HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Georgia attorney general ...

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 02:04 PM

Georgia attorney general quits defense in server wiping case

The Georgia attorney general’s office will no longer represent state election officials in an elections integrity lawsuit in which a crucial computer server was quietly wiped clean three days after the suit was filed, The Associated Press has learned.

The lawsuit aims to force Georgia to retire its antiquated and heavily criticized touchscreen election technology, which does not provide an auditable paper trail.

The server in question was a statewide staging location for key election-related data. It made national headlines in June after a security expert disclosed a gaping security hole that wasn’t fixed for six months after he first reported it to election authorities. Personal data was exposed for Georgia’s 6.7 million voters as were passwords used by county officials to access files.

The assistant state attorney general handling the case, Cristina Correia, notified the court and participating attorneys Wednesday that her office was withdrawing from the case, according to an email obtained by the AP.

https://apnews.com/0b9004bc3828468d9dc636054140a047/Georgia-attorney-general-quits-defense-in-server-wiping-case%5C

13 replies, 3123 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 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Georgia attorney general quits defense in server wiping case (Original post)
HAB911 Nov 2017 OP
virtualobserver Nov 2017 #1
Glorfindel Nov 2017 #3
eggplant Nov 2017 #11
MagickMuffin Nov 2017 #2
flyingfysh Nov 2017 #6
lagomorph777 Nov 2017 #8
diva77 Nov 2017 #4
Sneederbunk Nov 2017 #5
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2017 #9
lagomorph777 Nov 2017 #7
TomVilmer Nov 2017 #10
diva77 Nov 2017 #12
TomVilmer Nov 2017 #13

Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 02:07 PM

1. If only we could have national voting standards....

 

Would we need a constitutional amendment to do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 02:14 PM

3. I'd settle for verifiable, hand-counted paper ballots

I suppose that wouldn't work in the post-literate world, though. I don't know if it would take a constitutional amendment to enact national voting standards. Maybe we have a constitutional scholar here at DU who can answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glorfindel (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 04:54 PM

11. Columbia County, NY does 100% hand counts. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 02:10 PM

2. He should be behind bars


Yep, that is where he deserves to be. LOCK HIM UP!! He is a threat to Democracy!!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MagickMuffin (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 04:19 PM

6. He who?

The attorney general? He seems to be admitting that the state does not have a defendable case. This could lead to the judge declaring that the plaintiffs win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flyingfysh (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 04:22 PM

8. I hope you're right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 02:22 PM

4. K&R for exposure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 02:53 PM

5. Georgia election officials need to be wiped before 2018 election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sneederbunk (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 04:26 PM

9. It appears the officials can be wiped but not cleaned. . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 04:22 PM

7. Grounds for immediate verdict for the plaintiff.

And criminal charges against those involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Original post)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 04:42 PM

10. All the numbers are public...

... so anybody can check if they add up in Georgia. Which was already done when 6000 election officials reported those numbers, and they did this in pairs to make sure they were right. To hack the 27000 voting machines all you need is sufficient time with each and every one of those machines, and nobody wondering about that. I have problems understanding why spreading uncertainty about the vote counting process will help to get a Democratic president elected - when there are way bigger problem with the US "democracy"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomVilmer (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 05:18 PM

12. here's an article that covers a lot of ground with hacking, voting machine vendors,

etc. to help explain why we should be concerned that our votes are not being counted as cast with use of DREs, Optical scanners, central tabulators, etc.

How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes

With Russia already meddling in 2016, a ragtag group of obsessive tech experts is warning that stealing the ultimate prize—victory on Nov. 8—would be child’s play.

By BEN WOFFORD

August 05, 2016

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144

SNIP
The Princeton group has a simple message: That the machines that Americans use at the polls are less secure than the iPhones they use to navigate their way there. They’ve seen the skeletons of code inside electronic voting’s digital closet, and they’ve mastered the equipment’s vulnerabilities perhaps better than anyone (a contention the voting machine companies contest, of course). They insist the elections could be vulnerable at myriad strike points, among them the software that aggregates the precinct vote totals, and the voter registration rolls that are increasingly digitized. But the threat, the cyber experts say, starts with the machines that tally the votes and crucially keep a record of them—or, in some cases, don't.
SNIP
Almost from the day they were taken out of the box, the touch-screen machines demonstrated problems (the same companies had a much better track record with Optical Scan machines). During the primaries in Florida in 2002, some machines in Miami-Dade malfunctioned and failed to turn on, resulting in hourslong lines that locked out untold numbers of voters—including then-gubernatorial candidate Janet Reno. That year, faulty software (and an administrator oversight) on Sequoia models led to a fourth of votes initially omitted during early voting in Albuquerque’s Bernalillo County. In Fairfax County, Virginia, an investigation into a 2003 school board race found that a vote was subtracted for every 100 votes cast for one of the candidates on 10 machines. With margin sizes small enough to be noticed, local elections were vaulted into the forefront of these debates; Appel later found himself issuing expert testimony for a tiny election for the Democratic Executive Committee in Cumberland County, New Jersey, where a candidate lost by 24 votes. The margin was small enough that the losers sued, and called 28 voters as witnesses—who each swore they voted for them. The machine in use was a Sequoia AVC Advantage.

Cybersecurity researchers flocked to study the machines, but they say they were faced with an uncompromising adversary: the voting machine companies, which viewed the code of the machines as intellectual property. Until 2009, two companies, Diebold and ES&S, controlled the lion’s share of the voting machine market. The accreditation process is equally narrow: Since 1990, a voluntary federal accreditation process has certified voting technology, a system that has come under fire for its lack of transparency. The laboratories (“Independent Testing Authorities”) which conduct the certification reviews are typically paid by the manufacturers, and are usually required to sign nondisclosure agreements. In 2008, five labs were accredited; one was suspended that year for poor lab procedures, and another temporarily suspended for insufficient quality control.
SNIP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diva77 (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 07:02 PM

13. Thanks for info, let's see if we can hack Georgia's election!

All those machines in Georgia are not in a network. So we need a plan on how to attack them anyway. Only way on a big scale is through the company behind, as you are hinting. Next step is to prove that the possible hack from that company changed the vote count in a specific direction. And someone did look for that (though not in Georgia):

"Without a recount, all we can do for now is look for any meaningful difference ... we checked the six other states with a margin between Clinton and Trump of less than 10 percentage points that use a mix of paper and machine voting: Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Virginia. For each county in those states, we looked at Clinton’s vote share and whether it was associated with the type of voting system the county used ... We found no apparent correlation between voting method and outcome in six of the eight states, and a thin possible link between voting method and results in Wisconsin and Texas. However, the two states showed opposite results..."

I like your quote about how a small sample of voters were checked, and showed errors. But there are always errors around, even when votes are hand counted for a small forum. The "error" need to be planned and consistent, and I still have not seen that documented in a convincing way. And neither has this important guy who Trump fired:

"FBI Director James Comey: Russian activities had no impact on tallying votes in states."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread