possible for her
to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of
State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security,
Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are
non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives
of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of
Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all
those officials and all those departments to change their position on
the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.

Furthermore, the official who was the State Department's representative
on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton
did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: "Secretary Clinton
never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter," he said.

So in this case, we have no evidence of a quid pro quo, and we don't
have evidence that Hillary Clinton took any action at all with regard to
this sale, in favor of the interests of the donors or otherwise. In
interviews, Schweitzer has referred repeated to "dozens of examples" and
"a pattern" in which donations are made to the foundation and official
action by Hillary Clinton occurs thereafter. His book hasn't come out,
so we don't yet know what he's referring to, but in the uranium case,
there doesn't appear to be any official action Hillary Clinton took one
way or another.

putin clintonRussia's President Vladimir Putin (L) meets U.S. Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton upon her arrival at the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Vladivostok September 8, 2012.
REUTERS/Mikhail Metzel

Schweitzer was pressed on that point yesterday by both Chris Wallace and
George Stephanopoulos, and he gave essentially the same answer both
times. Here's what he said on Fox News Sunday:

Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine
agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could
have stopped the deal. So, what's interesting about this, of all those
nine agencies, who was the most hawkish on these types of issues?
Hillary Clinton.

So the alleged wrongdoing isn't that Clinton helped the people who gave
donations to the foundation, it's that she failed to oppose them,
something that the secretaries of defense, treasury, and all the other
agencies also failed to do, with or without donations to foundations
controlled by members of their families. Schweitzer repeatedly compared
Clinton to former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, who was convicted of
corruption, and Sen.

Bob Menendez, who is currently under indictment, arguing that in those
cases there also wasn't direct evidence of a quid pro quo. But in those
cases there were specific acts that the officials took in support of the
person who had lavished gifts on them. In this case, Schweizer's
criticism of Clinton rests on the fact that she failed to intervene in
the sale, and came to the same conclusion about it as the heads of eight
other agencies did.

But isn't it possible that people were trying to win influence with her
by donating to the Clinton Foundation? It's certainly possible, and it
wouldn't be surprising at all. Nor would it be surprising if Bill
Clinton didn't go out of his way to disabuse potential donors of the
impression that a seven- or eight-figure donation to the foundation for
disaster relief, global health, or whatever he was advocating at a
particular time, wouldn't hurt them in whatever business they might have
before the U.S. government. But it's hard to know what they were
thinking, and it doesn't really matter; what matters is what Hillary
Clinton did or didn't do.

Is there anything else problematic relating to the foundation that we've
recently learned? When Clinton became secretary of state, she made an
agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donors,
but donations from the chairman of Uranium One were not disclosed. We
don't yet know whose fault that was, but it certainly means that someone
didn't do what they should have.

RTR82ILThe ClintonsReuters

The Clinton Foundation is now acknowledging that some of its donors
weren't properly disclosed, and they say they're reviewing all their
records to see what else may be missing. They're characterizing it as a
clerical error, which is certainly possible; right now there are a cadre
of journalists examining the foundation's donations and its activities
around the world to see if there's anything else that smells fishy.

So what can we draw from this? One of the most important tasks the press
has during a presidential campaign is to investigate the candidates ???
who they are, what they've done in the past, and what they plan to do in
the future. The investigations of Hillary Clinton will no doubt be
vigorous and ongoing.

But given the history of these kinds of investigations ??? where again and
again, dark insinuations of wrongdoing regarding the Clintons were made,
then spread widely with the justification that "questions are being
raised," yet the allegations turned out to be either completely false or
wildly overblown ??? we in the media have an obligation to take extra care
when a new story like this one comes up. That doesn't mean we should
ignore it or soft-pedal it. But it does mean that we ought to work hard
to separate facts from innuendo and speculation.

Read the original article on The Washington Post. Copyright 2015. Follow
The Washington Post on Twitter.
mainframetech
2017-05-14 02:34:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
No, that's not what we said. Republicans stole the election.
So Republicans stole the election not the Russians. That's a relief.
How did Republicans steal the election? Did they make it easy for non
citizens to vote like they do in California? Did a bunch of Russian
tourists vote somewhere we don't know about?
Post by Anthony Marsh
A combination of Comey and the Russians was just a little push to help
tip the election for Trump.
Comey tried hard to hideout until the election was over but that didn't
work. He had to answer questions under oath and still did a good job of
equivocating.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Wikileaks.
Russian agents inside the Trump campaign.
Did what? Who were they?
Flynn, Manafort, Page. They assured Putin that if he helped Trump win that
Trump would lift the Obama sanctions against Russia. Quid Pro Quo. Pay to
play. Kickback. Corruption. Treason.
So how did Putin help Trump win? Trump wanted to lift sanctions anyway to
do more business with Russia, therefore Trump already had incentive for a
better relationship with Putin.
By now you should know how Putin helped Trump, but apparently you're
not aware of what's going on around you. Putin ordered his cyber folk to
use their skills to hack into the DNC and RNC, and take the info from the
DNC hack and send it on to Wikileaks to distribute to the world. That
info coming out helped lower Hillary's vote count and raise Trump's. 17
security agencies of the US have gone in on that information. No silly
little organization (NASS) can override that set of groups.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
You know nothing about Benghazi. Why don't you have some more hearings?
Oh, no need now that the election is over.
So YOU know the inside story on Benghazi?! That means you have
connections with the CIA. I've suspected that for a long time because you
always claim to have information the general public doesn't know.
Yes, so what?
CIA personnel are welcome here too like any other US citizen. Are you on
the payroll as a provocateur or just messing with folks for the fun of it?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
It wasn't an illegal server.
Yes it was by US State Department Regulations.
No. Powell wasn't prosecuted. Others were not prosecuted. Hillary was
not prosecuted.
All of them should have been prosecuted if they broke Federal Law.
Comey announced the decision not to press charges because they couldn't
win any indictments against Hillary. There wasn't any proof of ill
intent.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Others have had the same type of private server and they weren't
arrested.
So two wrongs make a right? Very original of you to come with that
kindergarten excuse.
No, silly. Precedent.
So negligence automatically renders any Federal Law null and void?
See above as to Comey's reasons for not pursuing any indictments.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not many people are executed for blasphemy any more.
Was blasphemy a Federal Law?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
It was a stupid mistake.
It cost her the election because the common people realized she was
Common people? You mean Trump's favorite low information voters? They
have to be told what to think.
What makes you think they are low information voters? Are you
perpetuating Hillary's "Deplorables" smear job?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
incredibly stupid, careless, and arrogant. A real bad combination. One>
So, you think you are more informed about servers?
Was Powell? You know, the guy who told her to use a private server?
Don't need to be an expert on servers. The news media claims privater
servers are not authorized for certain high ranking Federal officers.
Are they correct?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
obvious questions came up, if the Russians did hack her server could they
blackmail her if elected president?
Sure. Why don't you claim they were blackmailing her about her Lesbian
orgies? Try EVERY trick in the book. Wimp!
Hillary has lesbian orgies?! Is this more of your secret CIA info? Do
the Russians know and are they blackmailing her? I don't care about
lesbian orgies. All I care about is her policies.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
What about personal attacks and questions of pay for play?
What about it? No personal attacks on Trump?! Questions of pay for play
Who made the personal attacks on Trump? You mean the women he raped?
I like your logic. When a murder victim complains about being murdered
you call that a personal attack.
Rape and sexual harassment are only relevant if you are Republican. If
you are a Democrat you get a free pass. The voters set that precedent
when they put Billy Bill back in office for a second term. Remember all
the "bimbo eruptions" Hillary had to deal with?
Trump was sued for rape, and there was a witness willing to testify at
the trial. The trial was set to go off during the campaigning for prez.
Suddenly Trump paid off the woman, who was 13 at the time of the rape:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

note that is an article from Snopes, known for their work in checking
and verifying statements.





She did what any politician would do, she fought the tide against Bill
Clinton....and won, proving her abilities as a politician.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
surfaced with the Clinton Foundation World Tour at taxpayer's expense when
Hillary was pretending to be Secretary of State so she could get free
airfare and rack up bonus points.
Show me the money trail, not just Fox News talking points. How about when
she used GOVERNMENT MONEY to travel all over the world when she was the
Secretary of State? Isn't that a scandal? How about Hairgate when Clinton
used GOVERNMENT MONEY to get a haircut? Isn't that grounds for
impeachment?
What about Nixon getting a free dog? Isn't that grounds for impeachment?
Do you remember Checkersgate? No, because it happened BEFORE Watergate and
only after Watergate do we call every scandal ...-gate.
Where did the 300 million come from in the Clinton Foundation? There were
several foreign donors who thought Hillary was going to win.
Don't start false rumors. If you have proof that the money came from
charity funds, show that proof.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There are many tactics that Trump used. Is one more important that the others?
You can ask Hillary the same question. While she was dodging the press
for 9 months Trump was getting all the face time coverage, good and bad.
So, this is a contest?
Yes, running for President is the biggest contest in the USA. In second
place is "Dancing With The Stars". Maybe Hillary will give that a try.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Old saying in politics: "Don't care what you say about me just spell my
name right." The worst problem for a politician is to be ignored.
Hillary ignored the media so in effect she ignored potential voters.
False, she was on the news every day. Some politicians use aides to
speak for them.
Hillary constantly went to and spoke at rallies and other types of
meetings with people. Remember her efforts to meet people in diners and
pizza restaurants? She did indeed avoid the press though, because they
were saying all the junk that came from Trump.
Post by claviger
The news was about her avoiding Q&A interviews for 9 months. That's a
record that will never be broken. A no interview policy then show up for
a couple of debates. Most unique campaign in US history. I think it was
hilarious or should I say hillaryous. IMO all elections should take place
in six months with no debates. In fact I like the old convention system.
Pick those candidates and let them debate one time, then let's vote.
That will never happen because elections are now an established industry
more than just a process.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
Are you insane or just a Russian agent?
I talked to a Russian once. Guess I violated the Logan Act. I just
Yup. Turn yourself in.
As I said before, I talked to a KGB agent.
Post by claviger
couldn't help myself. She was a beautiful woman and I gave her money too.
Had no choice, she was my waitress at a popular steakhouse here in the
USA.
But she was no longer a Russian citizen. You don't seem to understand
the difference.
Actually she and her husband somehow got a temporary visa to the US and
decided to stay. Both were well educated and ended up working for
engineering firms. Don't know if they defected or simply never went home.
No idea if they became US citizens or not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
As for a better relationship with Russia wasn't that what the JFK speech
at American University was all about?
Why didn't you try to make a better relationship with the Russian
waitress?
She worked at the popular restaurant for almost a year before finding a
high paying job. A classic American success story.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I always tried to make better relationships with the foreign students my
family housed. So much so that we changed the name of the organization
to Experiment in International Loving.
No one knew at the time that my father was working for the CIA. And don't
even ask about the funding for the East-West Foundation.
Post by claviger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20130304_JFK_AU_Speech_Legacy.cfm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did you suggest the same thing about working with Hitler in 1937?
No I wasn't born yet but JFK's dad was Ambassador to Great Britain. He
supported appeasement with the aggressive new German Chancellor who was
taking a bellicose attitude toward the Allies. The reason Witt was at the
parade pumping his umbrella up and down.
Yes, exactly. And the British Royalty was very pro-German. Could be
because their heritage was German.
The UK Liberal Party praised Hitler as an economic hero and chastised
Churchill for warning this fanatic posed a threat to European peace and
prosperity.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
How? Are you claiming that Hillary was a Russian agent? Proof?
No, she was a SoS on the make for foreign contributions to the Clinton
Foundation. As to US foreign policy what President would not want a
Sure, why just US contribtions if it was meant to be a Global Initiative.
Exactly how many billions did Putin personally contribute?
Good question.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
better relationship with Russia? It was JFK who set that peace initiative
Obama did not want better relations with Russia as long as Putin was
there.
My impression is Obama wanted a better relationship with Russia.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
in motion. RR kept the momentum going with Gorbachev. If Hillary was
RR helped Gorbachev bring down the Soviet System. It was one of his
greatest accopmplishments.
Thanks for reminding us.
The Soviet system was brought down because it went broke and couldn't
keep up paying for the cold war. Especially the 'star wars initiative'
which was supposed to kill any missiles that were launched by the Soviets
with lasers. It was pie in the sky, but the Russians believed it, and
went broke trying to match it.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
being tough on Putin why approve the uranium deal? Obviously she was
Maybe you should research what the uranium deal really was all about. I'll
give you a hint? Watch the news on TV today. Google Hanford. We have tons
of nuclear material to get rid of and Russia is more than happy to take it
off our hands.
Did Hillary vote to sell Russia 20% of US uranium, yes or no?
Hillary was not alone in the Russia Uranium deal:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
sending a message it's time to play ball with each other.
She didn't. Trump sent a message it's time for Pay to Play.
Pay to Play what?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
So now you're watering down your argument because you know you lost the
argument. It wasn't Clinton making the decision, now she was just PART of
making the decision. She didn't have the power to do it all by herself,
but you tried to place all the blame on her. Now you're backing down.
Did Hillary vote to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia, yes or no?
Along with 8 other important US entities, yes.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Wow, I see that you know nothing about the sanctions. Do a little
reading before you shout off your big mouth.
So tell me she didn't vote to sell the Russians 20% of US Uranium and I'll
retract my statement.
Vote? When? Was she the only vote? Was she the deciding vote?
Doesn't matter. She could have been a courageous minority vote of one.
The simple question is did she vote to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia?
Maybe Putin was blackmailing her to vote for the deal after they hacked
her server.
20% of US Uranium is a tiny amount. The US puts out 2% of the global
amount of the element. Most Uranium is from Kazakhstan, the world's
largest producer.

Chris
mainframetech
2017-05-09 14:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.

Chris
John McAdams
2017-05-09 14:36:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.
Unlikely. They had nothing to fear from Hillary, she of the "reset"
button. She of the feckless Benghazi response, and Obama's feckless
"red line" in Syria.

Trump, on the other hand, they would have to view as erratic and
unpredictable. That's something they would *not* have wanted.

They likely believed, like everybody else, that Hillary would win, and
wanted her a weakened president.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-10 02:19:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.
Unlikely. They had nothing to fear from Hillary, she of the "reset"
button. She of the feckless Benghazi response, and Obama's feckless
"red line" in Syria.
Naive. Hillary humiliated Putin and would have kept the Obama policies
in place, which means sanctions. No drilling for oil in the Arctic.
Post by John McAdams
Trump, on the other hand, they would have to view as erratic and
unpredictable. That's something they would *not* have wanted.
Exactly what the Russians would want to destabilize the US.
And Trump was in their pocket.
Post by John McAdams
They likely believed, like everybody else, that Hillary would win, and
wanted her a weakened president.
That is many one reason why they wanted to interfere in the US elections.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-05-10 22:37:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.
Unlikely. They had nothing to fear from Hillary, she of the "reset"
button. She of the feckless Benghazi response, and Obama's feckless
"red line" in Syria.
Trump, on the other hand, they would have to view as erratic and
unpredictable. That's something they would *not* have wanted.
They likely believed, like everybody else, that Hillary would win, and
wanted her a weakened president.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Opinions vary.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-10 02:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The unmistakeable allegation by bitterly disappointed Clinton supporters
is that the Russians stole the 2016 election and put their preferred US
politician in the White House. The question is how did they influence the
US voting public to do that? Hillary got herself in hot water without any
Russian influence. The Benghazi disaster was a result of complete
incompetence and then she lied about it. The illegal server situation was
all Hillary. Those two issues had more to do with her lackluster campaign
than anything the Russians could do. Trump was up front that he wanted a
better relationship with Russia which would be helpful to world peace and
US trade. Hillary made efforts in the same direction. Trump was critical
of Hillary being part of the decision to sell Russia 20% of US uranium,
knowing they would share some of that with Iran. What I would like to
know is how the Russians were able to pick the winner of the 2016
campaign? Can anyone explain that?
The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election, not only
because Putin hated Hillary, but because having Trump in the W.H. would be
a win for him. It would mean he would have something on the head of the
USA, and at the same time he would have put a complete incompetent into
power to mess up a whole country singlehandedly.
And it meant the US would lift the sanctions. That's what Flynn promised
them.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2017-05-07 18:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Of course this is a sensible report highlighting the safeguards built into
our voting systems which make the sort of alleged hacking of the voting
virtually impossible. The key phrase was “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. I have pointed this out to
Chris/mainframetech on several occasions and still he refuses to let go of
the possibility that the actual voting and/or vote counting were
compromised. It's not as if voter fraud is a new concept. The safeguards
have evolved over time to prevent the kind of cheating that has been done
in the past. No system is foolproof but any cheating now days is going to
done on a very small scale.

Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated
conspiracy hobbyist. Whether we are talking about the JFK assassination,
the moon landings, TWA 800, 9/11 Truthers, etc. there are always going to
be people conditioned to believe just about any conspiracy theory that
comes along and there are also charlatans like Jim Marrs who know that and
will attempt to make a buck by selling crap to people who are more than
eager to buy it.
Bud
2017-05-08 20:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and
she was able to produce the altered results in four seconds.
Fraction Magic proves that it is technologically possible for people with
inside access to election results to alter the results quickly and
silently. The safeguard against this form of electoral fraud is public
access during vote counts and immediate public disclosure of precinct
election results. Practices such as this were the rule in traditional
American elections.
The good news is that many precinct vote totals are still being released
to the public immediately after the results are known. The bad news is
that public access to witness the vote counting has been greatly reduced,
and there appears to be a silent movement to stop the practice of making
precinct results public immediately. As far as the 2016 election results
are concerned, it is highly unlikely that manipulation of election results
made any difference, but if we don’t reverse the current movements
of not allowing public access to vote counts and the stopping of immediate
public disclosure of election results, it will become feasible for a small
group of insiders to quickly and silently alter election results in a
manner similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin in their sham elections.
For learning more about fraudulently manipulating vote totals, see TNA
online article “American Elections Are Vulnerable to Wholesale
Vote Fraud."
While it is highly unlikely that Russian hackers cyberattacked the 2016,
this is no thanks to the liberal elements who have been advocating
Internet voting and other forms of electronic voting sans paper trail. And
it will be a long time before the volunteer groups that are looking into
the possibilities of illegal voting by non-citizens will learn how many of
such ballots were cast in the 2016 general election even though this is a
task that should have already been done by the government agencies that
conduct our elections.
Of course this is a sensible report highlighting the safeguards built into
our voting systems which make the sort of alleged hacking of the voting
virtually impossible. The key phrase was “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process”. I have pointed this out to
Chris/mainframetech on several occasions and still he refuses to let go of
the possibility that the actual voting and/or vote counting were
compromised. It's not as if voter fraud is a new concept. The safeguards
have evolved over time to prevent the kind of cheating that has been done
in the past. No system is foolproof but any cheating now days is going to
done on a very small scale.
Of course no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade a dedicated
conspiracy hobbyist. Whether we are talking about the JFK assassination,
the moon landings, TWA 800, 9/11 Truthers, etc. there are always going to
be people conditioned to believe just about any conspiracy theory that
comes along and there are also charlatans like Jim Marrs who know that and
will attempt to make a buck by selling crap to people who are more than
eager to buy it.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that in America everyone gets to
choose their own reality. I don`t even know why the media bothers to fact
check what Trump says, if his supporters want to believe what he says is
true who is to say they can`t? Liberals get to claim that there are Nazis
everywhere. Blacks get to blame institutional racism for their problems.
The transgender community can say they are engaged in a civil rights
struggle. If some groups write their own narratives then all groups should
be able to, and nobody should be able to write the narrative of another
group. If white males want to support Trump that support should be given
the same respect every other crackpot group gets in America.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 02:38:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
Thursday, 27 April 2017
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
Written by Kurt Hyde
Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Russian hackers attempted to
help President Trump’s campaign were dealt another in a series of
setbacks based on facts when NASS (National Association of Secretaries of
State) issued a report on the matter last month. The report, entitled
"Briefing: Key Facts and Findings on Cybersecurity and Foreign Targeting
of the 2016 Elections," was based on unclassified documentation and
evidence available to NASS.
The NASS report summarized its findings: “The November 2016
“No credible evidence of hacking, including attempted hacking of
voting machines or vote counting, was ever presented or discovered in any
state, including during recount efforts that took place after the
election.” The report addressed concerns about hackers who did
manage to access online voter registration databases saying, “No
voter registration data was modified or deleted” and,
“Claims that twenty or more states experienced Russian-led hacks
or intrusions into their election systems are false and
inaccurate.”
The NASS report cited the states’ “highly-decentralized,
low-connectivity elections process” as a safeguard from
large-scale cyberattacks. Hopefully, this sensible, forthright statement
by this association, most of whose members are state-level chiefs of
elections, will lead to an end of advocacy for Internet voting and other
forms of paperless electronic voting.
Readers of The New American were warned of the dangers of Internet voting
in the October 9, 2000 issue of the print magazine. The article entitled
"Voting on the Web" warned of numerous dangers inherent in the Internet
technology that could become electoral security weaknesses if Internet
technology becomes a vital link in the voting process. That TNA article
also reported on attempted cyberattacks during Internet voting’s
In an interview with The New American, Joseph Mohen, CEO of election.com,
admitted that the Arizona Democratic primary was e-attacked. There were
two kinds of attacks — denial of service and password-guessing
— all of which were successfully thwarted. Nevertheless, the fact
that this first-ever, true Internet election was subject to such sabotage
attempts shows the profound weaknesses of Internet voting. Attacks on
future Internet elections may be prosecuted more successfully.
The NASS report focused only on cyberattacks and did not address other
forms of election fraud, such as illegal voting by non-citizens,
manipulating the programming of electronic voting equipment via tampering,
or centralized election management for setting up of the machines or
manipulating the totals after the election.
How Many Illegal Ballots Were Cast by Non-Citizens?
Regarding illegal voting by non-citizens and other forms of illegal
voting, such as repeater voting in person or absentee ballots, there has
been surprisingly little activity by Republican Party organizations. This
is despite President Trump’s publicly voiced concerns and is in
stark contrast to 1960 when there were credible doubts about the election
of President Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson. Then Republican
National Chairman Thruston Morton issued a call to GOP organizations and
concerned citizens to help gather evidence. The Dallas Morning News
Morton sent out a call last Friday to GOP organizations in 11 states to
seek ballot recounts or investigations to determine whether there were
voting frauds or irregularities in their areas.
The New American contacted the Republican National Committee asking if
they intend to do anything similar to what the RNC did in 1960 to help
gather evidence of potential vote fraud. As of press time, the RNC has not
responded to that information request.
With or without help from the RNC and state elections departments,
election integrity groups such as True The Vote and Judicial Watch are
looking into how many non-citizens illegally voted in the 2016 election.
Currently we are aggregating all 2016 state voter registry data and
sending over 3,000 FOIA requests to create a master data set that can be
used to verify identity, residency, and citizenship status of registered
voters. But it is slow-going. Data is still coming in. We are still asking
questions and anticipate many additional rounds of FOIAs will be required.
Indiana just purged nearly 500,000 voter registrations from their rolls.
The story behind the story is that in 2012 True the Vote and Judicial
Watch worked together to sue Indiana and Ohio for not keeping their voter
rolls clean. These were multi-year courtroom battles that we settled in
two historic consent decrees in both states — but it took suing
them to get them to do their jobs. What won those cases was our ability to
use True the Vote's past research to prove that citizens were having to do
the job of government. It caused Indiana to cancel the registrations of a
stunning 10% of its voter rolls. Consider the implications if 10% of our
nation's voter rolls are inaccurate.
Learning how many illegal ballots were cast in November looks like it will
be a long battle and the mainstream media is all but ignoring this aspect
of the 2016 presidential elections.
Was There Tampering With the Electronic Ballots?
Regarding tampering or manipulating of the electronic voting equipment
during set-up, fortunately there are quite a few jurisdictions in this
country where the electronic voting equipment has a paper trail, and some
partial recounts were accomplished in Michigan and Wisconsin with no
significant differences between the electronic totals and the recounts of
the paper ballots.
University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and graduate student
An Uninvited Security Audit of the U.S. Presidential Election that finding
no evidence of hacking is not the same as finding evidence of no hacking.
For example, when attempting recounts on paperless voting systems, there
was no evidence one way or the other. The researchers also mentioned
severe obstacles to obtaining permission for recounts, such as in
Pennsylvania. Professor Halderman also mentioned his concerns because of
the relatively small number of people who accomplish the software set-ups
of the electronic voting equipment for each election. Having such a small
cadre of people accomplishing this key function increases the risk of a
central point of attack for manipulation, especially for equipment that
doesn’t have a paper trail.
Halderman also voiced his dismay with how infrequently the paper trails
are actually used for some form of audits of elections even though the
voter-verified paper trails are available. Not taking advantage of the
paper trail when one is available to verify vote totals increases the risk
of election fraud because it significantly decreases the risk of
detection.
Was There Tampering With the Totals?
This past fall, on Alex Jones’ Infowars program, Bev Harris,
founder of Black Box Voting, and computer professional Bennie Smith
publicly unveiled a computer application named Fraction Magic. Fraction
Magic can read actual election results and alter the vote totals and
subtotals all the way down to the precinct level to fit a desired outcome
and do so with believable numbers. Harris reported testing Fraction Magic
on Alaska’s election results from the 2004 general election, and<