71–80 of 81 posts
In France we count all ballots by hand. As every ballot station count only his ballots, it's quick. For a presidential election, maybe 30 minutes. The counting is done by the citizens, so no (easy) frauds are possible. All ballots are visible, the process is transparent, no suspicion. I personally think that a 30min delay to get the election results is worth the wait.
There are options beyond "hand counting" and "computer software." IBM was founded, way back when, on what were basically electrical (but not electronic!) census-punch-card-tabulating machines. One could use a similar, or slightly improved, design just as easily, along with correspondent electrical "polling machines" that are essentially a grid of buttons hooked up to pre-patterned card punches. The whole design could…
Note that you're reinventing the Votomatic voting machine [1] which is used to punch holes in a standard-sized IBM punched card. It was invented in 1963 and has been used in multiple US elections. I like IBM punched card equipment as much as anyone [2], but I feel obligated to point out that punched-card voting led to big problems in the 2000 election when ballots in Florida had "hanging chad" and the election ended…
ballots in Florida had "hanging chad"
We still use the same mechanism in Silicon Valley, sad to say.
This is due to a Dutch ethical hacker (Sijmen Ruwhof) investigating the way that our elections work. He had posted a great research document [0] that showed how bad our current system was. Two days later, we're back to paper. Thanks Sijmen :) [0] https://sijmen.ruwhof.net/weblog/1166-how-to-hack-the-upcomi...
Why does everyone think that hacking the DNC amounted to "hacking the election". Did anyone complain when Iceland PM resigned as a result of the Panama Papers leak and the large-scale protests that ensued? You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. The truth came out and whatever happened was a natural result of that.
This the kind of thing you could read here on HN and it would be taken seriously and debated to death until the `hack` term would lose any semblance of definition.
This is due to a Dutch ethical hacker (Sijmen Ruwhof) investigating the way that our elections work. He had posted a great research document [0] that showed how bad our current system was. Two days later, we're back to paper. Thanks Sijmen :) [0] https://sijmen.ruwhof.net/weblog/1166-how-to-hack-the-upcomi...
A great write-up, but I'd say at least as much credit to the person who reported the issue to the RTL news, who then contacted Sijmen to investigate further. According to [0], the original reporter had already enumerated all the flaws of the system. 0: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/120667/proces-stemmen-tellen-ned...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does everyone think that hacking the DNC amounted to "hacking the election". Did anyone complain when Iceland PM resigned as a result of the Panama Papers leak and the large-scale protests that ensued? You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. The truth came out and whatever happened was a natural result of that.
> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. No, you wouldn't. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the DNC hacks are all because the Democratic leadership is unwilling to accept responsibility for putting forward a bad candidate. Better blame the Russians, instead! If only the public didn't know the truth, we would have won!
Seventeen US intelligence agencies [1] have joined in a consensus opinion that Russia, under Putin's command, ran a targeted campaign aimed at opposing Hillary Clinton and helping to elect Donald Trump. It is well-documented beyond any reasonable doubt in a full report, portions of which (including conclusions) have been made unclassified [2].
This should be troubling to any American. In fact, it seems to be: Donald Trump himself has pledged to conduct an investigation into voter fraud surrounding the 2016 US election [3].
So let's do it. Investigate the circumstances surrounding the 2016 election. Make public the extent and severity of Russian disinformation operations, and hold them accountable. Investigate why James Comey made a fact-free statement contrary to FBI policy during early voting, when 40% of total ballots are cast. Investigate any and all financial dealings with Russia in the run-up to the election, by either candidate. Perform full recounts and investigate voting rolls for evidence of improper exclusion or inclusion. Oh yeah – and check to make sure Hillary Clinton, the tragically flawed candidate who nonetheless put up with mountains of abuse – really did win the popular vote by approximately three million.
1: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...
2: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/ODNI_Sta...
3: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-voting-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attacks were targeting a specific party alone and seem to be motivated by foreign geopolitical interests, not in the American public's interest. There is a reason we want equal time laws for example, because if I constantly hear one side of the argument, it doesn't…
If the press digs up dirt on a candidate, should they not publish it until they dig up some dirt on their opponent? What if it's a foreign newspaper? Should Deep Throat's leaks not been published, because they would influence the election? What if he were a card-holding Democrat? What if he were a reptilian agent? I hate Trump as much as the next person, but there was no shortage of actual dirt that was dug up on him…
That is fundamentally different than having a questionable history be exposed by a free press.
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnY7D4M4k68
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The press "digging up dirt" is surely different than the illegal hacking and wholesale release of all private email correspondence. Deep Throat provided info on the current President's illegal actions to a journalist, not just "dirt". Even if we accept that it is better to know the info in the DNC leaks, it is still a big problem if a foreign government can wield its influence so easily through illegal computer intru…
Leaking the Trump tax return was illegal. There was nothing illegal in the tax return. The Snowden leaks were quite probably illegal. Many of the things he leaked were not illegal. (Since this will never go to trial, we'll probably never know.) Should the press only report on legally-sourced information? They aren't a jury. Good news for us, though - both illegal leaks, and illegal hacks are illegal. We already have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Snowden leaks were quite probably illegal. Not at all. It was required behavior. Until the government enacts a useful whistleblowing program someone who witnesses criminal actions has literally no legal choice but to leak. Ignoring it and hoping it goes away is the illegal option. I want my institutions to be fixable from inside but when they aren't, I simply want them fixed. Re Downvoter - I understand that yo…
It was illegal. Which does not stop it from being moral.
No law can compel you to break the law, or cover up abuses of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was illegal. Which does not stop it from being moral.
No, it was legal because it was a requirement which overrode all lesser orders. No law can compel you to break the law, or cover up abuses of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it was legal because it was a requirement which overrode all lesser orders. No law can compel you to break the law, or cover up abuses of it.
The way he went about it was (and is) illegal. The legal way would have gotten him nowhere, though.
He had every reason to think this was the minimum he had to do. Which has been shown to be true.