General Discussion

L. Coyote

(51,134 posts) Mon Apr 10, 2017, 09:07 PM Apr 2017

25% of America's voting machines were hackable in the 2016 elections [View all]

Fmr Intel boss James Clapper said 25% of America's voting machines were hackable in the 2016 elections.

Link to tweet

US election 'hacking': Russian man arrested in Spain at request of American authorities
Arrested man reportedly told wife he had created a computer virus 'linked to Trump's election win'
Samuel Osborne 7 hours ago
Russian broadcaster RT raised the possibility it was linked to the US presidential election.

Pyotr Levashov was arrested in Barcelona at the end of last week on a US computer crimes warrant, a spokeswoman for Spain's National Court, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with court rules, told the Associated Press.

Levashov's arrest drew immediate attention after his wife told RT he was linked to America's 2016 election hacking. ............

Link to tweet

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

25% of America's voting machines were hackable in the 2016 elections [View all] L. Coyote Apr 2017 OP

I was surprised the percentage so low. no wonder clintons and obama's are warming Laura PourMeADrink Apr 2017 #1

Yeah but it needs to be done machine by machine. Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #2

That simply is not true. L. Coyote Apr 2017 #4

Elaborate? Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #6

The touchscreen models are connected to a unit that tallies them locally. Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #17

That doesn't nullify what I said Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #35

says who? no doubt the public is not allowed to see the hardware of these machines. TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #29

Why would you want them to? Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #36

too risky? how precisely would a hacker be ID'd, caught, and sufficient evidence found to convict sa TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #31

You have to do some b&e to actually get to the machines and install the malware. Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #34

You don't have to hack the machines individually. sarah FAILIN Apr 2017 #3

I have had even people here telling me they weren't hacked because there is no evidence pnwmom Apr 2017 #5

That's asking to prove a negative. Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #7

when you can't find evidence that the vote is legit, THAT is a problem. do you truly just expect peo TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #27

Why do you have faith that the votes cast using dead trees were accurately counted? Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #32

Because of how they do it here. We had a paper recount when the Gubernatorial vote was very close pnwmom Apr 2017 #39

The recount in Wisconsin provides the evidence mythology Apr 2017 #41

The older Diebold style machines have no way to tell if their totals have been altered. Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #18

And the newer optical scanners come with an optional feature that allows pnwmom Apr 2017 #21

that doesn't even take into account unknown "back doors" and such. nt TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #26

Why, it's almost like the election was just a charade in some states... Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #30

The really, really frustrating part is that such as system could be exceedingly secure and reliable. Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #33

The national polls were more accurate than in 2012 mythology Apr 2017 #42

exactly, and you can't get a recount, until you prove that you need one, and you can't prove TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #28

How Much Do We Really Value Our Democracy? dlk Apr 2017 #8

clearly the PTB like the current system. nt TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #25

What is equally ominous was the hacking into several state triron Apr 2017 #9

I have a relative that works for Diebold... LakeArenal Apr 2017 #10

K and R oasis Apr 2017 #11

There was something going on. Some say it's not possible to hack those machines. C Moon Apr 2017 #12

There is no need to hack the machines; the chain from the machines to state totals is the problem. Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #19

i think there are multiple possible points of compromise in the system; one doesn't rule out TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #22

In my state (PA), that percentage is pretty low. dchill Apr 2017 #13

Dingh, ding, ding, we have a winner. L. Coyote Apr 2017 #15

you're just supposed to "trust" that your invisible vote is accurately counted. nt TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #23

PA is actually pretty secure Amishman Apr 2017 #44

I'm sorry, but without a separate, verifiable paper trail... dchill Apr 2017 #45

You can't hack paper ballots. YOHABLO Apr 2017 #14

You can hack tabulators. L. Coyote Apr 2017 #16

Pretty tough in California; ours are expected to be able to pass stringent audits & certifications. Crash2Parties Apr 2017 #20

that's why the paper ballots should be counted by hand/eye, all the time. nt TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #24

You know when you have a STRONG intuition about something but can't prove its validity? butdiduvote Apr 2017 #37

Call me a naysayer but I can't get behind this stuff. Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #38

That's like saying the tree can have only one apple. L. Coyote Apr 2017 #46

I'm not saying people shouldn't look into it Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #48

Trust but Verify. sagesnow Apr 2017 #40

If a voting machine was hooked to a network in any way, it would be hackable. Vinca Apr 2017 #43

How Kerry Votes Were Switched To Bush Votes L. Coyote Apr 2017 #47