Trump DHS Officials Asked CISA To Secretly Aquire and Hack a Voting Machine (propublica.org) 222
Longtime Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot shares a report from ProPublica: A few months into President Donald Trump's second term, political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wanted Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to secretly acquire a voting machine and hack it. The appointees wanted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to procure the machine, examine it and report back the findings so they could be given to the White House, according to two former administration officials with knowledge of the request.
The proposition was shocking to CISA's career staffers, according to one of the former officials. CISA typically worked to thwart hackers. Moreover, the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices. The request made the CISA employees fear they were being asked to take part in political interference. "My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don't like," one of the former officials said. "This goes against everything CISA represents." [Or, perhaps do something worse?]
The CISA employees repeatedly told the political appointees that their request was impossible, in part because the agents capable of pulling off such an operation had just been laid off by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. The appointees eventually stopped pressing CISA. Though not acted on, the request shows how the Trump administration has tried to use the agency for its own ends while draining it of resources for one of its critical missions: protecting the nation's voting systems.
The proposition was shocking to CISA's career staffers, according to one of the former officials. CISA typically worked to thwart hackers. Moreover, the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices. The request made the CISA employees fear they were being asked to take part in political interference. "My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don't like," one of the former officials said. "This goes against everything CISA represents." [Or, perhaps do something worse?]
The CISA employees repeatedly told the political appointees that their request was impossible, in part because the agents capable of pulling off such an operation had just been laid off by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. The appointees eventually stopped pressing CISA. Though not acted on, the request shows how the Trump administration has tried to use the agency for its own ends while draining it of resources for one of its critical missions: protecting the nation's voting systems.
Unlikely to work (Score:5, Interesting)
"Voting Machines" come in 3 types:
1. DRE where your vote is Directly Recorded Electronically.
2. Ballot counters where your vote is recorded on a paper ballot and the machine is fed them, counts them and spits back out the ballot to be saved.
3. Ballot markers that mark a paper ballot and you then send it through a ballot counter.
1. There are only 6 US states where DRE machines are used at all, only Lousiana uses them for all districts. All 6 of those states want to get rid of the DRE machines and switch to paper ballots and Ballot Counters. Trump could easily hack Louisiana ... but does not have to. They already have that state. The other states where some counties use DRE are New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee and Utah. They use them in certain older counties. Tennessee, Utah and Indiana are not in play. New Jersey is a lock for the Democrats. Ohio is the only 'swing' states where hacking could give Trump an advantage.
2. Ballot counters can be easily checked to see if they are hacked. Just hand count 1000 ballots and feed them to the machine. No one is going to bother hacking them.
3. Ballot Marking Devices are typically used by people with vision issues. If you do not have vision issues you can ask to use the BMD and visually check to see if it marked the paper ballot correctly. No one is going to hack them.
It is reasonable to be very concerned about the state of Ohio being hacked. But if the Democrats win Ohio, they will win the US senate even without Ohio.
Sources:
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting... [ballotpedia.org]
Note, AI sources have lied about DRE machines. Do not trust AI.
Re:Unlikely to work (Score:4, Interesting)
The real story here, not that it's news to anyone paying attention, is that the Trump administration is going to do everything it can to steal the midterm elections. Stealing postal votes, hacking voting machines, bribing the electorate, investigating the opposition. Doubtless Trump will be on the phone to swing states asking them to "find" some more votes for Republicans.
Unfortunately I think that even if the Democrats do win both houses, they won't do much with it.
Ohio (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have a link for the Ohio counties that use DRE? I run one of the voting locations in Franklin County (Columbus area), Ohio. We use ballot markers that print out the voter's choices which the voter then scans on a separate ballot counter.
Six or so years ago, I got a call from the county BOE asking if I would be willing to work the elections.
Me: Sure. What do you need me to do?
BOE: We'll make you a VLM.
Me: Ok, what is a VLM?
BOE: A Voting Location Manager. You'll be in charge of a voting location.
Me: Um...
BOE: Don't worry. We have a 2.5 hour online training course that you will take. A mandatory 3 hour in person training class and a 275 page manual. You'll be fine.
For 98% of the voters (we get about 1200 in person voters for a busy election in this location) the process is straight forward. Check the ID, look up the voter, print a slip that has their precinct ID, and send them to a ballot marker. The other 2% are the edge cases that I have to be trained for. These include name changes, new citizens, voter precinct changes, voters who must vote provisionally because they requested an absentee ballot, and curbside voters who cannot physically enter the location.
Besides the training, the job requires me to visit the location a few days before the election to make sure machines were delivered and see how the location should be set up. Sunday before the election I have to go to BOE HQ and pick up poll books (sealed) and a pile of papers (maps, posters, sample ballots, log books, forms, etc) all of which has to inventoried. Monday evening my team will set up the location. Tuesday, we must arrive at 0530 to finish setup so the polls can open at 0630. Voting ends at 1930 and then we have to pack up the site, seal everything, complete a pile of paperwork, and police up the site. Finally, two of us from opposing political parties have to drive the physical ballots from the ballot counters, the poll books, and a pile of paperwork back to the BOE HQ. I'll get home about 2200 Tuesday evening.
Across the nation, there is a perennial shortage of people willing to work the polls. Franklin County has to find ~4,000 poll workers every election. We do get paid, but I have to take a day off work and the pay amounts to about 20% of my day job wage. Interestingly, half or so of my team, including myself, are military veterans. Veterans seem to volunteer for these kind of jobs at a rate much higher than the general population does (~6% of US adults are veterans). It is too late to volunteer for this election, but Uncle Sam Wants You! so consider calling your local BOE for the next election.
And, FWIW, the ballot marker machines we use run Linux.
They could have just read the book (Score:2)
There was a book called The Machinery of Democracy which went over the problem, no need to do their own hack
Re:They could have just read the book (Score:5, Funny)
I see where you failed there: There is no one in the Trump regime that can read well enough to understand that book.
Why not legally? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the real question: why not do this legally? They have the means to purchase a voting machine from the company that makes it, so why not why not do it legally? Hell, they would demand one from the company in the name of national security. So, why didn't they seek a legal means of procurement?
If you haven't come to the conclusion that this was an attempt to subvert upcoming election (either attempting to cast doubt on the results or even modify the result) then you aren't being honest with yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
This is likely legal, but doing it in this way is very, very suspicious.
Re: (Score:3)
In what universe is stealing voting equipment "likely legal"? I do mean to say they were stealing it because it was to be done in secret and thus violating the chain of custody with the state. That in itself is a felony. There a legal procedures that can be followed but none of them were even attempted. What has happened here is a prime example of a criminal conspiracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Department of Generating Errors. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact DOGE unintentionally thwarted their efforts is irony at it's finest.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact DOGE unintentionally ...
Most statements about DOGE can probably stop right there. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Their incompetence will save us from some of the effects of their malice, but will make other effects worse.
Poor Behaviour (Score:5, Interesting)
Immorality and corruption are nothing to be ashamed of in Trump's mind. Being concerned about that sort of thing is for "losers". On the contrary, they can be carried out in the open and bragged about.
This is why, having been passed over for the Nobel Peace prize, Trump called the decision an "indelible stain on the country of Norway", not because he is unaware that the decision is not made by the "country of Norway", it's just that he finds it difficult to comprehend a government that won't interfere in the organisations within its borders.
It just baffles me that a country so proud of its founding concepts - separation of powers, no one is above the law, aversion to tyrants, etc. - could select this person, twice, knowing his character. It's utterly baffling.
Re: Poor Behaviour (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It just baffles me that a country so proud of its founding concepts - separation of powers, no one is above the law, aversion to tyrants, etc. - could select this person, twice, knowing his character. It's utterly baffling.
Its actually not that baffling: A Supreme Court decision in 2010 (Citizens United) in the US allowed - effectively - unlimited money to be donated for political purposes.
i. As a result, money for MAGA comes from specific wealthy donors - energy, crypto, tech - being the big three. Trump makes sure his wealthy donors are taken care of.
ii. Because of i, MAGA exists to serve a small number of wealthy donors. A cult of personality (Trump) help keep a large percentage of people voting in a specific patte
It would be different if it wasn't YKW (Score:3)
Full-scale red team attacks are a first-rate security practice. It's exactly the sort of exercise they should be doing. Including not telling the manufacturer of the company that you're doing it until after you've completed the test, because the rot might go all the way to the top.
But we all know that's not why they're doing it.
lowest bidder (Score:3)
The appointees eventually stopped pressing CISA.
Do you know whey they stopped pressing? Most likely because they found someone else willing to to the work.
Just like Big Brother (Score:2)
The department directed to see to the security of the elections instead throws the elections to MAGA. Typical.
Smoking Gun: (Score:3)
> "the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws"
There it is folks. Only one reason you decide NOT to secure the voting machines for your own country.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4)
I was also surprised to read that a government agency considered it a standard practice to alert a company if security vulnerabilities were found in its code. I thought SOP was to keep them a secret and weaponize them and use them to spy (but only on the bad guys, of course). We got proof of this some years ago when the CIA (or was it NSA? I can't remember) got hacked and many such weaponized vulnerabilities were discovered.
I realize that DHS is a different agency, but, it is still a government agency, meaning the moral profile is the same.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Informative)
Weird. In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, our voting machines scan paper (marked by the voter) so we have a fully auditable paper trail. Have you considered voting for competent politicians? I won't say that the liberals in charge of Allegheny County are perfect; nobody is. But they run a solid verifiable election.
Every voting system is insecure, because every system is insecure, because nothing is perfect, it's all tradeoffs. If you think election fraud occurred, prove it; elections involve thousands of people so finding one whistleblower should be easy. If you cannot find one reliable whistleblower and no proof, then you are just another weak-ass gullible grandpa yelling at the clouds and everyone knows it.
Re: (Score:2)
In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, our voting machines scan paper (marked by the voter) so we have a fully auditable paper trail.
Same here in Virginia Beach, VA.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Weird. In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, our voting machines scan paper (marked by the voter) so we have a fully auditable paper trail. Have you considered voting for competent politicians? I won't say that the liberals in charge of Allegheny County are perfect; nobody is. But they run a solid verifiable election.
Every voting system is insecure, because every system is insecure, because nothing is perfect, it's all tradeoffs. If you think election fraud occurred, prove it; elections involve thousands of people so finding one whistleblower should be easy. If you cannot find one reliable whistleblower and no proof, then you are just another weak-ass gullible grandpa yelling at the clouds and everyone knows it.
It's just like the corrupt spineless Republicans always bitching about voter registration. I still have the fully identifiable registration from when I first registered in the medieval ages. I do have a new one they sent me this year. I guess the one on parchment was wearing out a bit.
And yes - we do paper here as well.
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Informative)
Which ignores the whole non-issue aspect, anyway. The percentage of voter fraud is less than 1%, so theyâ(TM)re trying to fix a problem that doesnâ(TM)t exist. But letâ(TM)s face it: Republicans merely want to cheat at elections so they stay in power.
Re: (Score:3)
Itâ(TM)s less âoevoter registration,â and more âoevoter suppression.â By requiring a passport to register, which is neither easy to get nor free, Republicans are essentially asking for a poll tax, which is illegal. Which ignores the whole non-issue aspect, anyway. The percentage of voter fraud is less than 1%, so theyâ(TM)re trying to fix a problem that doesnâ(TM)t exist. But letâ(TM)s face it: Republicans merely want to cheat at elections so they stay in power.
Much of the cheating has already been shown to be Republican. If we look at the Arizona recount process years ago, they simply refused to accept that it wasn't cheating even after shown there wasn't enough to mean anything. Took the Vice Governor (IIRC) to say, the madness stops now. And Republican standard bearer Mike Lindell, the man who represents Republican ethics, ended up showing lines of code to prove the corruption that meant absolutely nothing, and even their hand selected expert refuted it. But Li
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4)
If voter registration was such a non issue, then corrupt spineless Democrats would have non issues with supporting and passing the SAVE Act.
Go ahead. Dare ask why corrupt spineless Democrats don’t support it. You might find an answer before LA county stops proving why they don’t “need” more time than the entire country of India to ensure a Republican never wins in the Sanctuary state holding the most electoral votes in America.
One of the first things for you to know is I am an independent. I also believed there was a reason the Democrats lost in teh previous general election. I also believe that part of that was their own spinelessness. Here's where we are:
Republicans hold a majority in the House. Republicanshold a majority in the senate, Republicans hold the White House. Facts. Would you care to dispute those facts?
But okay - I'll accept your notions that elections in the USA are corrupt, and must be changed. Let's roll...
Illogical - I must then accept that the party that is the beneficiary of corrupt elections are in the majority, because otherwise, they would not be in the majority. They would be the plucky underdogs, making a valiant attempt to wrestle power away from the corrupt who are taking advantage of the process they implemented to keep them in power. The majority in power - and that tells us exactly who the corrupt are.Those in power. The people in power in a corrupt system are the prima facie evidence and hard to disprove the exact people that who use that corruption for their political power.
Unless you wish to argue that the corruption riddled US election system favors those not in power? That'd be pretty odd.
Do it - let's hear how the corruption is the Democrats, and it results in Republicans in power.
Schrödinger's Republican - Whenever a Republican candidate loses, it is prima facie proof that the elections are rigged and corrupt. When a Republican candidate wins, it is free and fair, and proof of the people's voice being heard through the democratic process.
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:2)
If they are so insecure you would think dhs could just grab one unnoticed.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about that. It's about them trying to find literally anything they can use post-mid terms to waste the next 2 years of our lives having to sit through Trump telling us they were rigged because of X, or Y (and why, haphadzerdly). Because the average person doesn't know or care about these things, they're (the people in power) banking on what I have to assume enough people getting infuriated from this messaging to go out and cause a lot of fuss, thus delaying any proper/democratic way forward.
Remembe
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you are really really desperate to de-legitimize elections. Why?
If you had read the post you were responding to: The "paper trail" my county uses is paper ballots which people fill in with pens (fill in the ovals, what fun!) and are then scanned. Those paper ballots are turned in to the county, as are the memory cards containing the scanned data. If there is any question, the county will hand-count the paper ballots, filled out by the voters NOT THE MACHINE.
You should probably ask yourself why you typed a comment that made a vague assertion contradicting a post with precise verifiable details. You may find out something about your opinions and decisions which will be unpleasant (but very important) to face.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Informative)
Most paper trails are just a print out by the voting machine itself. Magic!
And are human reviewable afterwards. That is a very reliable way to confirm that the machine votes are correct. Print the receipt so the person has a written record, put the receipt in a box, give a final result, do a human count afterwards.
It's not magic how a dual review can verify voting integrity, it's logic.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Informative)
They wanted to prove they're insecure, replicating the work of independent hackers and internal whistleblowers, so we can go back to a fully auditable system with paper trails like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY USES.
So... They wanted to prove they're insecure by keeping any vulnerabilities found a secret?
the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices.
Sounds more like the White House wanted the option to secretly break into voting machines and change the results.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Insightful)
So... They wanted to prove they're insecure by keeping any vulnerabilities found a secret?
No, they wanted to prove they're insecure so they could reveal the proof at a press conference (or on social media).
Re: (Score:2)
So... They wanted to prove they're insecure by keeping any vulnerabilities found a secret?
No, they wanted to prove they're insecure so they could reveal the proof at a press conference (or on social media).
Even so, they wouldn't have any guarantee or knowledge that the company hadn't already independently fixed whatever issues were announced.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Proof (or disproof) is irrelevant in a PR fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth was already revealed... in books, so nobody cared.
They could just refer to the books.
Wanting to reveal the proof at a presser does not require acquiring the machines in secret.
Fools are characterized by easily fooled, and you are one if you believe that shit, because it's obviously false.
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Insightful)
shows clearly that the White House wanted the option to secretly break into voting machines and change the results.
FTFY
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:2)
The White House would never break into voting machines to change results. The next step would be to simply pass on the information to a friendly, non-prosecutable third-party who would do the dirty work. Seems pretty obvious the answer here is Russia, which would be in a good position to pull it off and would benefit from keeping the current admin in power.
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you seem to be all about the conspiracies, let’s try this on for size. Shut down ALL electronic voting. Mandate everyone in every state show a valid form of ID to ensure only valid citizens are casting votes. Then declare that you want all votes counted in public. In the Town Square. Twice.
When America finds only ONE political party bitching endlessly about these “unfair” demands, you will then KNOW who the fuck has been cheating.
For decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe it is absolutely fair for an administration to try and prove that a system is vulnerable.
Sure and they do that by specifying requirements in contracts. And if the administration wants CISA to directly test a machine, (a) there's no legitimate reason to acquire a machine in secret and (b) there's no legitimate reason to keep any vulnerabilities found a secret from the vendor.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is overtly part of the ongoing effort to overthrow the government and establish a fascist regime in the US. Either you are dumber then a box of rocks or you want to be a willing slave in a totalitarian society.
You wouldn't know freedom if it bit you on the ass.
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the point is to prove that the system is vulnerable, publishing the vulnerabilities defeats the purpose because the vendor will simply patch those vulnerabilities.
https://www.cisa.gov/about [cisa.gov]
The entire reason that agency exists is to help secure our infrastructure and coordinate with the public. Or do you see something in their mission about privately discovering vulnerabilities for politics.
If the point is to score political points for the party in charge, it's probably illegal for a federal agency to do that bud.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Patching the vulnerabilities in the future wouldn't change the fact that the system was vulnerable last time it was used, and someone else could have independently found and exploited the vulnerabilities at the time.
Likely if vulnerabilities were found they would be used to claim that they were exploited during previous elections, and calling the results into question.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you manage to type all that with Mr Miller's cock shoved so far down your throat? Don't you find it a bit distracting?
Seriously, giving *this* administration the benefit of the doubt is just apologetics for fascism. Have no doubt: in the 30s, you'd have been explaining about how the conditions in Warsaw's ghetto were really unsanitary and it was in the inhabitants' interests for it to be razed.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet for some reason these exact same people are against vote-by-mail, which by definition involves paper ballots.
Why would they want to do that, if the concern is auditability? Seems vote-by-mail guarantees what you want.
We switched to secret ballots for a reason (Score:2, Informative)
And yet for some reason these exact same people are against vote-by-mail, which by definition involves paper ballots.
The problem with vote-by-mail is that it is not necessarily a secret ballot. One can be observed and rewarded for voting "correctly", punished for voting "incorrectly", or one can be bullied into voting a certain way by someone they live with. We switched to secret ballots in the 19th century for a reason.
"From the labor movement to the Chartists, reformers argued that secrecy would blunt the power of intimidating landlords and disrupt the rampant vote-buying and coercion financed by wealthy interests.
Re: (Score:3)
FUD.
Prove it's happening before suggesting a solution to a problem that isn't happening.
The historical reference indicates it happened. Progressive liberals of that era embraced secret ballots to combat vote buying and bullying. You somehow imagine non-secret ballots won't suffer from the same problems as last time? That people in politics are any less power hungry or corrupt or opportunistic than in the 19th century?
Here's a clue. History can be a great resource to avoid repeating mistakes, to avoid unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at history is indeed illuminating.
Every single time someone is asked a question of the form "if voting fraud is so prevalent, show me some examples", the most honest answer I hear is "it happened during the time of the Political Machines in certain large cities many decades ago". And when the best and most recent example you can find is 70+ years ago, before anyone having this discussion was even conceived, when politics and tech and discourse looked very different than today, well, that's a loud a
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at history is indeed illuminating. Every single time someone is asked a question of the form "if voting fraud is so prevalent, show me some examples" ...
Is a manufactured straw man, I did not say "voting fraud is so prevalent", that's you reading in things that are not there.
What I said is that non-secret ballots are a known hazard, a position of the left once embraced when they were the underdog.
when politics and tech and discourse looked very different than today
You mean when people did not spend lots of money to sway elections, to persuade voters to their side? When was that?
And what tech do you refer to? What tech would stop a person from watching another vote?
find evidence for your predetermined conclusion
The only predetermined conclusion here is yours, that n
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet for some reason these exact same people are against vote-by-mail, which by definition involves paper ballots.
To be clear, they're against Democrats voting by mail, they're fine with Republicans doing it.
From Oct 6, 2026:
Trump urges supporters to vote by mail despite fraud claims [reuters.com]
Also noting that Trump routinely votes by mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Trump allowed to vote? I understood convicted felons aren't allowed the vote in free America.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Informative)
Is Trump allowed to vote? I understood convicted felons aren't allowed the vote in free America.
It's up to the individual states and in this case, yes. From Trump is a convicted felon. Here’s why he can still vote today [cnn.com]
: Under Florida law, if a voter has an out-of-state conviction, Florida will defer to that state’s laws for how a felon can regain his or her voting rights.
For Trump, that means he will benefit from a 2021 New York law that allows people with felony convictions to vote as long as they’re not serving a term of incarceration at the time of the election.
For other Floridians with felony convictions, the rules are not so simple.
A successful 2018 ballot initiative restoring voting rights to those who had completed the terms of their sentence was gutted by state Republican lawmakers. They passed a law requiring that all the fines and fees associated with a conviction are paid – a process that can be cumbersome, as there is not a centralized system for tracking such outstanding fees.
Had Trump been convicted in Florida, he'd have to pay all the fines and fees associated with his conviction (if any) before getting his voting rights restored, although I imagine (R) Governor DeSantis would have found a way around that for Trump in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, informative.
Being in a country where voting is a right (for citizens of age), seems weird to deny people the right to vote to change bad laws that they might have been convicted of, like some drug laws.
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Insightful)
And by the way, this is by design because it enables insane levels of fraud.
Which has never been proven. I can't help but notice that your post is completely evidence-free while making this absurd assertion...
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to put your name and address on the "blank outside envelope" or they won't count your vote though.
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm in California. You can "lose" the outside envelope, and then get a blank outside envelope if you go to a polling center. There is NO way to audit the elections in California. And by the way, this is by design because it enables insane levels of fraud.
And do what? When you get the blank envelope you need to write your details on them for it to be valid, otherwise the vote is discarded. This is audited and the number identified (and discarded votes as a result) is in the double digit thousands. This isn't all fraud by the way. In some cases it's people forgetting the process or being too dumb to follow it. The result is something so insignificant it can barely sway an election in a swing state let alone turn CA red.
But let's assume this is all fraud. Congrats. You've found less than 100,000 false votes, only 3 million short of being remotely relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Why on earth would Democrats in California engage in election fraud? The only insanity is believing they would bother to cheat in an election they're going to win anyway.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, that's why "the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws", because that makes sense.
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. I knew someone would make this claim, I knew it. I literally had this quote from the summary ready knowing that someone would claim this was just the White House trying to make our elections secure:
> Moreover, the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices. The request made the CISA employees fear they were being asked to take part in political interference. "My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don't like," one of the former officials said. "This goes against everything CISA represents." [Or, perhaps do something worse?]
There is no interpretation of the facts that supports anything other than the White House planning to use this information to hack the election.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think you are wrong; you are assuming too much competence. The White House has few competent people, so hacking an election is well beyond them, but screaming out bullshit "facts" is right in their skillset. The goal (I suspect) is that when they lose, they'll use weaknesses in this one type of machine to claim that all elections are fraudulent. Are any "insecurities" they find useful for affecting election results? They won't care, and neither will their gullible followers. They don't need
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are no facts there
The facts are that there was no legitimate reason given for a request to deviate from policy. That the former employee had a thought is irrelevant. Either the current administration is trying to rig the election, or is too fucking dumb to follow it's own administrative policies, and I'm not entirely sure which of the two is worse.
Re: (Score:3)
More like they wanted to prepare a Big Lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie) with some kernel of truth, that they then can push later. The secrecy and the not reporting back to the maker makes it very clear this is not any kind of honest move.
Re: (Score:2)
What flavor was todays kool aid?
Re: Misleading way to phrase this much? (Score:2)
"Currently, 34 out of 178 countries use electronic voting at national and/or sub-national levels. Additionally, 15% of countries are conducting feasibility studies or tests for potential future use of e-voting."
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but no. The claim that they made "fraudulent counts of paper ballots" was never proven. What they did find was a margin of error, too small to have made a difference either way.
Re:Voting is over (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Voting is over (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to Godwin this topic so early, but - this is straight from the Goebbel's playbook. Shout loudly and repeatedly, claiming your enemy is guilty of Nefarious Activity A, to provide attempted cover for your own intent to commit Nefarious Activity A.
We've seen it numerous times - such as during Trump's midterm convention, when he told attendees to "Cheat like hell because the other side is doing it". This is one of the main reasons he's been shouting that lie over and over again, despite being unable to prove it in court even once. Notice you haven't heard anything about the Georgia ballots recently? Further back, remember how his crony's recount of Arizona's 2020 ballots eventually resulted in the eventual and very quiet admission that their recount showed Biden did win the state - and with slightly more votes than the official tally showed?
Re: Voting is over (Score:3, Informative)
Nazis were inspired by the USA.
Trump's grandfather was in with Nazis and his father and grandfather were in the KKK.
The comparison is completely apt.
Re: (Score:3)
What have you got against Nazis?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is something
Re: (Score:2)
When was the 2nd time the Nazi's lost? After WWII, de-nazification was so successful that only recently have they re-risen in a meaningful way.
Re: Voting is over (Score:2)
This is literally about whether a Nazi comparison is apt so I can't point out that they have Nazi connections? How long have you been a Nazi?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Election denialism was popular here on Slashdot after the Bush election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The Supreme Court cheated and handed the election to Bush, but we (Democrats) never said that the solution was an additional illegal action or a refusal to acknowledge President Bush's win. When an election comes down to mere hundreds of votes in one district then the court might make a "mistake" and give it to their guy. Process is important, and the process was followed. That's what a Patriot does; they support the Constitutional process even when they don't like it and don't think everybody else followed
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I hate the fact that one party is sending people to concentration camps, and one party is not, and too many useful idiots are screaming 'TDS' instead of displaying any real empathy for the humans who are being tortured and killed.
Here in Texas, the major R candidates are endorsing an unapologetic racist. There is no equivalent on the D side.
It's appalling.
Re: (Score:2)
Boths sides are bad is incredibly lazy given today's landscape. To make an analogy. You are trying to argue that stealing a loaf of bread is just as bad as robbing a bank.
Yes, both sides definitely have their problems, when it comes to election denialism you are talking entirely different planets. Nobody rioted for Gore like they did for Trump; there were tons of legitimate issues with that election and the review and subsequent audit process after lead to a stronger and more secure system as it should. Th
Re: (Score:2)
You really have to be stupid if you think one slashdot users comments somehow reflect on anybody else.
Does this eggplant62 person speak for me? No. Does he speak for Democrats? No. Does he speak for anybody but himself? No.
Do all of your absurd, moronic comments reflect on anybody other than you? No. Be glad that people you support aren't measured by looking at you, instead of them! Whoever they are, they'd be looking pretty bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're blinded by your partisanship.
Re: (Score:3)
From the outside looking in, the Florida election count was a shit show and at least here, the courts would have ordered a redo.
I did notice that at the end the loser conceded, which did not happen in the 2020 election. I can't think of any election, at least in the West, where the loser didn't concede once the election was declared over. Sure close elections have recounts, took a couple of months here in 2016, at the end there was a smooth transfer of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AC never applied more...
Re: (Score:2)
The extreme left has demonstrated they refuse to accept election outcomes
Is the extreme left in the room with us? Time to take your meds, kid.
Re: (Score:3)
I always think it's funny when they talk about the extreme left. As if any Democrat is arguing for anything remotely like a program of nationalisation of the means of production. These people are such complete ignoramuses. They have no *concept* of what actual hard left politics argues for. And they will have absolutely no problem themselves arguing that the government should cut oil exports, lower the price of gas, etc -- overtly socialist moves. They're profoundly stupid and ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's some possible ways to interpret what you're doing:
1. False equivalence as a defence against uncomfortable distinctions
2. Mistaking nuance for the rejection of categories
3. Performative independence
4. Beating a retreat from empirical claims into abstract generalities
5. Playing out some weird psychological desire to maintain a symmetrical view of politics
6. Confusing party identification with political classification
Whatever it is, it's ineffectual. How does the fact that party platforms are compromise
Re: (Score:2)
It's the classic "What? I only read about it in the newspaper this morning!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"The proposition was shocking" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But you don't use a federal agency where a significant proportion of the employees wouldn't agree with the intended use of the vulnerabilities.
It only took one edward snowden to leak exploits from the NSA, and the NSA as an agency targets foreign countries so most americans wouldn't have a problem with it. Once you had an agency using exploits to subvert the domestic vote you can guarantee that the majority of employees would be against it.
You'd get a voting machine to a friendly location - die hard domesti
Re: (Score:2)
It only took one edward snowden to leak exploits from the NSA, and the NSA as an agency targets foreign countries so most americans wouldn't have a problem with it.
You can't invoke the name of Snowden and also claim the NSA targets foreign countries when the revelations of Snowden is that they target us.
Re: (Score:3)
> Moreover, the agency had been directed not to alert the voting machine company if it uncovered flaws, contrary to its standard practices. The request made the CISA employees fear they were being asked to take part in political interference. "My thought was they could keep it in their back pocket to invalidate any [election] results they don't like," one of the former officials said. "This goes against everything CISA represents." [Or, perhaps do something worse?]
does, however, equate to:
> "Then we w
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming they didn't plan to pass the information on to an entity that would hack the machines on their behalf, which seems almost certain.
Or just pass the whole machine on to that entity, and let them work out how to hack it... Assuming that such entities don't already have access to such machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, read those two sentences a few times over and then explain wtf you're talking about
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's an unreasonable request. It's a request being made of a federal agency that is forbidden from getting involved in elections.
How can you fail to have noticed this very basic point?