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

Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 839 posts

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#821

Post by yters »

dragonwriter wrote: post #799
yters wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An election theft is conspiracy by definition. The question is whether the conspiracy is feasible. But it is feasible if only a few counties or cities committed fraud. What makes conspiracy infeasible is widespread collusion without a mechanism of coordination and ensuring secrecy. Collusion in a few large municipalities does not seem obviously out of the question.

> An election theft is conspiracy by definition. No, its not. Either a single actor with appropriate access or multiple independent actors not acting in coordination could effect the theft of an election without any conspiracy. Conspiracy requires an agreement to work together; that might help with an election theft but it is not “by definition” necessary for election theft.

Multiple conspiracies of one?

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#822

Post by andrewflnr »

standardUser wrote: post #756
luxuryballs wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but those people existing doesn’t change the actual merits of the idea itself.

If the end result is that someone who could vote in the last election cannot vote in the next election, we need a better idea.

That's a good heuristic. I would only counterbalance it with the possibility of enabling people to vote who could not in the last election (thinking again of people with no fixed address).

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#823

Post by heurist »

throwaway12992 wrote: post #597
detaro wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of the examples in your list alleges that "Dominion has been involved in a [...] vote-changing scheme"?

Not sure. Here's a democrat that wanted to look at the source code for the Election Systems & Software. Inc. machines. https://www.heraldtribune.com/article/LK/20061229/News/60524... Your question implies that you feel that Dominion is somehow different from other companies doubted by democrats, and itself must never be doubted. Why is it different?

Dominion Voting Systems was created because ES&S was forced to sell Premier Election Solutions due to antitrust concerns. ES&S has been subject of various errors and controversies:

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-market-for-voting-mac... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en/Election_Systems_&_Software https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/chinese-parts-hidden-owners...

I also recall seeing liberal concern over Dominion in GA prior to the election. Regardless, it's a powerful industry with a justifiably large amount of public scrutiny, even if we don't always get the transparency we deserve. All of these systems should be public, open source, and verifiable with paper trails.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#824

Post by rsynnott »

dragonwriter wrote: post #820
rsynnott wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, yep, I should have caveated that as "lying about a company isn't generally a crime IN DEVELOPED DEMOCRACIES". Some countries do still have in-use criminal libel laws, and the story is different there.

Several US states have criminal libel laws that might protect a company (particularly if the company is a bank or other financial institution, which seem to be the most common to be specifically protected.)

Are there any recent (this century) examples of _successful_ criminal libel actions in the US? I would've thought it'd be fairly clearly unconstitutional.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#825

Post by bena »

yters wrote: post #797
bena wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were specifically trying to cast doubt on Dominion. And now that your statement has been outed as false, you're moving the goalposts to "voting machines in general".

No, Dominion purchased these questionable voting machines, so they clearly possess questionable voting machines. So my major claim that Dominion possesses questionable voting machines is substantiated. In fact ES&S equipment is used by Georgia.

Dominion won the contract in Georgia.

And just because they purchased the assets doesn't mean they just used them without checking them.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#826

Post by yters »

bena wrote: post #825
yters wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Dominion purchased these questionable voting machines, so they clearly possess questionable voting machines. So my major claim that Dominion possesses questionable voting machines is substantiated. In fact ES&S equipment is used by Georgia.

Dominion won the contract in Georgia. And just because they purchased the assets doesn't mean they just used them without checking them.

Well, the question remains then. Definitely they are not beyond question. There is a traceable lineage of questionable machines leading right up to the region where vote fraud allegations through electronic vote machines. Enough that a decent look by a disinterested party is warranted.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#827

Post by dang »

qwerty12345678 wrote: post #559
throwaway31831 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hand count didn't address any of the risks people were actually worried about. It could not have caught either of the types of fraud I mentioned above, for example. Read the interview I posted with Philip Stark, Berkeley Math Dean who is probably the leading expert on election auditing having designed the procedures for conducting risk-limiting audits in many states. He explains this in detail.

Debating with the left on this is like debating with a brick wall. You try to have a logical conversation about the basic security aspects involved here and they respond by calling you a conspiracy theorist and change the underlying subject.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

Creating accounts to do that with will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't.

These rules apply regardless of which ideology an account is battling for or against. Our goal is not to have this site burn to a crisp of a particular color, but rather to have it not burn to a crisp at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#828

Post by curryst »

tshaddox wrote: post #770
jariel wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the defence though. The defence is 'I legitimately believed the election was stolen in Georgia, therefore, pressuring state officials to investigate said issues' doesn't itself constitute a crime. It's entirely plausible that people 'get things wrong' in the real world. But once you have a guy who will believe everything that's to his benefit, and claim that everything not to his credit is a lie ... well t…

> The defence is 'I legitimately believed the election was stolen in Georgia, therefore, pressuring state officials to investigate said issues' doesn't itself constitute a crime. You can’t kill someone because you think you are acting in self-defense. You have to actually be acting in self-defense. Moreover, pressuring officials to manufacture fake evidence, or act as if they had evidence they don’t have, surely ough…

> You can’t kill someone because you think you are acting in self-defense. You have to actually be acting in self-defense.

That's not true at all. The bar is typically whether a reasonable person would believe that they are at risk of grave bodily harm. It obviously depends on the jury, but there have been a number of shootings where the shooter believed they were acting in self-defense, but were not, and they were ultimately acquitted.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#829

Post by chrisco255 »

luxuryballs wrote: post #670
mmazing wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's terrible to see some of the disinformation that is out there regarding open source software. Time and time again open source is shown to be the way to go, and you still hear lies about how it's not safe. I can already hear the politicians going on about how "being open source" lets "anyone put their own back door in! BE AFRAID!"

Open source is good but there would need to also be some way to confirm that the last deployed binary was actually that source code, which with physical access to the machine you could always change. I don’t think computers should be used for this at all.

I think it would be acceptable to use digital scanners (themselves running open source code on open source hardware) to count physical ballots, with the caveat that the redacted ballots (personal info removed) are published the day after the election for anyone to count.

Re: Dominion Voting Systems Sues Rudy Giuliani

#830

Post by chrisco255 »

perl4ever wrote: post #616
flerchin wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have paper trails for every vote.

I believe you are both mistaken. From what I've read, there are some states/localities that have paper ballots they can check, including swing states like Georgia, where they did audit that exact thing. But then there are other states that do not keep the paper trail, most of which went "red" according to an article I read but did not verify.

The problem with Georgia and Dominion Voting Systems in particular is that the ballots are digitally printed and can be printed on the fly. They are subject to manipulation by a single compromised person in a voting precinct through the system's "adjudication" process. In some precincts, DVS machines were failing at a rate of 70%, leading all ballots to be sent to the precinct overseer who literally just clicks and drags ballots into whatever candidate they think the person voted for. Doing this actually changes the record. Yes, the original ballot record gets destroyed and a new one gets created. It's that insecure. These machines also require USB transfers between ballot machines and a central machine. In some cases thousands of votes were found a a USB thumb drive weeks after the election. DVS is that convoluted and that bad.
Post reply on HN