HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » A Quick Brick Upside the ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:41 PM

A Quick Brick Upside the Head to an Election Consipiracy Theory.

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/a-quick-brick-upside-the-head-to-an-election-consipiracy-theory/

9 replies, 1428 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Quick Brick Upside the Head to an Election Consipiracy Theory. (Original post)
riqster Nov 2012 OP
RC Nov 2012 #1
riqster Nov 2012 #2
NashvilleLefty Nov 2012 #4
riqster Nov 2012 #5
bleever Nov 2012 #3
riqster Nov 2012 #6
Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #7
Coyotl Nov 2012 #8
Name removed Apr 2013 #9

Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:22 PM

1. From someone's fact challenged blog?

 

While the voting machines themselves may not be outside hackable, the central tabulators are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:37 PM

2. Not in this scenario

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

For an outside hack to have worked in Ohio, November 2012, the outside group would have to have had all of the following:
* access to the tabulation environment,
* a copy of the most recent code used on the tabulation devices, and
* sufficient expertise to hack the code so as to alter the code so as to produce the desired result.

The first is not difficult. The second and third are very hard, because the vendors are constantly putting new patches in. So for an outside hacker, no matter how skilled, to be able to access and modify the code and know it would work without raising any red flags in the corrupt, partisan election offices (operated by the vendors themselves) is so risky as to not be worth the effort.

Oh, and the voting devices are easy to hack. Ludicrously so. They are often times not kept in secured environments, the poll workers not given the correct training and resources to run them properly, and are so badly built and designed that it can be hard for the people on the ground to tell a hack from an error. They are not as profitable to hack, but not as difficult as the central tabulators.

Please note that inside hacking is depressingly easy in all scenarios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:29 AM

4. The lack of knowledge you and the blog in your link display

is really astounding.

I'm not saying that Anonymous DID what the letter claims, but it certainly is reasonable. The blog's primary premise is that the voting machines were on a closed system. However, IF the software patches really were man-in-the-middle patches AND if the ORCA software was as the letter claimed, then it was an open system. And, what they claimed fit the reports. Now, whether they were made to fit the reports after the fact or not we will never actually know or be able to prove one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:40 PM

5. Not a convincing rebuttal

If one were going to call someone out for being fact-challenged, the best way to do it would be to provide facts of one's own.

The blog states that the tabulation devices had illegal patches placed on them by the vendor: Fact: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2012/4766

The blog states that the voting machines themselves are inaccurate, badly made, poorly maintained, not auditable, and not always handled in the prescribed manner: Fact: http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/congress.html

As to the basic premise of the difficulty of an outsider hacking recently-updated black-box code with the sure and certain knowledge that one would succeed and not be caught: ask anyone who has done it. Not happening. Yes, one COULD hack the code, but the most likely outcome would be to crash the system.

Got any facts of your own to contribute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:21 PM

3. This might have more credibility if they could actually spell "Karl Rove".

D'oh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bleever (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 12:41 PM

6. That typo has been corrected

Thanks! I focused more on the technical aspect of the topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:41 PM

7. Weak minds will always create fantasy scenarios.

 

The rest of us call an orange, an orange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:43 PM

8. Don't you just hate it when one simple fact challenges a conspiracy hypothesis.

Gee, you mean Karl Rove's smart phone isn't connected to every voting machine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Reply to this thread