The Security of Our Election Systems

Post by chvid » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 12:34 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #12

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 pres…

Post by wwwdonohue » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 12:39 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #11

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…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 12:51 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #10

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…

I hate that he used the "Russians are coming" argument, but at the same time, he probably wouldn't have gotten even 1/4 of the attention if he just said "our voting machines aren't secure and anyone in the world, including our own government, could hack them." He's playing on the Russian fear, which is what the Democratic party is really pushing right now (by the way, isn't this something the Republican party used to…

Post by eternalban » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 12:57 PM UTC

Post by toth » Sat, Jul 30, 2016, 1:10 PM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #37

The OP is a shameful blot on Bruce Schneier's record [imo]. For "evidence" we are directed to The New York Times -- a political organization. This sort of evidence certainly suffices for the non-technical set but that HN is accepting this without subjecting the assertion to the rigor that we apply to topics that are not conflated with emotional and psychological triggers is disconcerting. I would like to pose the que…