Just in case Hillary calls for a recount before next Friday.........

[BluesLegend]

The election is over and 99.9 percent of the world has moved forward including Hillary who has conceded the election and Obama who has acknowledged Trump as the winner.

 

[OKTexas]

We don't use them here.

There are some open source designs that would be just fine but instead they got all these anonymous black boxes with highly suspicious proprietary software. Lowest bidder, made in China, opaque software development, what could possibly go wrong?

Well you elected the folks that bought them, demand a change or un-elect them.

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

And, which has been repeated umpteen million times, the ballots have to be loaded on to the machines using a file downloaded off the internet.

And your link for this would be?

 

[Lewdog]

There are some open source designs that would be just fine but instead they got all these anonymous black boxes with highly suspicious proprietary software. Lowest bidder, made in China, opaque software development, what could possibly go wrong?

Well you elected the folks that bought them, demand a change or un-elect them.

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

And, which has been repeated umpteen million times, the ballots have to be loaded on to the machines using a file downloaded off the internet.

And your link for this would be?

I've already provided it multiple times, and people don't read it. What's the point?

 

[leftwinger]

It does not take much software to add up a count if you press A B C or D. There must be tight revision control......checksum or whatever when they hook up to the machine to extract the tally. If it was edited? It should be easily identified as "different". Come on.....this is not a self-driving semi-truck.

 

[occupied]

It does not take much software to add up a count if you press A B C or D. There must be tight revision control......checksum or whatever when they hook up to the machine to extract the tally. If it was edited? It should be easily identified as "different". Come on.....this is not a self-driving semi-truck.

That sort of thing was not allowed because the dumbasses think keeping the software secret is best. The company managing the machines could find out but they are not going to let anyone know if their product produces bad results after they outsourced software development to India to save a buck.

 

[leftwinger]

Well you elected the folks that bought them, demand a change or un-elect them.

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

And, which has been repeated umpteen million times, the ballots have to be loaded on to the machines using a file downloaded off the internet.

And your link for this would be?

I've already provided it multiple times, and people don't read it. What's the point?

Exactly, one software package is written, tested, QA'd, protected, controlled and installed to all. The individual machines cannot be different. Unless the human counters corrupt? Impossible.

 

[OKTexas]

We don't use them here.

There are some open source designs that would be just fine but instead they got all these anonymous black boxes with highly suspicious proprietary software. Lowest bidder, made in China, opaque software development, what could possibly go wrong?

Well you elected the folks that bought them, demand a change or un-elect them.

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

Correct, but they get software updates from a central location. We are not allowed to examine the software before it is installed so we do not have any idea if it has been nefariously altered on-site or has built-in cheats from the get-go. We knew how every nut and bolt in the old machines worked but with these things the innards are secret.

I find it funny that none of these concerns have been raised in the last two presidential elections or the midterms. And if other States are like TX, the machines are also use in other State and local elections between the ones that have federal representatives on the ballot. Where was all this heartfelt concern for those elections?

 

[Lewdog]

There are some open source designs that would be just fine but instead they got all these anonymous black boxes with highly suspicious proprietary software. Lowest bidder, made in China, opaque software development, what could possibly go wrong?

Well you elected the folks that bought them, demand a change or un-elect them.

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

Correct, but they get software updates from a central location. We are not allowed to examine the software before it is installed so we do not have any idea if it has been nefariously altered on-site or has built-in cheats from the get-go. We knew how every nut and bolt in the old machines worked but with these things the innards are secret.

I find it funny that none of these concerns have been raised in the last two presidential elections or the midterms. And if other States are like TX, the machines are also use in other State and local elections between the ones that have federal representatives on the ballot. Where was all this heartfelt concern for those elections?

Again, if you actually read the articles, these concerns have been raised for over a decade.

 

[OKTexas]

Well you elected the folks that bought them, demand a change or un-elect them.

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

And, which has been repeated umpteen million times, the ballots have to be loaded on to the machines using a file downloaded off the internet.

And your link for this would be?

I've already provided it multiple times, and people don't read it. What's the point?

You replied to me and I haven't seen it. I'm not adverse to learning new things.

 

[occupied]

There are some open source designs that would be just fine but instead they got all these anonymous black boxes with highly suspicious proprietary software. Lowest bidder, made in China, opaque software development, what could possibly go wrong?

Well you elected the folks that bought them, demand a change or un-elect them.

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

Correct, but they get software updates from a central location. We are not allowed to examine the software before it is installed so we do not have any idea if it has been nefariously altered on-site or has built-in cheats from the get-go. We knew how every nut and bolt in the old machines worked but with these things the innards are secret.

I find it funny that none of these concerns have been raised in the last two presidential elections or the midterms. And if other States are like TX, the machines are also use in other State and local elections between the ones that have federal representatives on the ballot. Where was all this heartfelt concern for those elections?

The concerns have always been there but the right has no time for any of the various election integrity projects so you simply have not noticed.

 

[Lewdog]

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

And, which has been repeated umpteen million times, the ballots have to be loaded on to the machines using a file downloaded off the internet.

And your link for this would be?

I've already provided it multiple times, and people don't read it. What's the point?

You replied to me and I haven't seen it. I'm not adverse to learning new things.

America’s voting machines have serious cybersecurity problems. That isn’t news. It’s been documented beyond any doubt over the last decade innumerous peer-reviewed papers and state-sponsored studies by me and by other computer security experts. We’ve been pointing out for years that voting machines are computers, and they have reprogrammable software, so if attackers can modify that software by infecting the machines with malware, they can cause the machines to give any answer whatsoever.

It doesn’t matter whether the voting machines are connected to the Internet. Shortly before each election, poll workers copy the ballot design from a regular desktop computer in a government office, and use removable media (like the memory card from a digital camera) to load the ballot onto each machine. That initial computer is almost certainly not well secured, and if an attacker infects it, vote-stealing malware can hitch a ride to every voting machine in the area.

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

 

[OKTexas]

Well you elected the folks that bought them, demand a change or un-elect them.

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

Correct, but they get software updates from a central location. We are not allowed to examine the software before it is installed so we do not have any idea if it has been nefariously altered on-site or has built-in cheats from the get-go. We knew how every nut and bolt in the old machines worked but with these things the innards are secret.

I find it funny that none of these concerns have been raised in the last two presidential elections or the midterms. And if other States are like TX, the machines are also use in other State and local elections between the ones that have federal representatives on the ballot. Where was all this heartfelt concern for those elections?

Again, if you actually read the articles, these concerns have been raised for over a decade.

Must not have been very well documented concerns, what's changed?

 

[Lewdog]

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

Correct, but they get software updates from a central location. We are not allowed to examine the software before it is installed so we do not have any idea if it has been nefariously altered on-site or has built-in cheats from the get-go. We knew how every nut and bolt in the old machines worked but with these things the innards are secret.

I find it funny that none of these concerns have been raised in the last two presidential elections or the midterms. And if other States are like TX, the machines are also use in other State and local elections between the ones that have federal representatives on the ballot. Where was all this heartfelt concern for those elections?

Again, if you actually read the articles, these concerns have been raised for over a decade.

Must not have been very well documented concerns, what's changed?

What's changed? Three states are so close and out of whack with the initial polls that something seems suspicious... and the fact that the Russian government has hacked Podesta's emails and various DNC campaign offices.

 

[OKTexas]

Well you elected the folks that bought them, demand a change or un-elect them.

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

Correct, but they get software updates from a central location. We are not allowed to examine the software before it is installed so we do not have any idea if it has been nefariously altered on-site or has built-in cheats from the get-go. We knew how every nut and bolt in the old machines worked but with these things the innards are secret.

I find it funny that none of these concerns have been raised in the last two presidential elections or the midterms. And if other States are like TX, the machines are also use in other State and local elections between the ones that have federal representatives on the ballot. Where was all this heartfelt concern for those elections?

The concerns have always been there but the right has no time for any of the various election integrity projects so you simply have not noticed.

They must have been pretty localized, I haven't seen any national hoopla like we have been seeing lately.

 

[OKTexas]

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

Correct, but they get software updates from a central location. We are not allowed to examine the software before it is installed so we do not have any idea if it has been nefariously altered on-site or has built-in cheats from the get-go. We knew how every nut and bolt in the old machines worked but with these things the innards are secret.

I find it funny that none of these concerns have been raised in the last two presidential elections or the midterms. And if other States are like TX, the machines are also use in other State and local elections between the ones that have federal representatives on the ballot. Where was all this heartfelt concern for those elections?

Again, if you actually read the articles, these concerns have been raised for over a decade.

Must not have been very well documented concerns, what's changed?

What's changed? Three states are so close and out of whack with the initial polls that something seems suspicious... and the fact that the Russian government has hacked Podesta's emails and various DNC campaign offices.

Elections experts compared the trends of those States with trends in neighboring States that use paper ballots and they mirrored each other. There were no red flags, just a bunch of red screaming fags pissed because they lost.

 

[leftwinger]

Every software package I worked on consisted of many "source" files (date and time stamp, diff text file collected vs. Previous revision). Then all those files mergerd into the "compiled" final production version (timestamp and checksum). Any deviation flagged immediately, preventing use. At least 4 different departments keep track, even the end use customer. All hell would break loose if even one comment line was modified. And this software package could be used world-wide, often in 3-4 countries.....production site.

 

[occupied]

Most of them were bought during the Bush administration when Americans demanded a better election process and instead got these things. The open source approach was rejected by the tech retards who bought these things. Really the best thing to do is to post the software online and let the hackers go at it for as long as it takes to develop something they cannot hack, then you build it for real and can actually trust it to give an accurate count.

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

Correct, but they get software updates from a central location. We are not allowed to examine the software before it is installed so we do not have any idea if it has been nefariously altered on-site or has built-in cheats from the get-go. We knew how every nut and bolt in the old machines worked but with these things the innards are secret.

I find it funny that none of these concerns have been raised in the last two presidential elections or the midterms. And if other States are like TX, the machines are also use in other State and local elections between the ones that have federal representatives on the ballot. Where was all this heartfelt concern for those elections?

The concerns have always been there but the right has no time for any of the various election integrity projects so you simply have not noticed.

They must have been pretty localized, I haven't seen any national hoopla like we have been seeing lately.

We just had an election season full of hacking incidents so it's natural we see some renewed concern. It was a big deal in the early-mid 2000s when a national call for trustworthy elections turned into a farce when the whole thing was handed to the private sector and developed behind closed doors.

 

[OKTexas]

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

And, which has been repeated umpteen million times, the ballots have to be loaded on to the machines using a file downloaded off the internet.

And your link for this would be?

I've already provided it multiple times, and people don't read it. What's the point?

You replied to me and I haven't seen it. I'm not adverse to learning new things.

America’s voting machines have serious cybersecurity problems. That isn’t news. It’s been documented beyond any doubt over the last decade innumerous peer-reviewed papers and state-sponsored studies by me and by other computer security experts. We’ve been pointing out for years that voting machines are computers, and they have reprogrammable software, so if attackers can modify that software by infecting the machines with malware, they can cause the machines to give any answer whatsoever.

It doesn’t matter whether the voting machines are connected to the Internet. Shortly before each election, poll workers copy the ballot design from a regular desktop computer in a government office, and use removable media (like the memory card from a digital camera) to load the ballot onto each machine. That initial computer is almost certainly not well secured, and if an attacker infects it, vote-stealing malware can hitch a ride to every voting machine in the area.

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

Looks like a butt load of supposition and speculation to me. Wouldn't malware need the source code to know how to manipulate it? Just ask'n, I'm no programmer.

 

[Lewdog]

And, which has been repeated umpteen million times, the ballots have to be loaded on to the machines using a file downloaded off the internet.

And your link for this would be?

I've already provided it multiple times, and people don't read it. What's the point?

You replied to me and I haven't seen it. I'm not adverse to learning new things.

America’s voting machines have serious cybersecurity problems. That isn’t news. It’s been documented beyond any doubt over the last decade innumerous peer-reviewed papers and state-sponsored studies by me and by other computer security experts. We’ve been pointing out for years that voting machines are computers, and they have reprogrammable software, so if attackers can modify that software by infecting the machines with malware, they can cause the machines to give any answer whatsoever.

It doesn’t matter whether the voting machines are connected to the Internet. Shortly before each election, poll workers copy the ballot design from a regular desktop computer in a government office, and use removable media (like the memory card from a digital camera) to load the ballot onto each machine. That initial computer is almost certainly not well secured, and if an attacker infects it, vote-stealing malware can hitch a ride to every voting machine in the area.

Want to Know if the Election was Hacked? Look at the Ballots

Looks like a butt load of supposition and speculation to me. Wouldn't malware need the source code to know how to manipulate it? Just ask'n, I'm no programmer.

I don't know, but I don't think three programming specialists from two large universities including an IVY League college would come up with the idea if that were the case.

 

[OKTexas]

You're forgetting that most precincts are on closed systems, they're not open to hacking, the only way to do anything is alter the software, but it would have to be done on each individual machine. Considering there are more than 3,000 individual precincts with varying numbers of machines. Everyone seems to think all these machines are connected to the internet and they're not.

Correct, but they get software updates from a central location. We are not allowed to examine the software before it is installed so we do not have any idea if it has been nefariously altered on-site or has built-in cheats from the get-go. We knew how every nut and bolt in the old machines worked but with these things the innards are secret.

I find it funny that none of these concerns have been raised in the last two presidential elections or the midterms. And if other States are like TX, the machines are also use in other State and local elections between the ones that have federal representatives on the ballot. Where was all this heartfelt concern for those elections?

The concerns have always been there but the right has no time for any of the various election integrity projects so you simply have not noticed.

They must have been pretty localized, I haven't seen any national hoopla like we have been seeing lately.

We just had an election season full of hacking incidents so it's natural we see some renewed concern. It was a big deal in the early-mid 2000s when a national call for trustworthy elections turned into a farce when the whole thing was handed to the private sector and developed behind closed doors.

Sounds to me like you folks should be electing people you can trust, you can't blame the machines, they only do what people tell them to do.