Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Security of Our Election Systems

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#11

Post by 3pt14159 »

Dowwie wrote: post #4

There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within its own institutions. Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process. Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pr…

> Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process.

Parties choose their candidates. While it is democratic in the sense that people cast ballots; the process was never guaranteed to be a level playing field. Sanders was an outsider from the democratic party. The party has rules and systems to keep people like Sanders out. That is what super delegates are for. You and I may both have preferred Sanders, but we don't have a right to the DNC's private email.

As for the polls, in Canada we do a simple pencil and paper system that works extremely well. You might be able to get an extra vote or two here or there, but the process is essentially unbreakable.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#12

Post by jonathankoren »

revelation wrote: post #6

I think you would be quite silly to just outright accept intelligence agency declarations of "it was Russia". As history shows, not only are these people frequently ignorant to technical realities, but political reasons at every single layer of these organizations obscure and pervade the truth.

Of course it's not just intelligence agencies saying this. There's plenty of independent investigations [0] and they are pointing the same direction.

There's the metadata on the leaked files indicating that at least the metadata was modified with a cyrillic computer. There's reports from two separate security firms implicating the same two Russian based actors. There's the fact that "Guccifier 2.0" had no online presence until after the the Crowdstrike report implicating Russian intelligence services. There's the fact that "Guccifier 2.0" claims to Romanian, but can't type fluent Romanian (I've heard this independently from a Romanian I know), and drops smilies typical in Russian forums, but not Romanian.

None of this is fire, but there's plenty of smoke.

[0] https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#13

Post by retox »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #7
Dowwie wrote: post #4

There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within its own institutions. Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process. Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pr…

Yeah. This is another moral question along the Snowden/Manning lines. Here's the thing: breaking into somebody's house is illegal. If you do it, you're a criminal and should face some kind of legal proceeding. If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are s…

If you break into someone's house and find evidence of a murder or sexual assault, should you reveal those details? I would say yes, the crime of breaking and entering (and theft of the evidence) is still a crime, but a smaller one in the grand scheme of things. I would say both parties should be charged.

It's not so clear cut though; if I break into your house and find a few joints should that be treated the same way? I suppose it boils down to where on the continuum of severity you place corruption of the democratic process.

Encouraging someone to break into private property looking for evidence would still be a crime, IMO.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#15

Post by jonathankoren »

Dowwie wrote: post #4

There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within its own institutions. Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process. Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pr…

The thing is about the leaks, is that there's isn't anything there that anyone paying attention didn't already know. Of course DWS was putting the thumb on the scales for Hillary, who schedules something you want people to see on a Saturday night? [0]

As far as "corrupted" and "preventing" democratic process where's the evidence? Seriously. What votes were not counted?Where's the voter fraud? I'll tell you. Nowhere. It didn't happen. As Bernie Sanders's former press secretary, Symone Sanders, said, "We weren't cheated. We lost."[1]

Look, we know what a stolen election looks like. This ain't it. There's no reason to be an election truther.

[0] http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedu... [1] http://gawker.com/former-sanders-spokeswoman-we-lost-1784282...

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#16

Post by revelation »

jonathankoren wrote: post #15
Dowwie wrote: post #4

There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within its own institutions. Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process. Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pr…

The thing is about the leaks, is that there's isn't anything there that anyone paying attention didn't already know. Of course DWS was putting the thumb on the scales for Hillary, who schedules something you want people to see on a Saturday night? [0] As far as "corrupted" and "preventing" democratic process where's the evidence? Seriously. What votes were not counted?Where's the voter fraud? I'll tell you. Nowhere.…

You seem to equate "democratic process" with having a properly counted vote. There were elections with proper votes in East Germany, there just never was any actual choice in who you could vote for.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#17

Post by haikuginger »

jonathankoren wrote: post #15
Dowwie wrote: post #4

There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within its own institutions. Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process. Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pr…

The thing is about the leaks, is that there's isn't anything there that anyone paying attention didn't already know. Of course DWS was putting the thumb on the scales for Hillary, who schedules something you want people to see on a Saturday night? [0] As far as "corrupted" and "preventing" democratic process where's the evidence? Seriously. What votes were not counted?Where's the voter fraud? I'll tell you. Nowhere.…

The sheer banality of the "sabotage" found in the emails is honestly pretty good proof to me that there isn't anything truly horrible to be found- if there was, Sanders' folks would be trumpeting it, not "Sanders doesn't understand Democratic politics".

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#18

Post by jonathankoren »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #9
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, my complaint was that it skimmed the surface. Your "breathless" was my "you missed some important parts" I'm willing to cut him slack for adding his own politics in to the article. With the election approaching, it's like the Ponn Farr here in the states. If anything, it was a bit reserved. His over-arching points are important and need attention. 1) We are basically in an ongoing cyber-war with other ma…

> It's a message that needs to be transmitted, and he's one of the best folks to transmit it. > I don't think there's any demonizing going on. Ok, what is it that we're not supposed to tolerate from Russia? They spied on our documents and released them for public review. Schneier himself would be the first to tell you that they're not going to stop spying on us and we shouldn't expect them to. The phrase "attack agai…

Accurate or not, foreign influence is something to worry about. Let's be honest here. Governments don't release intelligence on foreign leaders in some sort of magnanimous and innocent gesture to help inform the foreign populace. No. They do it for influence. They choose what to release and when.

For the sake of argument, let's say that your had evidence that a major candidate for office in a strategically important foreign country was engaged in, or had recently engaged in some tawdry or perhaps illicit affair. What do you do with it? Realpolitik dictates that all that matters is that if it's more advantageous for the candidate to lose or not. If you want the candidate to lose, but he's winning, you release it. If not, you don't. Sure, it's transparency, but it's outside influence, for your gain, not the foreign country's.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#19

Post by jacquesm »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #7
Dowwie wrote: post #4

There's a strong moral argument in favor of the DNC leaks: the American people ought to know that its political process was corrupted by powerful actors within its own institutions. Schneier said, "This kind of cyberattack targets the very core of our democratic process. " In this case, though, the attack targeted actors who prevented democratic process. Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pr…

Yeah. This is another moral question along the Snowden/Manning lines. Here's the thing: breaking into somebody's house is illegal. If you do it, you're a criminal and should face some kind of legal proceeding. If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are s…

> Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into.

No. This is exactly what's wrong with parallel construction and why any evidence like this should always be treated like it simply does not exist.

The only times when you should be able to break that rule is if there is overwhelming social advantage to breaking it. And I'm not sure the case posted here is one of those.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#20

Post by jonathankoren »

revelation wrote: post #16
jonathankoren wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is about the leaks, is that there's isn't anything there that anyone paying attention didn't already know. Of course DWS was putting the thumb on the scales for Hillary, who schedules something you want people to see on a Saturday night? [0] As far as "corrupted" and "preventing" democratic process where's the evidence? Seriously. What votes were not counted?Where's the voter fraud? I'll tell you. Nowhere.…

You seem to equate "democratic process" with having a properly counted vote. There were elections with proper votes in East Germany, there just never was any actual choice in who you could vote for.

What's your point? I ask, because we were talking about a competitive two person race, where the non-establishment candidate won several contests, and had a major role in shaping the party platform and changing the narrative of the election. Are you saying that was all a grand charade?
Post reply on HN