Anonymous and the Supposed Hack.

[MineralMan]

Some DUers are gleefully celebrating Anonymous having supposedly thwarted some nefarious election manipulation. Since there is no evidence that such a thing happened, except for a rambling, fact-free announcement by someone claiming to represent Anonymous, I will simply ignore that.

What I won't ignore is the glee some are expressing that a third party organization is claiming to have interfered with a US election. The ORCA system was designed to improve communications with GOP campaign workers on election day. The software in the voting machines and tabulation system in Ohio is another thing altogether.

If Anonymous hacked ORCA, that would be bad enough. If they hacked the actual software used by the state of Ohio, that is shocking and alarming. That it is even possible to hack such a system should be shocking and alarming. For those who think having a third party organization of any kind manipulating the computer system involved with any state's election process is even a marginally good idea, please think again.

Does Anonymous have the good of the United States in mind and would it never, never doing anything to disrupt an election? Would it be just fine if it manipulated the election toward the Democratic side? Would that be a good thing? It would not. It would be a horrible thing.

I maintain that it does not matter one bit what the motivation of a third party organization is when it comes to interfering with an election in this country. Now, I don't believe for a minute that the script kiddies of Anonymous actually did any such thing. They're good at DDOS scripts to interfere with operations of websites, but are almost certainly not competent to actually do what was claimed. So, that's not really the issue for me.

The issue for me lies in the celebration of some of the idea that this actually might have occurred. There is nothing "white hat" in interfering with the software used by a state in its elections. Any such attempt or actual manipulation is a terrible thing. That it could even happen is frightening in a way that should alarm us all.

The GOP showed its incompetence in the misbegotten ORCA system. If, in fact, there had been some sort of plan to flip the votes in Ohio, the GOP was incompetent in that as well. But Anonymous has no business screwing with any election software or process. Period. I don't think they actually did, but to cheer such a thing is the height of folly.

We either have fair elections or we do not. Whoever manipulates an election to change the results in any way is a felon of the worst kind, since such actions take away our freedom to choose our leaders. Anonymous, the GOP, or anyone else who attempts such a thing is nobody to cheer. No way. We should not cheer any such activities. Instead, we should condemn all such activities. Let's have fair elections. Let's create a system where no such manipulation is possible, but let's not cheer any interference, even if we believe that those interfering are on our side. That's not the point. Next time, they may be on another side. Let's eliminate the possibility altogether.

[villager]

1. They would actually be a "fourth party organization," since Rover's Hackers would be the third.

One hopes you've saved some equal condemnation for the possibility that Rove & co. wanted to skew results their way, once again?

[MineralMan]

2. Reread my final paragraph.

I condemn anyone who manipulates our elections in any way. Reading is FUNdamental. If you don't bother to read what I wrote, why comment?

[villager]

5. Rather than leap to snark mode (or why bother to reply?) it's not the final paragraph...

...but that last two sentences that I can agree with.

Where the final paragraph errs is in refusing to applaud those who use the tools of the elites to counter the depredations of the elites.

If all is like Anonymous is claiming, I for one am damn glad they countered what Rove attempted to do.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, I can see that you are glad.

That's my issue, you see. We should not be glad at any interference whatsoever. That is my entire point.

[villager]

11. But your point is... pointless, had Rove been allowed to hack/steal the actual election

That's my point.

now that that's been prevented -- yes, let's work on making hack-proof elections.

[MineralMan]

14. It is not established that anyone prevented anything.

There's a claim to that effect. It's also not established that Rove had the means to hack/steal the actual elections. That's another claim.

There is no actual information about either thing. Just claims.

[villager]

17. Exactly. Just claims. Yet the claims seems to have sparked some lively discussion

...here on DU.

including, in some quarters, a rather large, surprising dollop of "benefit of the doubt" to Mr. Rove.

[randome]

27. More like a cadre of sceptics who want to see evidence before pouncing on something.

There is no evidence that this election was rigged. There is no evidence that Anonymous prevented that. None.

[villager]

32. So you're saying there was no need for this thread to begin with?

OK then.

And yet, since the thread exists, and folks like you are moved enough to comment in said threads -- it appears the speculation is still worth discussing.

[randome]

36. Doesn't change the fact that there is still no evidence.

Just empty claims.

[villager]

37. Or that you love to comment in threads about the subject!

[randome]

41. 'Love' is perhaps too strong a word. I enjoy debates.

[villager]

51. Obviously. Whether you allow for the thing being debated to have happened or not.

[MineralMan]

49. Lively discussion?

More like rampant speculation. I see a lot of people talking about things for which they have no actual information whatsoever.

Speculation is not discussion. It is speculation. If you have any information to share, please do that.

[villager]

52. Well, I guess you are under no obligation to call your OP lively.

n/t

[pnwmom]

25. What they should have done, if this whole thing isn't a made up story (as I think it was)

is to send information (anonymously, if necessary) on the problem and the fix to the FBI, so the FBI could catch the election stealers in the act.

We should not be applauding anonymous inserting itself into US elections, regardless of what their motives may have been. If they had the capacity they claim, they could use it to help the other side or to promote the causes of the anarchists among them.

[villager]

33. Because democracy in the US has no more vigorous defender than the FBI!

[marions ghost]

38. The FBI?

...I don't think that would work out well for Anonymous.

[pnwmom]

40. No problem if anonymous was anonymous. n/t

[marions ghost]

53. Don't see any reason for them to risk exposure

--IF Anonymous exists.

I don't think it matters if Anonymous exists or not, or if they hacked or not.

We can't say they DIDN'T-- this is why our system is a gigantic FAIL.

Anonymous has drawn attention to the problem, no matter what you or I might believe.

[randome]

58. 'Risk exposure'? If they can send an anonymous email, they can send a printout of code.

No risk involved.

[marions ghost]

61. If you want literal proof

you may have to wait for it. There's really no good reason for Anonymous to reveal anything.

Anonymous has already won the day because we KNOW it is possible for the election to be rigged, and we KNOW it is possible for it to have been de-rigged.

And that is all we know. But it is enough.

The evidence lies in our level of belief, for now.

[randome]

76. Of course there is a good reason.

To prove that what they/he/she claimed was done. No evidence means nothing happened until something pops up to support it.

[marions ghost]

135. I don't particularly care

if they don't prove it, since we all know it's theoretically possible. The fact that so many people are willing to buy it --does add weight to the argument. If it's a stunt to get our attention to the seriousness of the issue, fine. If they want to prove it with concrete evidence, fine.

Either way, it's a brilliant move by somebody...on behalf of the people's right to fair elections. Anonymous has already proven that our election system is so broken that hacking is accepted as a very real threat.

[RobertEarl]

39. That's not what Anon claimed

Anonymous claim was that they found Rove's access to the election and did nothing more than block Rove's access.

The real question is: Did Rove have access? There is a very large body of evidence that someone from outside did have access and did hack the votes in a number of elections, especially Ohio in 2004. Computer scientists say it is very easy to do, that the system is vulnerable.

What we must do, as citizens, is work to make sure our elections can NOT be hacked.

Now... if someone believes elections can't be hacked but yet is willing to become educated, there are many who are willing to educate.

The choice is up to each individual as to whether they want to know or just remain in denial.

[pnwmom]

42. They should have sent info to the FBI and the White House as to how Rove had access.

I'm not in denial about the possibility of hacking. I'm just not accepting Anonymous's self-serving announcement without any evidence. And if they really wanted to help, they'd publicly show HOW Rove had access, rather than just claim that he did.

[RobertEarl]

44. Whatever

Maybe you should join Anonymous so you can do what you claim they should do?

Maybe they are going to do exactly what you think they should do?

Would the media tell us? Would they tell anyone until they found it and fixed it? Would you believe another Anonymous claim if you don't believe this one?

Whatever. The point is we know our election system is not safe. What do you plan to do about that? I've been arguing it for years and have had some success. NC in 2005 made some big moves.

[cali]

85. I hope you have some evidence for this.

Frankly, some of the posts here are as fact free as those over at freeperville screeching about dems rigging the election.

[villager]

97. Based on OP's speculation that Anonymous would be a "third party" if the claims are true

In fact, if said claims are true -- again, per OP -- Anon would be the "fourth party." Rover would be the "third party."

You can ask OP if he has any facts -- I was responding to his post.

[louis-t]

3. If it did happen, it was a necessary evil at this point.

If we allowed this election to be stolen, there would never be fair elections again.

[MineralMan]

4. If anyone can manipulate elections, we will never have fair elections again.

Anyone. We cannot allow anyone to alter election results or access that potential. Necessary evils do not exist. They are simply another evil, but one that produces results you like. That sucks.

[louis-t]

15. I left off my original point that agrees with the last paragraph of the article.

If this ends up helping create election systems that cannot be manipulated, it was worth it.

[librechik]

21. and I say, since it could happen, that you are right and we will never have fair elections again

get used to that--or we march on Washington to do something about it.

In my opinion it has already happened, and it is a shame that we aren't already demanding change. Because oh, THAT could never happen...

[leftyohiolib]

23. you are assuming that we've had fair elections

[MineralMan]

43. The elections in Minnesota are fair, in the sense that they

reflect the will of those who vote.

[Bonobo]

111. Then we will never have fair elections. That the machines can be hacked is undeniable. nt

[villager]

7. +1

Yes, if we assented to "Please, sir, can I have another?" this time 'round, we never would have recovered...

[Taverner]

71. Yep. I agree.

Enough of this "holier than thou" BS...

[robinlynne]

6. I don't believe they even claimed to be Anonymous.

[MineralMan]

10. Yeah, actually they did. But anyone can claim to be

Anonymous. I could create an Anonymous video and release before noon on any day. Child's play.

[marions ghost]

57. You could but you didn't...

Whoever actually did it--is brilliant.

Because we can't refute what they are saying. We. Do. Not. Know.

Whether they did it or not, they are brilliant.

[Rockyj]

75. And as a result people are actually talking about election fraud!

So hopefully states will toss their hackable electronic voting machines!
In Washington state we have early voting mail in or drop off @ nearest location & we have a good old paper trail!

[marions ghost]

132. Exactly

And paper trail also should include hand counting to check the scanner, and transparency re. software.

It's not enough just to have a paper trail. Many states have had optiscan forever but still did no checks on them. Apparently MN has random hand-counting. Most states don't.

Can't just rely on recounts--ie. the ordeal & expense of a recount is prohibitive--needs to be during the voting process.

[robinlynne]

96. The letter is signed "the protectors", not anonymous.

[MineralMan]

98. There are more communications than that letter.

Sorry.

[robinlynne]

102. for example?

[MineralMan]

104. This, for one:

[robinlynne]

161. Yes, this one really does look like Anonymous. The letter does not.

And this one says clearly what Anonymous would do. turn him over to the authroities for prosecution.

Here's what I can say with quasi certainty. The letter and this video are not from the same people. completely different. all around different.

[robinlynne]

103. and why would they not call themselves Anonymous, as they always did before?

[EOTE]

9. I think merely pointing out how easily these systems can be infiltrated is a great thing.

And considering that Anonymous hasn't disavowed the message, I think it's safe to say that it comes from them. What Anonymous did was a great thing, they protected democracy when nobody else with the power to was willing to do a damned thing. We need to eliminate the possibility of tampering with election by eliminating ANY AND ALL black box code used for elections and making a verifiable paper trail required for all voting systems. Do that and we won't need to worry about hacker collectives preventing election theft.

[villager]

12. +1

Exactly so.

[RobertEarl]

13. Welcome to our nightmare

We have been called names, told we were crazy, etc.

But all along we have recognized that our election systems are open to being hacked. Ever since HAVA in 2002. Ten long years.

We saw evidence of the hacks in 2004, the first Presidential election after HAVA. And since then we have felt our democracy being stolen. We feared it again this time. It appears as though something, somebody, somehow, someway kept a huge hack from occurring. This time.

Anyway, it is good to see people coming around to our realization that it IS possible for elections to be hacked. That is what we have been seeking. From here on, hopefully the name calling will end, and we can all work together to build a system that raises ALL of our confidence levels.

[JaneyVee]

16. Apparently Anonymous warned Karl Rove on October 22nd (Video)

[Mr. Mojo Risen]

29. Anonymous or anyone with a video camera, a Guy Fawkes mask, and an internet connection.

[JaneyVee]

35. Or that.

[brush]

18. GOP was incompetent?

You wrote that:
"The GOP showed its incompetence in the misbegotten ORCA system. If, in fact, there had been some sort of plan to flip the votes in Ohio, the GOP was incompetent in that as well."

I don't about that. Were you not alive in 2004? It's been pretty well proven that they stole the '04 election in Ohio with computer hacking. You can go online and find Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s report on that.

Something stopped them this time. It may have been Anonymous or something else. I posted this a few days ago about it:

Ohio SofS Husted saw results from other states coming in unexpectedly for the President, and knowing all eyes were on him and Ohio, ditched his and Rove's plans to use the software patches he installed a few days before the election to switch votes to Romney as Ohio's results were suddenly not going to be as decisive as once thought. He probably also mulled over the thought of whether it was worth going to jail for Rove's fat ass.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of anyone having the ability to hack our elections and change legitimate results, be that the repugs or anyone else. But let's not under estimate the repugs. They've shown they will try anything to win. This time they lacked the element of surprise that they had before as everyone, including poll watchers and teams of attorneys, had eyes trained on Ohio. They may very well try something entirely different next time because they know with the changed demographics of the country they can't win appealing mostly to angry whites. I say let's advocate to get an accurate paper trail system of voting installed for our elections that will eliminate vote hacking.

[MineralMan]

45. That is only your guess at what might have happened.

As far as I know, you have no information other than your hunch. At least you haven't said that you had any real information.

[brush]

56. RFK Jr. link

Here's the link to Robert F. Kennedy Jr's report on the election theft in Ohio in 2004.
I mentioned this in my reply to your post. Perhaps you didn't bother to google it so here's one of many links that substantiate the pretty well documented theft.
http://nomorestolenelections.org/news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-2004-presidential-election-was-stolen-institutional-fraud

[RomneyLies]

150. Uh, no. It has not "been pretty well proven that they stole the '04 election in Ohio with computer

hacking."

In fact, quite the opposite is true. There is no independently verifiable evidence that any "computer hacking" had anything at all to do with the results in Ohio in 2004.

[brush]

157. If you don't think so . . .

. . . check out this link to Robert F. Kennedy Jr's. investigation into the vote hacking in Ohio in 2004. And he's not the only one to conclude that vote hacking won Ohio for W Bush and denied Kerry the presidency. I'm surprised so many on DU contest this. The repugs have been stealing elections since at lease Reagan v Carter when the repugs went behind President Carter's back and negotiated with the Iranians to delay releasing the hostages, which Carter had worked toward, until after the election.

http://nomorestolenelections.org/news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-2004-presidential-election-was-stolen-institutional-fraud

[mainer]

19. If true, was it interference with the election, or interference with the manipulators?

From the analysis by the SF tech writer, I was led to understand that if Anonymous was involved, all they did was prevent the data from streaming OUT of Ohio to an outside server, where it would have been manipulated.

[99th_Monkey]

20. I quite agree: "Let's eliminate the possibility altogether"

This means PAPER ballots, period. Preferably that are HAND-COUNTED as
they are in Canada I believe.

Until such time as we have that in place, I will gleefully cheer-on ANON's
efforts to keep the election clean, and to keep the vote count absolutely
accurate, assuming of course that is what happened.

Also there is a HUGE difference between hacking the vote to STEAL the
election, and hacking into the system to PRESERVE AN ACCURATE COUNT.
The fact that you ignore this difference is more than a little odd to me.

Getting votes counted accurately through a system that is transparent and
verifiable is paramount. Anything short of that is a fools paradise, where
the "victory" goes to the side with the best hackers, which is the "system"
we have now.

We "won" this time. NOW it is time to "fix" our broken system, as Obama
has already indicated he intends to do. I truly hope this happens asap.

[Kingofalldems]

22. +1

A Special Prosecutor to investigate this matter would also be welcome.

[arcane1]

24. I was having very similar thoughts this morning during alarm-clock snoozes

If there was a vote-flipping plan in place, I would have felt better if it had been brought to light for all to see, rather than just claim it was thwarted.

[pnwmom]

26. +1000. n/t

[pnwmom]

28. Thank you for a well thought out post. n/t

[MineralMan]

47. I appreciate your saying that.

Truly.

[Whiskeytide]

30. I have Republican friends who, if shown evidence that ...

... Rove or another conservative group hacked the vote machines in Ohio to turn the election for Romney, would surely say that they "did it nobly to counter the democrat's rampant election fraud and they were working to save America."

I couldn't agree more with the OP. However, I don't want Anon. pissed at me. So my official position will be that I have no official position.

[MineralMan]

46. Anonymous is more than welcome to be pissed at me.

[Whiskeytide]

78. You're braver than I.

I have an irrational fear of both spiders and secret internet phantoms who are reputed to be capable of tuning my life upside down.

[randome]

80. Just drink more whiskey.

Then you won't care.

[Whiskeytide]

83. It does help!

[MineralMan]

99. Anonymous doesn't give a crap about me or you.

If it doesn't generate publicity, they don't care. They would gain nothing from disrupting my blogger.com blogs. I gain nothing from them, either, frankly. I keep them going because I keep them going.

They can't affect me. So I have no reason to fear them. They may be legion, but I'm of zero interest to their "legion."

[chowder66]

31. I agree with you about the integrity of our election process...

It is troublesome that our systems can be virtually infiltrated, if they were. That is not something to applaud regardless of what side you are on. If they can do it then there will be those that want to organize to do it from the opposite side. I think Anonymous could do some greater good regarding things like this.

If Anonymous reviewed the systems virtually and found holes, backdoors, etc then the responsible thing to do is to report any issues they find and refrain from making any changes or blocking any pathways. I suppose the reporting would have to be to wikileaks or somewhere else.

Also this "Anonymous" statement could be meant as a potential "warning". A warning that if they can get in... then the system needs to be reviewed and investigated regardless...to ensure security and fair elections, at least when it comes to the electronics. Granted my understanding is that there is no proof of such a breach.

Convenient;
If Anonymous did what they said, and if it changed or thwarted the planned outcome, then Rove would not be
able to accuse them of tampering with anything because it would reveal that he in fact did have something in place.

So I am not cheering but it does bring focus onto this particular setup in Ohio which could be a template for reform up on the Hill.

[MineralMan]

100. Change in Ohio's voting system must be demanded by the

citizens of Ohio. Voting is a state thing. Only people in Ohio can materially affect that state's voting system. In Minnesota, we have insisted on a clean, honest system, and that's exactly what we have.

[99Forever]

34. If those that ARE...

Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2012, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

.. in the position to do something to stop the People from having those they actually elected, NOT win those elections, DON'T, then all bets are off. I don't care who it is or how they do it, STANDING UP for the People beats the shit out of another giant bucket of wimpy fail. I've got no time to wait for things to "get better." There is a class war going on and I, for one, am damn tired of getting fucked over because some think we should "play nice". Fuck that.

Sorry you don't agree.

[marions ghost]

48. When you have an election system as corrupt and dysfunctional as ours,

with arrogant criminals using secret means to get and keep power--you will often see efforts to fight back using similar stealth weapons.

It doesn't even matter whether Anonymous actually did it or not. Anonymous illustrates that it is possible because no-one can really say otherwise--we're all operating on belief.

Whether Anonymous exists or not, I Anonymous.

[Zorra]

50. Is this a joke? It's just...so very...wrong...

............................Please Do Not Stop The GOP From
................................Stealing Elections!!!
................................It's Illegal! And Don't Like Any
................................Of Those Bad Boys And Girls Who Do
...................................These Awful Things To Stop The GOP!!!




Yes, we do need fair elections. Until we have them, expect us.

All that is left to do is laugh. Please, don't bother explaining any further, I totally get it now, and see no need to respond beyond what I have posted here.

Unbelievable.

[MineralMan]

54. You have missed my point spectacularly. nt

[CanSocDem]

67. Your point....????

Nothing new here. Another sanctimonious OP railing at conscientious voters who correctly note that the U.S. elections are vulnerable to manipulation by entities much more powerful than the average citizen voter.

That an unidentified 'entity' claims to have blocked such manipulation should be cause for celebration, not the precious hand-wringing and high road proclamations we have endured the past few days.

'Killing the messenger' doesn't solve the problem. That is, of course, if you are capable of recognizing the 'problem', of which there is little evidence in your OP.

.

[Ghost in the Machine]

93. If you even *had* a point, please point it out... thanks in advance...

[pnwmom]

59. It's a joke that anyone believes Anonymous's completely self-serving pronouncements

on how they saved the U.S. election, with no evidence at all that points to them.

Election fraud is a huge concern of mine and I believe it changed the Presidential results in 2000 and 2004. But Anonymous hasn't provided any evidence that their efforts kept the vote from flipping this year.

[rhett o rick]

68. Would it totally shake your world to find out that Anon actually saved us from Rmoney?

I would hope you would at least have an open mind on the issue and not dismiss those that disagree as being "a joke".

It seems pretty clear that the elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen.

Karl Rove's job is to conspire to win elections. And he has an almost unlimited budget. Seems reasonable to me that he would try to replicate what happened in 2000 and 2004.

I dont see any evidence that the government did anything to prevent the fraud that happened in 2000 and 2004.

I believe that Rove tried to steal this election. I think he was thwarted. Granted it could have been a failure in his system or methods.

Anon warned Rove that they knew his plan.

Anon gave a fairly reasonable explanation on what happened.

I agree there is no proof ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I am disappointed that Democrats arent keeping an open mind.

[pnwmom]

70. No. But if they did it, all they have to do is carry out on their promise

in the initial video -- to make public the details of what they found and what they did.

Hand it over to Wikileaks, for example. There's an idea DU should be able to get behind.

[rhett o rick]

72. I honestly dont think it would matter.

First some, like myself dont care. I am totally fine thinking that something stymied Rove's attempt to steal an election and it might have been Anon. The important thing is that we fix the system.

If Anon provided proof that Rove attempted to steal the election, I believe that it wouldnt be enough for the DoJ to do anything with. Or they would choose not to do anything. Those that doubt Anon now would rationalize a reason to continue to doubt.

IMO we know that 2000 and 2004 were stolen yet to my knowledge we havent done a thing to protect/verify electronic voting and vote counting. I doubt that whatever Anon does will affect that.

[bahrbearian]

86. Your asking the impossible, for some people here to keep open minds, hence the OP

[randome]

89. Open minds require evidence. Otherwise, it's just faith.

[bahrbearian]

92. No an open mind examines all sides of an issue, and this issue has no facts either way.

[jeff47]

106. Actually, there's lots of facts

Primarily based around the description from "Anonymous" being utterly incoherent.

If these people are such master hackers, they'd be able to use networking terms properly.

[bahrbearian]

109. Your calling that a fact?

[jeff47]

118. Yes. That their letter is incoherent is a fact. (nt)

[rhett o rick]

128. Pray tell us the facts.

You mean that Rove had four years and hundreds of millions to play with and he did nothing?

Regardless of what Anon says, there is plenty of reason to believe that Rove would try to steal this election.

But I understand why you dont want to believe. It shakes your world. Much more comfortable in the bubble. The world is good and the republicans wouldnt want to steal another election. And if they did the system would shirley catch them. Do you need your blankie?

[pnwmom]

130. The point isn't whether Rove might steal an election. Of course he might.

But if he DID try to steal this one, there is no evidence that Anonymous, in particular, stopped it.

If someone stopped it, it could have been anyone. In fact, it's more likely to have been someone who ISN'T trying to take credit for it.

Like Mineral Man, I'm not comfortable with the fact that our system is so porous, and I don't trust ANYONE with backdoor access to our voting system to work in the interests of truth.

The only trustworthy system would use a public code that the hackers are free to publicly critique. And electronic voting should always be backed up with paper ballots which can be sampled to make sure that the computerized results are accurate -- and counted by hand, if necessary.

[jeff47]

139. You're not interested in any facts.

Because you simply leap to "Rove tried to hack it" since that fits your worldview so nicely.

But I understand why you dont want to believe. It shakes your world. Much more comfortable in the bubble.

Hardly. I fully understand these machines are "hackable". Which is why I personally push for optical scanners backed by paper ballots, as I've voted on in NC and NY - along with recounting random precincts by hand (or even better, all votes) to make sure the scanners are working.

But this letter is utterly incoherent. Someone who could perform such a "hack" would use the proper terms in the proper place. More importantly, someone who actually gave a damn about elections who did this would publish their results so that we all can see exactly what happened. And whether or not that would result in jail time, we would have the ammunition to get rid of voting machines that don't have a paper trail.

Instead, we have a letter saying "we frobbitzed the blorgish in the narfenzen and saved the election!!!!". That doesn't help get rid of these voting machines.

[rhett o rick]

126. Open minds see that there is no evidence either fucking way.

Closed minds demand that those that disagree "shut the fuck up".

[argiel1234]

110. ahahaha

keep on believing in electronic voting. In fact keep the faith


ahahaha



You keep your deep concern along with an admitted homophobic freeper to yourselves


ahahahahahahha

[SidDithers]

136. Come back again, soon...

Sid

[rzemanfl]

55. My two cents:

If you were a married guy who took 105 different women to 105 different motels for some hanky panky and then got an email from someone saying they could prove you cheated on your wife 105 times you'd know someone either had the goods on you or was a really good guesser. The very specific 105 tries language is either the smoking gun or total bullshit.

[Eyes of the World]

133. Bingo.

The mention of 105 is the strange irrelevant detail that points to authenticity.

Whoever made the claim is either telling the truth or incredibly clever.

[Aerows]

60. If that is what it takes

to illustrate the peril we have in our electoral system, so be it.

For what it is worth, Anonymous is a hacker group and uses every single part of engineering to compromise their foes, including social engineering.

Keep that in mind. Also, anyone can claim to be part of "Anonymous" - that doesn't mean they are or are not.

This smells to me like social engineering more than actual network intervention. Take that for what it is worth.

[MineralMan]

62. It smells to me, too.

I recognize the smell from my time working at a dairy.

[rhett o rick]

63. I certainly agree that we need to get the election system into a fair and free mode.

And I also sympathize with those that are terrified that a third party might interfere with the electronic voting process. That's why some of us deny to an extreme that a third party influenced the 2000 and 2004 elections. We can accept losing but cant accept having our election stolen. Denial is so warm and comforting.

How scary to think that maybe a third party (Rove) tried to again do what it appears they did in 2000 and 2004. And then to further suggest that a fourth party (Anon) might have save us where "the system" didnt is terrifying. It really shakes up our view of reality.

I think we would all feel much better to think that Rove spent the last 4 years and billions of dollars make yard signs and not "conspiring" to steal another election.

If we could only get our hands on those pesky Anon. We would show them a thing or two like we did Manning and Assange.

Again, I agree with your statement that we need to get our stuff together so we wont have to have pesky Anon to save our asses from Rmoney.

[RoccoR5955]

64. Who said it's "White Hat?"

It's far from that as it can be. It' more like Black hat.
I think that the people who got caught are good at DDoS attacks, but there could always be others. And what with Romney getting his tech help from Best Buy and Staples, I'm sure that someone could figure out what the SOP at either of those places for creating a password would be for a specific user.
Nobody said that it was fair, but there was some justice in that they didn't get to steal the election again.

This should stand out like a beacon that these computerized voting systems are garbage, and should not be used.

I may be happy that the election was not stolen, but most of all, if we are to use these computer systems to count the votes, the software should be open source, and not closed to one side or the other. The only way that we can have fair elections is this, if we use computers.

If we don't use computers, we have to hire watchdogs to make sure that people don't stuff the ballot box.

What of those old mechanical machines, we just stopped using? I worked on them, and they were tough to setup. I don't think that you could steal a count from one of those. They were all mechanical.

So who do you trust with our elections, and what method do you trust?

[MineralMan]

108. Minnesota's system is proven and has been checked in the last

two elections by a complete, state-wide recount. Voters mark their ballots, which are read by optical scanners. After each election a random sampling of precincts is recounted. Nobody know which precincts they will be. The two complete, statewide recounts in 2008 and 2010 demonstrated the lack of manipulation of any results.

Thanks for asking. Minnesota has fair, honest elections. We insist on that, and so that's what we have. Other states will have to do the same. This is a state-by-state issue. The voters of each state have to clean up their states' election systems.

It is that simple. If they do not insist, they will get the same old crap. The federal government cannot ensure honest elections. States must do that.

What state do you live in? How are its elections handled? Do you trust them? If not, then now is the time to being insisting on changes in your own state.

[RoccoR5955]

119. Believe me, I have been

I live in NY, and we were the LAST state to go with electronic voting. People hate the machines, though they seem to work okay. I was an election custodian in my district. I setup the mechanical machines, getting them ready for election day. They were difficult to setup, and from what I could see (I had schematics for the machines) were impossible to change counts.
The new machines software is allegedly checked and certified. The software is a proprietary, so nobody knows how they work. Now I just setup the election site, which is a lot less work for me.
We asked the state to make sure that these new voting machines and their software was checked out, and they assured us that it was. I have not witnessed any recounts yet, but I am sure that there will be recounts in the future. At that time, I will be compelled to ask to inspect the software and hardware. As I am a computer technician by trade, I feel that I am fully qualified to check this out.
We battled for open source software, but were struck down by the Board of Elections. I guess that there is no open source election software. (I am not a programmer, otherwise I would write some)
I know that the chain of custody is sound, and the the people running things in my county are trustworthy, so at this point, I do not see a problem. However I know computers, and it's only a matter of time until things go wrong.
I will keep on top of things, and in the position that I am in, I feel quite qualified to do so.

I really don't trust election official in far away places, who I do not know. It's just me, I guess.

[Unknown Beatle]

65. If someone is making sure

the election isn't being stolen, whether it be Anonymous or someone else, I'm all for it.

Anonymous is just the counter-weight we need because the repugs don't give a damn about fair elections. Your rant about Anonymous and repugs shouldn't interfere with elections is correct, but, since the repugs are known to steal elections, Anonymous is fighting that and not manipulating the vote. So I have nothing but respect for Anonymous.

If you see a crime being committed and you can stop it, why wouldn't you?

[jeff47]

77. Why would you conceal the evidence of that crime?

Why wouldn't you publish the evidence so that the people committing the crime see courtroom? Even if you were sure there'd be no prosecution, the publicity would result in replacing the bad voting systems with secure ones.

[rhett o rick]

82. As you can see from many reactions on this blog supposedly of "liberal minded persons", there are

many deniers. How well do you think the general public would accept anything from a group like Anon.

Besides there are numerous expose's about the 2000 and 2004 elections. I believe the evidence exists but for some strange reason, there has been nothing done.

[jeff47]

105. 2000 was the Brooks brothers riot shutting down counting and the SCOTUS. Not hacking.

While there's plenty of innuendo about 2004, nobody's produced actual evidence.

Again, if Anon has evidence, post it. Someone may go to jail, but much more importantly it will provide concrete evidence for us to get rid of these voting machines. Keeping it in the land of innuendo means the whole thing gets dismissed as a conspiracy theory and the machines keep running.

And that assumes there actually is something to show. The claims are a series of keywords strung together that result in gibberish.

[rhett o rick]

120. So you think that the DoJ lacks evidence? They cant figure it out by themselves? That they or anyone

would accept what Anon would tell them? The DoJ did nothing about 2000 nor 2004. The Republicans will steal elections until they are stopped. It shouldnt be Anon's responsibility to produce evidence. Electronic machines are not verifiable. That is a huge problem. We dont need Anon to tell us that.

Believe in Anon or not, it really is irrelevant. Actually worse, it is a distraction.

Fix the broken election system.

[jeff47]

123. Please actually read a post before replying to it.

Publishing the evidence would make it very easy to "fix the broken election system". Utterly independently of whatever the DoJ does.

And again, 2000 - not hacked. Stop claiming it was if you want people to listen to your issues.

[rhett o rick]

125. Let me see if I got this right. If Anon publishes the evidence then it would be easy to fix the

election system. So you are saying that no one else can figure the fuck out what the problem is with our election system?

We knew there was a major problem in 2000. And yet we are in 2012 and you want Anon to help fix the problem.

[jeff47]

140. You don't have it right. No evidence has been published.

Claims have been published. I can claim that I can fly and fart rainbows. Publishing that on the Internet does not make it a fact.

We knew there was a major problem in 2000.

Still not hacked. The GOP delayed the legally-mandated recounts until the SCOTUS stopped them. This was only 12 years ago, how is it you are having such a hard time remembering?

[rzemanfl]

152. Do the rainbow farts smell like regular farts? n/t

[rhett o rick]

158. Let me say it again. The Republicans have been stealing elections for at least 12 years and

for whatever reason, nothing has been done to fix the vulnerable electronic voting machines. You say there is no evidence, but I think you mean you dont know of any evidence.

But actually you dont need evidence to fix the electronic voting machines. Arguing over Anon is a distraction.

[jeff47]

159. You need evidence to force people to fix the voting machines

No evidence, and it will be extremely hard to convince states to spend the money.

Publish evidence, and it will be extremely easy to convince states to spend the money.

[rhett o rick]

160. It that is true, we are in worse shape than I thought. nm

[applegrove]

66. So easy for someone on the right to

send out a fake letter from ‘anonymous‘, dividing us on the left. It fits in to the 2004 diebold election stealing meme. It will scare off people who were independants. It does a great deal for the right. Don‘t fall for it.

[starroute]

79. I'm seeing the letter being taken seriously by people close to Anonymous

I'm unsure as to whether the acts described in the letter really happened or if it's a form of social engineering designed to scare the pants off Karl Rove and get him into hot water with his billionaire buddies.

But the letter itself has the distinct Anonymous flavor -- that air of having been written by someone who's spent far too much time reading comics and playing video games. I don't think the right has anybody who can fake that.

And here is a blog entry by Neal Rauhauser -- a figure with close Anonymous connections who either takes the letter completely seriously or is actively helping promulgate the joke:
https://nealrauhauser.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/why-rove-failed-to-deliver-ohio/

Though, for whatever it's worth, Rauhauser also links to threads here at DU -- once in the above link and at extensively at https://nealrauhauser.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/democratic-underground-coverage-of-the-protectors/

So if there is social engineering going on, perhaps it's being laundered or amplified through us.

[msanthrope]

69. An excellent OP that highlights the folly of cheering this sort of nonsense

Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2012, 08:24 PM - Edit history (1)

on. Once we think ANY interference is okay, we've accepted an unthinkable proposition: voter suppression is fine, done right.

[MineralMan]

101. Thank you. You get it.

[Baitball Blogger]

73. I don't think you read correctly what they did.

They hacked into the Orca program and set up a password virus called Oz. After the elections closed, the program began to run making it impossible for them to access Orca.

Here is the thing. If Orca was just a get out the vote program, then no harm was done to widdle Rover because the election time was over. If Orca was a nefarious program that had the ability to hack into the Ohio software, then ANonymous was a white hat for stopping them.

[reusrename]

129. Finally a post from someone who is paying attention.

Before the vote, they said they would try to catch him red handed.

Now, after the fact, they claim to have blocked access such that no attempt could be made. If true, there is no evidence of an attempt to turn over to authorities.

Also, this would be the least intrusive response, which should calm some of the concerns expressed by the op.

[Baitball Blogger]

134. I don't think it will matter.

Mineral Man is all about righteous indignation. Let him have his moment.

[litlbilly]

74. I disagree with your basic assessment

If we use any kind of hackable machines to count our votes, they should be banned completely. If Anon did or didn't hack the system, just the possibility that they could
shows that we need to go to all, personally counted paper ballets across the board.
We need to fix all the long lines in red states, allow every single person who is of age in our country to vote. That will fix all of this nonsense. In my view, Obama probably won this election by closer to 12 to 15 mil votes if not for all the suppression on the other side.

Anon at least put it in their heads to watch out. If they were planning on fixing the vote count, it worked, if not, no big deal.

[dreamnightwind]

81. I think this post is attacking a straw man

First, the part I agree with:

If Anonymous interfered with ORCA, and ORCA was just GOTV, that was wrong. I don't know if that's what happened, hopefully not.

But much of your post rails against Anonymous claiming to interfere with the election. I've read and watched their announcements, and have a pretty good idea what they've said. You argue against some points that they never claimed.

"There is nothing "white hat" in interfering with the software used by a state in its elections."
I have seen no claim from them that they did this. What are you talking about? Way off base, total straw man.

"Whoever manipulates an election to change the results in any way is a felon of the worst kind"

Again, I don't believe they made this claim. My understanding is they made it so that Rove and his cohort could not log in to switch any votes. That's a shield, it's not an election manipulation.

Their claim is dubious and vague, however, your OP bears little resemblance to their claims. Why?

[bahrbearian]

88. Good question "Why?"

[cthulu2016]

87. rec

[Fumesucker]

90. Personally I'd rather have Rove hacking the voting machines than Anonymous

Rove is a known quantity, we know what he's going to try and do and America has lived through Republican administrations in the past.

Anonymous? There's no telling what kind of evil they would get up to, they might even put a Blackity Black Kenyan Muslim Socialist in the presidency and then where would we be?

But that's neither here nor there. The very fact that we're having this conversation at all doesn't say anything good about our election system.

Why would Anonymous trust the very same system that left a huge hackable hole in the voting scheme to fix that scheme? Assuming of course that Anonymous did anything at all, an assumption I'm a strict agnostic on at the moment.

[Fly by night]

91. After 8+ years of working for free, fair and verifiable elections, I want ...

... our elections to be conducted using voter-verified paper ballots, hand-counted by high school Honor Society members who are paid with pizzas and cold drinks AND with the honor of determining accurately (and without the need for any software whatsoever) the consent of the governed.

Oh, and I also want a horny rogue elephant (the real kind) to fuck Karl Rove every which way but loose.

Starting now and continuing forever.

Now back to the Garden ...

[Panasonic]

94. Good for you, Bernie...

Any chances of you moving to CO or WA from TN so you can get what you need?

[bettyellen]

115. I think only TN has paper ballots AND and elephant sanctuary!

[Fly by night]

145. Actually, in 93 of 95 counties, the Rethugs have forced us to use DREs ...

... by repealing the TN Voter Confidence Act that would have banned them.

Tennessee is the ONLY state (out of 34) to have passed a DRE ban and then to have repealed it when the Rethugs took control of our state legislature in 2008 (in the last election we were supposed to have using DREs) by winning EVERY open seat in our legislature from Memphis to Mountain City -- an outcome still described by political scientists nationwide as the most unexpected election result of that cycle.

Unexpected? To everyone, that is, but the secret software programmers of our fraud-friendly DREs.

But we do have an elephant sanctuary that I believe has no male elephants.

As the old saying goes, "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs ... if we had eggs."

[Fly by night]

143. Not anytime soon, but believe me, it is an attractive option ...

and, thank the Goddess, a real one (thanks to WA and CO voters).

[Panasonic]

148. You're welcome

CO voter here

Just renewed my MMJ card two weeks ago, but looks like after next year, I won't need it anymore.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

95. horny rogue elephant...LOL

You made my day!

[Fly by night]

146. I aims to please.

[Merlot]

107. Anon did not say they hacked the Ohio election

What was claimed was that they hacked into the rove apparatus and hacked them so that they could not get into the election tabulating system.

Whether or not they did this, who knows...but they are NOT claiming to have hacked the election.

I think this is a way to de legitimize the election, probably started by some dimwitted RW'ers

[TexasBushwhacker]

122. That was my impression as well

I thought they said they found routes from Rove's system to 3 states and they simply closed the cyber "doors". That would not be a breach of security of the states' systems at all, in fact it could be argued it didn't breach security of Rove's system either just the connections between the two that shouldn't have been their in the first place.

[Taverner]

117. All I can say is thank dog for Anonymous

The truth shall set you free

[grantcart]

121. Good points. Will not be widely accepted here.

First ORCA failed because it wasn't Beta tested. Just not going to work without an extensive field test.


Secondly it helps the right perpetuate a myth that something awry has happened and it wasn't a fair election.


Thirdly it is a diversion.

The idea that there is a wide spread effort to fix election results by the Republicans that cross multiple state lines, multiple software platforms, multiple hardware systems and is designed to work against both computer screens and paper tabulators is fool hardy.

This is especially true with electronic readers of paper ballots. It is simply too easy to check.


The Republicans have a well defined system of undermining elections;

Citizens United
Gerrymandering Congressional Districts
Making voting diffiult at the polling station


We need to fight on the following four fronts and forget the Anonymous nonsense. The fact is that over and over again all across the country the Democrats have consistently won a very high percent of the very close races.


Here is what we should focus on

1) Paper ballots, no exceptions with transparent bipartisan poll counting

2) Independent drawing of Congressional Districts. We won the vote on the House of Representatives but are down 30 seats. Arizona had an independent commission and guess what 5 dems and 4 Republican congressman, right now AZ is a blue state in the congress. California had independent commission and increased dems at all levels

3) Easier registration and voting

4) Fight Citizens United. Atleast make it more transparent. but keep fighting it



People believing this Anonymous bullshit undermines real efforts to stop real Republican damage to the democratic decision.

Oh and the 5) Filibuster Reform.

[kickysnana]

124. About 8 years ago when I quit the DFL in protest

I wrote: "If you will not even look into the problem of the stolen elections then you are part of the problem." Ignore is the operative word since Bush I stole McCain votes in early primaries to win the nomination and everyone who cared knew it.

I am tickled that someone somehow finally found a way to stop them and it was stopped, not skewed the other way. That is the difference you are ignoring. This is and has been a war and the good guys have been losing big time.

Another thing: Privatizing playgrounds in St Paul? Don't corporations have enough access to our kids without our input? Aren't they going to low ball for a couple of years and then demand outrageous amounts when we have let the people go who knew how to do it well on a shoestring? I know the Republicans took all the money away from the cities with help from the DFL but we should not have helped build dstadiums for professional sports teams at the expense of not being able to provide safe nurturing places for our children in our neighborhoods. There is no way to get around that that happened when we should have already known better.

[ThomThom]

127. I think you are correct if it is possible to hack our vote counting

system, we have a huge problem.
Someone needs to look closer at this and see if it is possible and if there is any evidence that someone unauthorized could or did break in. Then we need to close that door and make sure future elections are on the up and up.
OH WAIT WE DID THAT and guess what, it is possible and no one did a damn thing about it.
We need a constitutional amendment to make voting a right. That gerrymandering is illegal. We need public financing. No corporate person hood, no pack money buying politicians. We need to take this very seriously.

[longship]

131. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!

.

[Vattel]

137. Like you, I don't believe for a second that Anonymous prevented Ohio from being stolen by Rove.

But suppose that you and I are wrong about that and that Anonymous used the only means at their disposal to foil an attempt to interfere with the election. Then surely Anonymous should be congratulated rather than condemned. Do you disagree?

[MineralMan]

138. No. I can't congratulate anyone who interferes in any way

with any election in the United States. Hands off our elections, everyone.

If someone has reason to believe that any party is attempting to alter the results of an election, that information should be presented to the FEC, the FBI, and state authorities at the earliest possible time. Third parties or organizations should have no access to any computer or any other part of any election process. Period.

[Vattel]

141. I guess i agree with you.

If a plot to interfere with an election could be foiled by going to the proper authorities, then that is what should be done. But hypothetically speaking, if going to the proper authorities wouldn't foil the plot and the only way to foil it were to use hacking, then hacking would be the right thing to do. Or do you disagree with that too?

[MineralMan]

142. Who's doing the hacking?

Do you know them? Do you trust them? Exposing election shenanigans to the authorities and to the public is a far better idea than trusting hackers. If hackers can hack for your side, it stands to reason they could hack for the other side, too. If you don't know who is doing the hacking, how can you possibly trust them?

[Vattel]

162. You are avoiding the question. The questions is whether it would be okay to hack

if hacking were the only way to stop someone from interfering with the election process.

[MineralMan]

163. How would it be the only way?

I'm serious.

[Vattel]

164. nvm

[Taverner]

149. I guess you would rather have Romney for President. Got it!

[MineralMan]

151. Uh, no. And we don't have him.

Due to the great GOTV efforts in Ohio and all the other battleground states, President Obama had a great win and a landslide victory in the Electoral College. That's what I was working for, along with thousands of others, and we won, despite efforts to cause us to lose.

Even better, we did it honestly, legally, and with honor. That's what I'd always rather have. That's why I reject any efforts to bypass our legal election system. Nobody gets to screw with that without criticism. Nobody.

[Taverner]

153. No no, you said if you knew about it, you would do nothing to change it

All I need to know, really

[MineralMan]

156. No, I said that I'd provide the evidence to the authorities.

Uff da!

[Hutzpa]

144. All this to me is hogwash

I see nothing wrong in fighting evil with evil if that's what it takes to prevent evil from prevailing.

We all know what would have happened had Karl Rove gotten his way just as he did in 2004, so let's not pretend otherwise.

Whether we want to believe Anonymous did what they did or not, I'm fucking glad that someone is out there looking out for the rest of us that are too fucking dumb to understand what is been done to this country.

[Phx_Dem]

147. If you don't believe Anonymous' claims, then your post is moot and pointless. OTH, if

you do believe their claims, then you would know that they didn't in any way alter the results of the election. They safeguarded the results by instituting a firewall that prevented a third party (Rove) from alerting the results.

If Anonymous' claims are true, again I say THANK YOU for protecting our democracy!

[Vincardog]

154. I love the way posters demand evidence that someone prevented another electoral

theft when what we should be demanding is proof that every election is fair and transparent.
What I believe about this incident is immaterial.
The belief that someone COULD have been trying to hack the election needs to be investigated and the possibility eliminated.
Why would anyone believe secret "company proprietary" black boxes were the best way to hold an election?

[Lars39]

155. Yes, we're getting sidetracked from demanding full transparency.

The monkey should be on the systems and the people operating them to prove full transparency.