The obligatory, "no evidence that votes were changed"

[Cetacea]

While true that it would be difficult to prove, every report on Russian ATTACK on the 2016 election going back to the original scant reports seem to always contain this disclaimer...

I think the public can handle the truth...

[KPN]

1. Have they adequately looked? nt

[uponit7771]

2. "No votes changed" is a leap in logic!! The Russian hell bent on hacking our elections broke into

... elections systems from the state and local electoral levels to the registration SOFTWARE sitting behind DMZ's

but ...

took, change, installed, read, copied .... NOTHING !!!

Right

No one would write that in a book ... no one ... it'd be too stupid

[Cetacea]

9. Right. And recent revelations that they shared internal polling data in the critical battleground

..states that Hillary should have won.
Back when they announced that 21 states were affected: that information didn't go public until Kelly left DHS and became Chief Of Staff,
nine months later.

[triron]

25. There are nmerous red and yellow flags that the mantra "no votes were changed" is just that

--a mantra.

[Eyeball_Kid]

13. Why would Russian hackers NOT cross the line?

Are we to pretend that they have scruples? Why would they hold votes to be sacred and untouchable? They're Russians, for Christ's sake! They take orders from a dictator! Putin has no use for democracy. He changes votes all the time in Russia. Jeez! He poisons political opponents! And we're supposed to believe that Putin RESPECTS DEMOCRACY??? We know that our shitty voting machines can be hacked WITHOUT A TRACE, yet we refuse to change the voting tabulation process because machine manufacturers have BIG CONTRACTS with state governments.

If the voting machines can be hacked without a trace, then OF COURSE the government can claim that there is no evidence that votes were changed.

[NewJeffCT]

16. Look at it this way

If they get caught and Clinton wins, it taints her election victory.

If they get caught and Trump wins, they just deny it was them and say it was a 400 pound guy in a New Jersey basement. Trump's victory is tainted, yes, and American democracy overall is tainted.

They don't get caught and they're encouraged to be more brazen next time.

[uponit7771]

23. +1, if 100 million accounts aren't safe in Capital One then there's no way I believe our electoral

... systems are secure.

[dalton99a]

14. Russian hackers are pretty harmless

[FBaggins]

17. You keep saying that... but it doesn't make sense to network security folks

They always include "no votes changed" because people read the word "hacking" and assume that votes COULD be changed... when they can't.

In theory, your statement appears reasonable. If they had an intent to damage the election and they succeeded in hacking an election system... it makes no sense that they would just look around and congratulate themselves and then leave things alone. But that isn't reality.

People have this ridiculous notion of "hacking" from what they see in the movies. Some 15-year-old kid pulls out a Nintendo 3DS that he modified in his parents' basement by soldering a couple of paperclips to it... and the next thing you know he's getting ATMs to spit out cash and taking over NORAD.

But again... that isn't reality. There are three overly-simplified categories of "hacking" to be aware of:

1 - Intrusion attempts. These happen constantly but are almost always defeated by basic (or advanced) systems security. Depending on what you (and/or your provider) use for a firewall, you may even be able to get reports on these attacks (including seeing what country they originated from). Most of the stories you read about Russians "targeting" state/county elections systems are of this nature. IOW - they never got in in the first place.

2 - Successful "hack" that gains the ability to read some/all files on the system. There are only a handful of stories of even this happening... but it's important to note that "read" access to a system or storage location is much easier than gaining the ability to control the system or change anything. Even the big hack stories where millions of customers' data were stolen are of this nature. IOW - it wasn't that the Russians "broke into elections systems" and changed nothing because they chose to do so... it's because they couldn't.

3 - Hacks that gain write/delete access to the system. I have yet to see a single story of this clearly occurring in relation to elections systems, but to be charitable there have been a couple where it might have happened but been kept out of the news. But that still leaves us with the final gap in your assumption:

The all-important difference when it comes to the votes themselves:

4 - Voting machines themselves (or, more common, the counting machines for paper ballots) are not networked and can't be "hacked" without getting physical access to each machine.

[Girard442]

19. There's one category you're leaving out.

5. An intrusion that takes place through an intentionally placed back door.

The Russians aren't a bunch of college kids playing around for laughs. They have dirty money and muscle in their toolboxes.

[FBaggins]

20. Still wouldn't change #4

Nor has there been any evidence of such at all (and it would be almost impossible to hide).

[Girard442]

22. Why do you think it would be hidden?

Just call it fake news from a bunch of tinfoil hatters. After the (s)election and Trump is still in the White House there's no more rule of law anyway. Do you really think Barr's Justice Department would investigate?

[uponit7771]

24. "(and it would be almost impossible to hide).", This is false on its face in so many ways. Our

... electoral systems aren't not standardized nor made to be compliant to any level of security.

A program can be installed from registration software that was hacked into that doesn't log changes etc etc etc ... the ways of hiding would be myriad.

[SouthernProgressive]

3. It's deflection of the highest order.

One of their efforts was to suppress the vote by way of social media. Russia had an impact.

[uponit7771]

6. +1, At minimum their hacking changed news coverage damn near daily (link)

[SouthernProgressive]

7. Yep. There are a long list of ways they had an impact.

And I'm not the most educated on the topic. I still read about and know a couple of ways that there is no doubt they had an impact.

[uponit7771]

35. +1

[Cetacea]

10. Incredible.

Thanks for the graph!

[triron]

26. Your graphics are way cool.

[triron]

41. Did you implement the animation?

[uponit7771]

43. no

[stopdiggin]

11. and nobody (outside perhaps a delusional Trump) is saying they didn't suppress

the cat fight here on DU involves whether actual votes (once cast) were manipulated. We're still waiting for authoritative evidence. (not inference .. evidence) Or at least some of us are.

[Cetacea]

15. Do you know whether or not Cambridge Analytica is still under FBI probe?

I know they've gone out of business in name.

[SouthernProgressive]

18. I don't think so tho their some related material is still in the courts.

Facebook was just hit with a 5 billion dollar fine over their relationship with CA.

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ftc-record-penalty-mark-zuckerberg-2019-5

*Please note my use of the word "think" in the subject line.

[triron]

28. I wonder why congress is not calling witnesses from CA. Seems like an obvious thing to do.

[Ligyron]

38. Didn't they have that guy with the bone thru his nose?

Had purple hair or some shit?

[triron]

39. Chris Wylie?

Not recently at least. He has testified before the British Parliament.

[Ligyron]

44. Oh, that's right.

I knew it was some Gov panel nterviewing him, forgot it was a more civilized one, lol.

[triron]

45. Our congress is fucked by the DOJ (Barr), Trump et al, and traitor repukes.

I am pretty ignorant of British politics.

[Cetacea]

46. Just remembered that names cannot be divulged to public if those persons were not indicted

Hopefully the committees will have that info soon.

[bluestarone]

4. Not saying they are wrong BUT

How the hell do they know? I've heard of NO INVESTIGATION in ANY State about the 2016 election! We really have no idea of HOW they did it, so again how do we know for sure? That's my thoughts! Something better happen BEFORE 2020 or we could be in big trouble, because BARR will STOP all investigations after they supposedly win!

[watoos]

12. You got it,

Ask the people who say they have found no evidence that votes were flipped to produce just one voting machine that was pulled out and checked. The owners of the machines won't allow their machines to be inspected, they claim proprietary rights for their software.

[bluestarone]

21. If (I've not heard that they refuse access to machines or software)

Something has to be done! Somehow subpoena some of these owners. Democratic states could start the process maybe, and go from there. WE HAVE TO KNOW FOR SURE! Before 2020.

[Cetacea]

47. Those same rights prevented EPA from finding what out what was in BP's dispersant

More power to corporations!

[triron]

29. What happened in North Carolina in 2018 may be more widespread.

Just that the perpetrators got away with it.

Also remember how DU went down so mysteriously on election eve in 2016?
That was no coincidence.

[Baltimike]

5. knr

[delisen]

8. I doubt the statement,

[Hoyt]

27. Just like elections in 50s/60s, people were always blaming lost/miscounted paper ballots.

We are vulnerable with today’s systems. But things are being done, and hopefully more will be done.

Vote MFers, Vote.

[triron]

30. We'll see how you feel about voting when it happens again 2020.

[Hoyt]

33. Well, it didn't happen in 2008, 2012, special elections in 2017, mid-terms 2018.

I prefer not to give people another reason to sit home, or worse.

GOTV, we Win!!!

[triron]

36. Trump wasn't running. But I will still vote.

Hopefully the votes for democrats will be too overwhelming.

[Cetacea]

48. We need at least enhanced vigilance in key battleground states

I was always a bit suspicious about trump winning those states. They fell within one percentage point and we've recently learned that Manafort shared internal polling with Moscow specifically with those states.
GOTV is essential.

[madamesilverspurs]

31. You don't have to "change votes".

You just need something to happen between the ballot box and the scoreboard.

Remember the quote attributed to Stalin: It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”


.

[triron]

34. Exactly. Stalin had it right this time.

[Cetacea]

49. And that quote was repeated to a reporter before the Kerry loss by Peter King,(R-NY)

The problems in decider Ohio were well documented.

[UniteFightBack]

32. This is actually the whole objective of the Russians. To CREATE distrust in our institutions. To

create distrust in our elections. I for one will not feed into it.

[triron]

37. Disagree. It was to install a puppet (i.e. Trump). Priority 1.

[triron]

40. knr

[Baltimike]

42. kick

[triron]

50. Setting this one on fire.

[Turbineguy]

51. You don't need to change the votes

when you've already changed the voters.

Those who voted for trump need to ask themselves if they actually thought he'd do a good job as President or were merely useful idiots.

Of course there are those who were just buying the guy. They don't qualify as useful idiots.

[watoos]

52. So the programmer who

Was headed to testify in court how he programmed machines, had his small plane crash and burn on his way to testify was just a coincidence?

That was when Bush beat Kerry.