Discussion:
NASS Report: Russians Did Not Cyberattack 2016 Elections
(too old to reply)
BOZ
2017-05-05 23:46:16 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
mainframetech
2017-05-07 00:18:10 UTC
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
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
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
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.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-07 02:19:26 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
bigdog
2017-05-07 18:30:46 UTC
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
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
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
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.
This is exactly what Steve Bannon and the Alt-Right invented and keep
pushing, in order to destroy this country. That is their only goal.
Loading...