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

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#81

Post by cwisecarver »

Schneier is weaving two problems into one.

Yes, our election systems could be compromised by foreign (or domestic) attackers. This is something we should all fight against. I don't think any voter would agree that our votes shouldn't count. Computer security is hard and the companies running and making voting machines have time and again been proven incompetent. We should work to fix that.

The separate issue is that in our two party system it's come out that one party was proven to have worked to influence an election for one of the candidates of that party. Sure, Bernie was an outsider. Sure, Hillary was practically anointed from the start. Sure, it was fairly obvious that the DNC was favoring HRC and working harder for her than for Sanders. But there's actual proof now. If it came from a lone-wolf domestic hacker, or from Snowden, or from Putins own laptop I don't think it matters. It matters that it happened and the people need to know it did. No media is talking about that at all. Not even NPR.

I think any organization that's working to get someone elected by the people, in order to work for the people should want it's emails to be public. Why wouldn't it want that? Why shouldn't the media have the option to investigate and shine a bright spotlight on everything regarding our elections? They just had this opportunity and they're wasting it to instead talk about Russia influencing our elections. Since we're internally influencing our own elections maybe we should worry about that first.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#82

Post by elgabogringo »

krapp wrote: post #73
elgabogringo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we care about foreign influence, shouldn't we be concerned about all the foreign money the Clinton's have taken? Millions to their foundation (just while she was SoS): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-... Millions in speaking fees outside the US (just while she was Sos): http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-doubled-speaking-fees... And it's doubly-ironic how much the left suddenly care…

The subject of this thread is the vulnerability of the networks and IT infrastructure involved with our democratic process, but fair enough. We should be concerned about all the foreign money the Clintons have taken, and all the foreign money Trump has taken. We should be concerned about foreign influence in our elections in general, regardless of which party it benefits.

actually, if you read the article and the post, the subject is about foreign influence in elections, so my comment is on point.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#83

Post by krapp »

elgabogringo wrote: post #82
krapp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subject of this thread is the vulnerability of the networks and IT infrastructure involved with our democratic process, but fair enough. We should be concerned about all the foreign money the Clintons have taken, and all the foreign money Trump has taken. We should be concerned about foreign influence in our elections in general, regardless of which party it benefits.

actually, if you read the article and the post, the subject is about foreign influence in elections, so my comment is on point.

I did read the article. Bruce Schneier didn't mention financial influence or the Clinton Foundataion anywhere. His entire post is, as would be expected, focused on network security, hacking and the vulnerability of our infrastructure.

Given that your comment exclusively refers to Clinton, when it could just as well apply to Trump or any number of candidates in either party and still be relevant, it appears your purpose was to polarize the topic for the sake of pushing your political bias. I agree with your comment in the general case, but derailing the thread into a discussion of how corrupt Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are is not on topic.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#84

Post by 3pt14159 »

wwwdonohue wrote: post #33
3pt14159 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The process was guaranteed to be a level playing field by the DNC charter (Article 5, Section 4): In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chair…

We're talking about different meanings of the word "guaranteed". I'm talking about guaranteed in the sense that supports leaking private emails to the public by people outside the organisation (as opposed to an unbiased whistle blower). Article 5, Section 4 is the type of thing parties put in, but only as a way of making sure the backroom politicking doesn't become so egregious that it leaks into public view.

Again, I prefer Sanders, or even Johnson or Stein over Clinton; but with Trump on the other ticket this election is far too serious to let Russian fuck around with the other main side. We need to fall in line and support Clinton. Pulling the not-an-idiot vote three more ways between Sanders stay-at-homes, Johnson / Stein protest votes is going to lead to a disaster.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#85

Post by ZeroGravitas »

krapp wrote: post #56
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…

>Were we exposed to fictitious narratives intended to advance pro-Russian agendas? Was truth revealed, without manipulation of content? It seems to be the latter. Why assume the " narratives intended to advance pro-Russian agendas" need to be fictitious in order to be effective? You're presenting a false dichotomy that either the Democrats are corrupt, or Russia had nothing to do with the hacks. It can be the case th…

Just releasing a large number of hacked emails at the right/wrong time, even if they contained absolutely nothing of note could affect the candidate negatively if it distracts from their planned talking points and supports others.

Some might say that's exactly what happened.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#86

Post by elgabogringo »

krapp wrote: post #83
elgabogringo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actually, if you read the article and the post, the subject is about foreign influence in elections, so my comment is on point.

I did read the article. Bruce Schneier didn't mention financial influence or the Clinton Foundataion anywhere. His entire post is, as would be expected, focused on network security, hacking and the vulnerability of our infrastructure. Given that your comment exclusively refers to Clinton, when it could just as well apply to Trump or any number of candidates in either party and still be relevant, it appears your purpo…

Actually, I didn't say financial influence, I said foreign influence and the article refers back to foreign influences in multiple places, just one example below:

If foreign governments learn that they can influence our elections with impunity, this opens the door for future manipulations, both document thefts and dumps like this one that we see and more subtle manipulations that we don't see.

I'm not derailing a thread if I'm reminding the readers that much of the foreign influence we are threatened by comes about through the complicity / corruption of domestic political actors.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#87

Post by elgabogringo »

krapp wrote: post #83
elgabogringo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actually, if you read the article and the post, the subject is about foreign influence in elections, so my comment is on point.

I did read the article. Bruce Schneier didn't mention financial influence or the Clinton Foundataion anywhere. His entire post is, as would be expected, focused on network security, hacking and the vulnerability of our infrastructure. Given that your comment exclusively refers to Clinton, when it could just as well apply to Trump or any number of candidates in either party and still be relevant, it appears your purpo…

In fact, I probably should have brought up another threat to fair elections, which is the lack of any voter ID requirement. Also very partisan, but essential for security.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#88

Post by elgabogringo »

elgabogringo wrote: post #86
krapp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read the article. Bruce Schneier didn't mention financial influence or the Clinton Foundataion anywhere. His entire post is, as would be expected, focused on network security, hacking and the vulnerability of our infrastructure. Given that your comment exclusively refers to Clinton, when it could just as well apply to Trump or any number of candidates in either party and still be relevant, it appears your purpo…

Actually, I didn't say financial influence, I said foreign influence and the article refers back to foreign influences in multiple places, just one example below: If foreign governments learn that they can influence our elections with impunity, this opens the door for future manipulations, both document thefts and dumps like this one that we see and more subtle manipulations that we don't see. I'm not derailing a thr…

Note that it's also very relevant to comment I replied to. Not being argumentative (or don't mean to be.) I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I feel this comment was relevant to the original comment in the thread and article and these are my reasons why.

Re: The Security of Our Election Systems

#89

Post by jonathankoren »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #75
jonathankoren wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am defending the idea you mocked. Why does it matter who's releasing the information? Because they're not us. It's that simple. It's same reason why you can talk shit about your proverbial sister, but no one else gets to. If you don't understand the concepts of national sovereignty and self-determination, I can't help you.

Your argument here is not compatible with your argument two levels up. You've retreated from the idea that foreigners talking to us is bad by any metric, and gone to the more defensible (?) idea that it makes you personally indignant. Good luck.

If you think ice changed position, you never understood it to begin with.

Thanks for playing!

Post reply on HN