Auditing Elections for Signs of Hacking

Excellent essay pointing out that election security is a national security issue, and that we need to perform random ballot audits on every future election:

The good news is that we know how to solve this problem. We need to audit computers by manually examining randomly selected paper ballots and comparing the results to machine results. Audits require a voter-verified paper ballot, which the voter inspects to confirm that his or her selections have been correctly and indelibly recorded. Since 2003, an active community of academics, lawyers, election officials and activists has urged states to adopt paper ballots and robust audit procedures. This campaign has had significant, but slow, success. As of now, about three quarters of U.S. voters vote on paper ballots. Twenty-six states do some type of manual audit, but none of their procedures are adequate. Auditing methods have recently been devised that are much more efficient than those used in any state. It is important that audits be performed on every contest in every election, so that citizens do not have to request manual recounts to feel confident about election results. With high-quality audits, it is very unlikely that election fraud will go undetected whether perpetrated by another country or a political party.

Another essay along similar lines.

Related: there is some information about Russian political hacking this election cycle that is classified. My guess is that it has nothing to do with hacking the voting machines -- the NSA was on high alert for anything, and I have it on good authority that they found nothing -- but something related to either the political-organization hacking, the propaganda machines, or something else before Election Day.

Posted on December 2, 2016 at 6:39 AM • 206 Comments

Comments

Michael PooleDecember 2, 2016 7:16 AM

There are four major attack surfaces for election integrity: Admission of eligible voters, the collection of ballots from voters, the counting of ballots, and public belief that the overall process is accurate.

This essay only addresses the second of these, and some of the third. It ignores allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots, keeping eligible voters from casting ballots, "finding" (and including) ballots that were not cast by actual voters, and propaganda attacks on the election process. We must not obsess about some of the attack surfaces to the neglect of others.

We have all seen serious, well-documented, reports of votes being cast by dead, non-existent, or ineligible voters; threats against voters near or at polling places; fliers that tell voters their party votes on the wrong day or at the wrong place; and so forth.

More than one election has been decided during recounts by the discovery of boxes of ballots days or weeks after the election itself. The chain of custody for those ballots was often poorly controlled.

Voter-verified paper ballots address only one part of the problem, and while it is an important part, the attacks on electronic machines seem calculated to reduce public confidence rather than actually improve election security.

steveDecember 2, 2016 7:55 AM

When America is starting wars in other countries to bring them democracy and save them from oppressive tyranny, a demonstrably secure American election is a *global* necessity.

Deb InfosecDecember 2, 2016 8:07 AM

My issue is ok yes we need to secure the election and audit the election, but let's start with physical security of the votes. We need identification and authentication including the physical security of picture IDs. I seriously take issue with the fact that in NC all I have to do is say my name and address. There is no check with a picture ID of who I am. I take issue with IT Security experts neglecting basic security measures such as I&A and physical security measures for voter Identification. The internet is not new. Somehow this wasn't an issue 8 years ago. There has been no evidence that the election was hacked. Just two weeks before the election we knew real time about the massive DDoS attack that occurred. Somehow NSA and the IT Security community saw nothing while Russia simultaneously hacked multiple states to affect the election. In fact I heard the NSA was on high alert for signs of hacking on election day.

LeonDecember 2, 2016 8:24 AM

I voted this year using a paper ballot which I then fed into a optical scanning machine. I like this voting method except for the fact I have no idea how the machine recorded my vote.

I agree that such machines should print out a paper receipt for voters once the their ballot is scanned that shows exactly how their vote was recorded by the scanner.

MarkDecember 2, 2016 8:35 AM

In response to comments from Deb, YES....if you want all voters to have Government issued ID cards, sure, i'm all for it. However, you cannot force people to pay for these ID's. That is a Poll Tax and disenfranchisement of poor people, stripping them of their right to vote. We have a Drivers License, use that. If you don't have a DL, there should be another form of legal Government ID that can be freely given. $20 for an ID is a lot of money to people that have next to nothing.

QDecember 2, 2016 8:45 AM

@Michael Poole -- I don't disagree with your overall point that there are other issues besides the narrow ones of voting machine integrity.
But I'm sust wondering what your well-documented reports of votes being cast by non-existent/ineligible voters are (excluding voters who honestly thought they were eligible and similar mistakes)? It's an allegation that's been repeated endlessly by some groups (in order to justify policies that exclude eligible voters), but there's no real evidence that this is a significant issue.

By repeating it as fact, you're coming dangerously close to contributing yourself to a propaganda attack on the voting process.

parabarbarianDecember 2, 2016 9:06 AM

If I was to hack the voting machines I would certainly be sure any paper receipt will reflect what the voter entered no matter where I assign the vote.

joeDecember 2, 2016 9:16 AM

Can you simply sample a selection of ballots from a precinct? It seems to me that you can have two sets of ballots: one completely fabricated and one based on absolute votes cast. Any audit of a sample can be against the latter, but what actually gets passed upstream is the falsified set. I would think you have to select whole precincts at random to audit.

Andrew GDecember 2, 2016 9:19 AM

Everything I've seen in the media the last 20 years indicates voter fraud isn't a real problem in the United States. For example: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf

If, as Michael Poole says, there do exist "serious, well-documented, reports of votes being cast by dead, non-existent, or ineligible voters" in the US in the last 50 years, I certainly haven't seen them. If such a serious, well documented report exists, it slipped past major news organizations, university political science departments, the EFF legal team, and me. I would ask anyone to provide a reference to it. It would really help inform the discussion.

Requiring photo ID sounds reasonable but all evidence says current measures are sufficient to prevent voter fraud (and Federal courts have repeatedly struck down poorly-implemented voter ID laws as discriminatory against the poor, elderly, and disabled). We should make policy decisions of how to verify voter eligibility based on evidence and analysis, not on myths that "everybody knows."

hoodathunkitDecember 2, 2016 10:24 AM

Although I agree all elections need confirmation and certification of accuracy, the article you cite is terrible. They claim (and you underline) "Auditing methods have recently been devised that are much more efficient than those used in any state." If you actually read the report and its results, their 'accuracy' can be ± 3%, an unacceptable margin for any audit. Who would accept a bank or credit card statement that is that far off? What bank or business would?

The problem has many facets, but at its core is the fact that neither political party has ever wanted accurate elections. From the issue of who is qualified to vote, how authorized voters are identified, how ballots are issued, stored, counted, and preserved. The powers-that-be like the status quo, even if the voters do not.

Complicating this is an apparent infatuation with technology, ignorance of the election processes and laws, and the drive for absentee, mail, and early voting. Coupled with lack of sanctions or legal force for frivolous lawsuits and recount demands it shouldn't surprise anyone when partisans make a mess of the system.

At the risk of being labeled 'unamerican', look at Taiwan for a process that is efficient, fast, accurate, and user friendly. It is 100% paper and the national tally is completed within hours.

adampmDecember 2, 2016 10:43 AM

With all the other things a valid photo id is required for not having it a requirement for voting seems logical. A photo ID is pretty much a necessity to live in current America. It's a minimal barrier to meet. (You need a photo id to cash a check, write a check, get a bank account or a even a job, buy alcohol, or buy cigarettes).

Douglas KnightDecember 2, 2016 11:00 AM

Andrew, you switched from 20 years in your first paragraph to 50 years in your second. There is a big difference.

The 1982 Illinois elections have very well-documented fraud in Chicago. There were 30,000 double votes and 3,000 dead voters. It is claimed but harder to document that counting fraud was twice as big as voter fraud. Together that is 100,000 fraudulent votes, 10% of the Chicago count.

hoodathunkitDecember 2, 2016 11:11 AM

@ Q ". . . but there's no real evidence that this is a significant issue."

Significant? 'Any' is significant to me, just like any theft is significant. If no one is checking IDs, how can any reasonable person not believe it's happening? I'd bet if Schneier proposed no-ID requirement for gun purchases you'd crap yourself posting here. How about no ID for bank withdrawals? After all, there wouldn't be significant problems. Jeez!

And in Lake County, home to the long-depressed steel town of Gary, the bipartisan Elections Board has stopped processing a stack of about 5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony. --CNN

Jim Van ZandtDecember 2, 2016 11:22 AM

I endorse the call for audits, but I'm skeptical about the "randomly selected paper ballots" part. The machine could be programmed to display any statement about particular ballots, but still report inaccurate total counts. I think entire precincts have to be audited.

Jim Van ZandtDecember 2, 2016 11:37 AM

I've now read the Lindeman-Stark paper, and it has changed my mind. Their random sampling method looks valid.

ДѠѬDecember 2, 2016 12:15 PM

Right, because the Russians care which gerontocratic figurehead CIA props up. CIA already assigned Trump's ventriloquist, K.T. McFarland from the Jamestown Foundation. Yeah, Putin's really got Trump's skin on the wall, yessirree.

In actuality Russia knows perfectly well that the wheels will turn and grind and extrude CIA policy regardless of who you vote in, like always.

We can sympathize with Bruce's cynical use of corny old-time Red baiting to drum up IT business. Problem is there aren't enough dopes here to swallow it. This handwaving bullshit is fine for NPR/NYT lemmings. People with rigorous habits of mind will want more. Engdahl, for instance, sees what's happening: contentious evolution of failed CIA strategies, resisted by old dogs who can only do McCarthyite tricks.

http://anotherdayintheempire.com/dangerous-deception-called-trump-presidency/

The problem is not your voting machines, the problem is your shitty fake forced-choice democracy where you can have your shit sandwich your way.

Full disclosure: The author of this comment is actually a typical patriotic idiot who believes everything that CIA bullshitters tell me and I only wrote this because Anna Chapman bonked me in like 8 different tantric contortionist positions.

David LeppikDecember 2, 2016 12:19 PM

@adampm:

The activities you list may be important in your life, but less so for a citizen who is living in a nursing home. And they aren't as required as you might think. I write checks all the time, and can't think of the last time I needed an ID. If you live in a city and go to retail chains, they card you for alcohol and cigarettes, but what about small towns where every retail worker knew you when they were kids? Plus there are many kinds of informal jobs (handyman, etc.) where nobody asks for an ID.

So yes, there are plenty of US citizens who have every right to vote but can get by without a photo ID. Maybe not enough to swing an election (though that may happen soon with the aging population.)

America is diverse. In big cities, lots of people live their whole lives without a driver's license. In other places, many people aren't even aware that they can get a photo ID that isn't a driver's license. There are small towns and reservations where you have to drive for over an hour to get a photo ID.

Then there are the people who have a right to vote in their local elections even though they have no official residence. In fact, the issues you bring up are among the reasons why it's so hard for homeless people to get a job, save money, and stop being homeless. Living a "normal" life involves lots of circular dependencies that aren't difficult until suddenly they are.

Unlike getting a beer, a smoke, a bank account, or even a job, voting is a fundamental right for citizens.

David LeppikDecember 2, 2016 12:22 PM

Whenever you mention random audits, just as in encryption, you need to be careful about the source of randomness. I wouldn't trust a computer or a partisan official to make the random selection.

AnuraDecember 2, 2016 12:34 PM

@ДѠѬ

It has more to do with economics than anything else. Russia wants to weaken the West's global economic position, and they do this by pushing nationalism and anti-globalization so that Russia can expand its market power. That Trump is a supporter of murdering innocent people if they have any sort of familial connections to terrorists is just a plus, as it reduces the possibility of consequences for the genocide in Aleppo.

Ross SniderDecember 2, 2016 1:32 PM

@Bruce Schneier

Do you believe that the United States is exceptional, in the sense that it should be allowed to interfere with elections and political systems abroad, whereas other countries should not and where the United States should not itself be a target?

Similarly, do you believe that the United States is and should be exceptional in the sense that it should be allowed to mass globally propagandize, but other countries should not, and the United States should not itself be a target?

There are many nationalists in America who seem to think so. Half of what I read from you implies you agree and the other half does not.

The reason I think it's pertinent to the conversation is that the answer to this question directly implied different strategies and policy directions for the future.

Those believing the US are not exceptional will try to find a basis to build treaties, international laws, credible institutions for enforcement, and international norms - and will align US behavior to underwrite, encourage, follow, magnify and illustrate the useful application of a rules-based international order.

Those believing the United States ARE exceptional will have to punish and crush dissenting voices using an array of hard and soft might/power, risking escalation to war. The management of this strategy will be difficult but today may be well timed because of the US's unique military advantages over competitors.

mozDecember 2, 2016 2:18 PM

So, it seems Trump feels threatened by the audits and is trying to stop them. I guess he <blink>must</blink> have something to hide.

Just as a point of comparison, I believe that recounts are automatic in most democracies if the vote is closer than a certain number and nobody worries because they rarely change the outcome. Normally this is made faster because the votes are sorted into bundles as they are counted, so it's possible to do a fast bundle recount of a local area in a few tens of minutes. Of course this can also cause changes occasionally.

The advantage of triggering recounts automatically is that, if Trump did lose these recounts, he could reasonably claim that states that went close the other way should be recounted too, rather than just the close Hillary losses, however it will be too late for a recount in most states by then.

AndreyDecember 2, 2016 2:24 PM

This can certainly be explained by incompetence, but the auto-dialer Hillary's get-out-the-vote efforts were using as well as the numbers being provided by the less automated system were both horribly broken. I was calling uncontested states like Texas instead of battleground states several times in the few days I volunteered.

AnuraDecember 2, 2016 2:49 PM

@Andrey

This is at least in part due to people ditching landlines. They move to other states, but keep their phone number and the team doesn't get the updated address on their mailing list. Also, area code is no longer reliable if they don't have your address.

TedDecember 2, 2016 2:54 PM

On September 28th, 2016, the House Subcommittee on Information Technology held a hearing titled “Cybersecurity: Ensuring the Integrity of the Ballot Box.”

Ranking Members Elijah Cummings and Robin Kelly provided opening statements for the hearing, calling for a discussion on the risks that cyber threats pose to election integrity. Witnesses to the hearing represented members from the Department of Homeland Security, the US Election Assistance Commission, the State of Georgia, Princeton University, and New York University School of Law. Ranking member and witness statements are available here:

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/subcommittee-on-it-hearing-cybersecurity-ensuring-the-integrity-of-the-ballot

Each of these participants advocated for ballot audits:

Commissioner Thomas Hicks, Chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, writes about the difference between an audit and a recount, and discusses the key layers of an election that allow for monitoring and auditing.

Dr. Andrew W. Appel, Professor of Computer Science at Princeton University, discusses paper ballots and auditing methodology, and shares a list created by the Election Verification Network titled “Ten things election officials can do to help secure and inspire confidence in this fall’s elections” that prescribes significant auditing provisions.

Mr. Lawrence Norden, Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at New York University School of Law, further promotes paper ballots and post-election audits, as well as the purchase of voting machines that are auditable according to the standards of the Auditability Working Group.

ДѠѬDecember 2, 2016 3:47 PM

@Anura, weaken the West's global economic system? When I listen to what their President says he wants, he doesn't seem to show any interest in weakening the West's global economic system. If I didn't know better from all the top secret anonymous sources in US state-sanctioned news, I'd think they just want the US to leave them alone.

http://thesaker.is/presidential-address-to-the-federal-assembly-december-1st-2016/

What evidence led you to conclude that Russia wants to weaken the West's global economic system?

I am also unfamiliar with the genocide you mention. Have you compared the situation in Aleppo with the definition of genocide in Article II of the 1948 convention? On which of the eight sources used by OHCHR compilations do you base your characterization of genocide? Are your sources in conformity with the HRDAG rules? Because the facts I have seen support war crimes but not genocide.

PeteDecember 2, 2016 8:43 PM

"What evidence led you to conclude that Russia wants to weaken the West's global economic system? "

They are filthy soviet-ruski commies, that'a what evidence .
Just see how they are strangling Europe every winter with their freezing Siberian-gulag weather-war - All so they can extort Euro-money for natural gas ..


Better all watch your backs, the stalinists are coming to get you with their marxist propaganda !!

ab praeceptisDecember 2, 2016 9:03 PM

Pete

Plus, don't you forget that them Russkies heinously move their evil country ever closer towards the good and peaceful nato troups in europe!

But them evil Russkies have no chance against the lighthouse of democracy with their f-22 (except the stealth wears off when flying, but that's just a detail), their f-35 (except certain technical issues but that's just a detail), their zumwalt destroyers (except ammo being somewhat expensive and the ship not working but that's just a detail), and their super-superior new lcs (which reliable fail but that's just a detail).

No chance I say. The Russkies Kalibr cruise missiles, for example are worthless rusty crap (except they work fine and hit their targets but that's just a detail), or the rusty Su-30 and Su-35 (except they work fine and reliably but that's just a detail), or their rusty "black hole" submarines (except they work fine but that's just a detail).

But one thing I must confess: I'm still a little bewildered and wondering how them always-drunk Russkies with their rusted sowjet KGB komputrs could hack the us-american election. They must have a mole inside. I'd think it might be comey but he's too ugly.

Those russkie devils!

VDecember 3, 2016 12:17 AM

I'm pleased to report that my state had an actual election about adding a voter ID requirement to the state constitution ... and it failed.

If you are paranoid about people voting twice in an election require voters to dip a thumb in ink. Sure, you might vote in a municipal election that's not the one where you reside, but if you feel strongly enough about that election maybe that's where your vote rightfully belongs.

Ex felons voting are just fine with me. If you've served a jail term and have been released you should be a regular citizen once again.

Voter ID requirements exist for one reason only: to reduce the percentage of poor people who can vote.

JFDecember 3, 2016 7:21 AM

Bruce: "My guess is that it has nothing to do with hacking the voting machines -- "..... "-- but something related to either the political-organization hacking, the propaganda machines, or something else before Election Day."

I would agree with that assessment. Selective release of hacked emails and paid foreign troll armies injecting their "talking points" into news comments sections and on social media, creating buzz for Trump, both early and late, is what I suspect.

Yes, the US intelligence agencies should reveal to the the public what it knows.

BSODMakoDecember 3, 2016 12:22 PM

Since I am a non-voting centrist Libra rabbit that is actually trying to follow the Pirate Party, I thought I should throw in my 2 cents.

How does one come across such a lame document that looks like it could be forged, and gets in the hands of somebody in California? People have the money and time to capture such documents?

Why would Russians 'have to hack the election? The &*#@^%#**@& is already hacked and co-opted with an electoral college. Whoever wins, doesn't change Russia's mission. Putin is probably laughing at this idea. We are still pushing to not send astronauts to the ISS in their beer cans, and I do not care if EMC is doing business with them. It looks like the press pre-emptively tried to load our brains with more disinformation.

Pointing fingers at a third-party? I thought Hillary was a Manchurian candidate until I got my premium hike in the mail... 54%. People didn't vote for Trump, they voted against the Dems because the working class got burned. Don't think in binary terms of partisan politics. Osamacare prevents Wallstreet from having to pay for their cheap labor policy. That benefits everybody at the top who believes 200 more dollars a month is nothing.

It was the worst election yet, people cutting wrists, feeling obligated. I don't. If you believe in systems analysis, think like this: let it break. Stupid politicians expose everything in time. The lies are stacked. I'm not looking for someone to follow.

JeffDecember 3, 2016 12:27 PM

@Leon, @parabarbarian: You misunderstand the law. Voter receipts, if given, do not and can not include the vote itself. This would facilitate voter fraud via the selling of votes. For the same reason, it is illegal in about 20 states to take a photo of your completed ballot.

CounterpointDecember 3, 2016 12:47 PM

re voter fraud.

Perhaps I am naive, but voter fraud seems untenably inefficient. You have to get a large list of registered voters who are not going to vote themselves, and you have to gather a group of people to go in and vote in their place. This means you need a large visible organization (the fake voters, and the logistical support to move them to the polling places), which means there are many points to be discovered. Additionally, if any of your list actually decides to vote themselves, it will be noted that there is something up.

Now, you could do absentee voting, which makes the number of fake voters smaller, but then you need to request from different (computers|addresses) and return them from different post offices, and you have to consider that absentee votes are often not counted unless the in-person vote is close enough that the absentee votes might alter the result.

So how can voter fraud be a big concern? Why is a photo ID necessary if you are on the rolls?


AndyDecember 3, 2016 3:12 PM

Reading fooled by randomness life and markets, numbers in the lower region's 1-5 are more likely widget than numbers from 6-9

BSODMakoDecember 3, 2016 3:59 PM

@Counterpoint
I beg to differ. When I lived in Massachusetts, I walked in to my townhall, signed my name on a list of citizens that lived in the voting region, voted on a punchcard thingy, and watched it get fed into a machine. I asked the police officer or deputy if he needed my DL, and they didn't ask for anything. I could have waited to the last minute and arbitrarily signed in an empty slot of the same sex. That was for the first Obama term. Fraud is very do-able without ID check, as an example. In Texas, people complained, but people have no fewer than 5 forms of ID you can use. The argument against that is specifically to make allowance for people too stupid to figure out an ID, and that is all. And for the elderly, when your time is come, look to the sky, not the ballot.

@Andy
I don't know what that means, but I like it. Just remember to ref the struct in your method signature or it doubles on the stack memory.

ДѠѬDecember 3, 2016 6:08 PM

For example. JF above has all the hallmarks of a US war propaganda bot. The modeling of unsubstantiated personal opinion is their trademark. Note what this one is trying to slip into your rearbrain: the adjective 'selective,' implying that this

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

lacks context, when any educated observer can see it's a historic mother lode for study of the inner workings of the US kleptocracy.

Also, JF falls in with the cheap trick of coordinated braying, 'release the facts!' CIA has no evidence to implicate Russia. They're just misusing classification, as always, to deceptively imply that they know something you don't.

The NCS knuckledraggers failed to install their senile figurehead Hillary and now they might have to stop their cowardly illegal sneak attacks on Russia. This limp and flaccid Red Scare is all they've got left, their whiny tantrum. They reallly need a war. The CIA torture cowards are about to be declared hostis humani generis. Universal jurisdiction. No statute of limitations.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/afghanistan

They don't wanna fight em, they just want real men to tie em up so they can beat em up in safety. Sabrina DeSousa is going to sing like a canary, and Italian courts are going to roll CIA up like any other chickenshit mafia. Pussy coward CIA scum. We're gonna watch you timmies beg and cry in the dock.

MotorVotorDecember 3, 2016 7:49 PM

@adampm

>With all the other things a valid photo id is required for not having it a requirement >for voting seems logical. A photo ID is pretty much a necessity to live in current >America. It's a minimal barrier to meet.

Sure. As long as the photo ID's are only given to legal citizens. California and a dozen other states give illegal aliens driver's licenses. So, in those states, a driver's license is certainly NOT proof of eligibility to vote. An ID by itself is meaningless unless it is tied to *citizenship.*

And, besides, the Democrats would never go for this. They want illegals to continue voting -- it's the only chance they have in a national election.

AndyDecember 3, 2016 9:32 PM

@BsodMako
It was saying tax fraud investigation teams know numbers are less likely to be real numbers if they are in the range 6,9,
If you want to fake a number you are more likely to uses that range., not random, lower more probability range.

Widget was autocorrected from ligit

Clive RobinsonDecember 4, 2016 3:14 AM

@ ДѠѬ,

CIA war propaganda against Russia is osmotically instilled in your brains

Funny you should say that. On reading comments in this blog, when you remove the obvious agenda types; you find that those that remain are calling all sides positions as bogus.

The reasons they give are,

  1. No testable evidence.
  2. No circumstantial evidence.
  3. Clear OMG credulity from reporting MSM etc.
  4. Clear agenda from primary accusors DNC etc.
  5. Clear agenda from administration Federal agencies.
    ...

But clearly the more thoughtful commentors appear to know the difficulty of proving attribution, as a recent discussion on the reliability of "Methods and Sources" and potential "False Flag" operations show.

Importantly with a conventional crime it's generaly possible to see a clear "for gain" motive thus the old "Follow the Money" investigative methodology will give up the likely suspects. That is the important point is "cyber-evidence" is actually of little or no worth in an investigation as conventional non "cyber" investigation techniques will suffice to track, identify and convict the culprits.

However with unconventional crime where the gain is indirect thus the intent is that of reputational damage, politically motivated or for propaganda reasons, investigation is rather more difficult. Because often there is no direct or clear "Follow the Money" trail to investigate. Nor are conventional investigators of much use as can be seen by the lack of --non plea bargin-- convictions for the likes of "Insider Trading" etc, except where the perpetrators have been in effect stupid and left sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence (see LIBOR scandal) that conventional investigation techniques will suffice.

You actually see little or no cyber evidence that does not have a direct correspondence with conventional evidence. That is digital photograps are like old style paper based photographs, it's not the storage medium that provides the evidence but the actuall image contents. Likewise with other evidence such as documents and audio / video. Importantly it's the old conventional investigation techniques being used to investigate.

This is because digital evidence is extreamly problematic as it's mostly intangible "information objects" impressed on some storage medium thus copying and manipulation are trivial compared to tangible "physical objects" of conventional evidence. In effect there is no solid ground to build a case upon.

This is because the problem with digital information objects is that they are "just intangible information" and information can be transformed easily in ways that make conventional forensic investigation impossible (think encryption as just one of many). This is because of a lack of the forensic touch stone of "trace evidence".

Trace evidence is the foundation of nearly all --if not all-- forensic science as we know it currently. It was the French forensics pioneer Dr. Edmond Locard, formulated the hypothesis of,

    Every contact leaves a trace.

This is known as "Locard's exchange principle" and comes from the knowledge that when physical objects are brought into contact they exchange small almost but not quite immeasurable parts of themselves. Thus a criminal at the scene of a crime might leave a fingerprint or DNA sample, likewise they take away tiny shards of glass, GSR etc on the criminals clothing etc. Likewise tools leave almost unique marks when used, and minute samples of the material they have been used on become attached to the tool (think metal dust in the teeth of a file etc).

The problem with "information objects" are that they are intangible they lack physical actuality, thus there is no physical trace evidence. Whilst there may be informational trace, the fact that digital information is so easily copied modified and morphed renders such informational traces as little more than fuel for a pissing contest between supposed experts trying to "Make a name therefore a gain." for themselves. Much like the "Publish or die" of academia.

But worse is the fact that the forensic techniques are almost always "Use once only"... To see why look at an example of a UK case a few years ago. The case effectively hung on an audio recording, that supposedly was made at a particular date and time. However it was demonstrated in court that the background "mains hum" in the recording was not from that date and time when compared to the "National Record" of mains frequency variation and correction, therefor the tape was called into question.

Whilst the specifics of what was tested and in what way are unclear, it's now public knowledge that such a method has been given credability in a court. Thus anyone of sufficient technical ability will not only be able to repeate the tests, as the substance of the test is information they will now be capable of removing such a trace from an audio recording and then applying a trace coresponding to a different time and date... Thus the method is in effect a "one shot" forensic technique, as it only works against those who are unaware of it or lack the ability to exploit it.

Thus when it comes to "false flag" operations at government level, they have not just the technical ability, they also have "foreknowledge" of what is forensicaly possible in the way of information trace and therefore can adjust it to make others find the faux trace and thus make the mistake of believing it.

Which brings up the impossibility of "proving a negative", if you can not find evidence of information being modified, it in no way proves that it has not been modified.

Thus those with a knowledge of this are not just highly sceptical of "Cyber-Forensics" but are prepared not to call it "evidence" at all, and rightly so as it's not possible to show it has not been fabricated in some way...

Which brings us back to the notion of crimes are committed "for gain" and the notion of the test for "burden of proof". With tangible physical evidence the bar is set at the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" for good and proper reasons. However with intangible informational evidence the very best you can get is the much much much lower coin toss "balance of probability" used in petty non criminal cases such as minor torts, where the harm of making a wrong toss of the coin is looked on as minimal...

But with the potential for escalation being high, some people think as the lives of their loved ones are involved even the "beyond reasonable doubt" is to low a bar to be aiming for. After all do you realy want to start a kinetic war where civilian casualties and deaths will be high over political posturing with coin flip probability or worse fabricated evidence as the cause?

Perhaps people should ask the loved ones involved with each repatriated body bag from the Iraq conflict befor they decide...

Clive RobinsonDecember 4, 2016 6:04 AM

@ MotorVotor,

An ID by itself is meaningless unless it is tied to *citizenship.*

Define what a "citizen" is other than where they were born?...

That is if someone works pays their taxes and contributes to society, why should the be denied a chance to have a say in the society they live in?

It's the problem with "sound bite politics" used to "vote grab" it all sounds very appealing untill you actually start to think about things from "If that were me, what woukd I want?" perspective.

As many are comming to think, the US exceptional lifestyle is drawing to it's conclusion, jobs and money are fleeing outwards to other havens. It might not be that long before say your grand children become economic migrants to say China, ask yourself how would you like them to be treated?...

My InfoDecember 4, 2016 7:41 AM

@Clive Robinson

Define what a "citizen" is other than where they were born?...

You Brits are sadly mistaken. A citizen is free to move and live somewhere else, or return to his or her native country at will. What you have defined is a serf from the days of serfdom, villeinage, feudalism, and other such bondage under your gracious and gently bred lords and ladies.

Clive RobinsonDecember 4, 2016 9:10 AM

@ My Info,

You Brits are sadly mistaken.

Whilst there are undoubtedly a few who are (see current political encumbrants and their supporters) I would hope that after a couple of thousand years of people putting down roots a sizable chunk of the UK populous would be aware as I am that being a citizen is more a state of mind than other less homogeneous nations. That is if you chose to live here and broadly do what the rest of society does here I would think that you would be entitled to a share of "having a say".

Unfortunatly, recent events appear to have taken a turn for the worse with a rise in both racial discrimination and religeous harasment crimes. Also across the channel it looks like the far right are rapidly gaining in popularity yet again...

Mind you, there are lighter notes, somebody has quite rightly challenged in court the right for our elected representatives to have a say in Brexit if it actually happens. A court decided Parliament is entitled to a vote, yet those self ellected few, decided to challenge this. Thus tommorow the supreme court will hear the appeal. There is however a problem... If they rule infavour of the original court, then there will be a vote, if they rule otherwise, then all they are legally alowed to do is kick it across to the European Court... If they do not the highest judges in the land will have broken the law they have sworn to uphold... In which case those making the original petition to court will have the right to go to that non EU court the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which the current incumbrents loath and despise as they loose rather more than they win when they get dragged there because they've been in to much of a hurry to do things the wrong way...

Oh some politicos also woke up yesterday --having been told repeatedly and finally listened-- to find that they can not just be part of the free market, as they have been telling people... there is a price to pay, and it's quite a hefty one over which the UK has no say, and it's decided not by the UK but those veinal revenge seeking self elected few in the EU...

All jolly good fun, but for the fact increasing numbers are getting angry at how they were lied to by both sides of the Brexit campaign, and as the "Richmond Park" election showed, blood sacrafices are wanted to assuage the beast...

Trump SupporterDecember 4, 2016 9:10 AM

Can I call this whole thing for what it is? A phony attempt by the losers of the election to delegitimate Trump's presidency from the start.

Guess what, Trump is not your average "drama queen" politician and doesn't care about what snobbish so called "security researchers" think about his election. He won the Electoral College -which is how you win presidential elections in the US- decisively, fair and square.

None of the concerns expressed here are new. An certainly they affect blue states as much as red states or swing states. It begs disbelief that these people are so concerned about Wisconsin this year, but in 2004, when the Green Party became again obsessed with the only state that could flip the election -Ohio- Kerry won Wisconsin by a smaller margin than Trump won Wisconsin this year.

And if you are truly, truly, concerned about the integrity of the voting process and potential hacking of voting machines or voting reporting systems, you'd take your fight to the most powerful adversaries capable of operating inside the US borders undetected: the US government's own intelligence agencies, at which point you are no different than Alex Jones with his numerous crazy conspiracy theories.

Pathetic that Bruce is giving these losers a voice to air their imaginary grievances.

ab praeceptisDecember 4, 2016 10:32 AM

Clive Robinson, My Info (and possibly others)

I'm a human being. As such I have certain basic rights that can't be taken away and that every state has to respect and act upon.

Plus - but that's a whole different level - I'm a citizen of a country. Maybe because I happend to be born there, maybe because at least one of my parents had that nationality. The country of which I'm a citizen must respect everything that comes with me being a human being (see above) plus there may be an arrangement beyond that. Things like me needing to serve in the army or having to pay taxes but also having rights beyond the above mentioned.

Voting is not such a right. Voting comes automatically for each and every citizen of a country calling itself democratic. Nor can voting be taken away (e.g. for being in prison).

What possibly *could* be a right re. voting is if a given country decided that non-citizens living there and meeting certain criteria, say living there longer than x years, having paid taxes and not having been criminal, *may* have the right to vote. Such given right evidently could also be taken away if, for instance, I do not meet the criteria anymore.

Another KevinDecember 4, 2016 8:03 PM

Re: receipt showing the vote. NO!

The day that there are receipts showing a voter's choice is the day that my boss will demand to see mine - to make sure that I've voted for the company's slate of candidates. Vote my conscience, lose my job.

The election after that, the corporatist politicians who will have been elected by a landslide in that election will decide that election security demands that they see the votes as well, and be allowed to interview voters and examine their receipts to "make sure that the election was conducted with integrity."

The election after that will be unanimous, because voting the wrong way will be punishable. After all, it's treasonous to oppose the sitting government in time of war!

Trump SupporterDecember 4, 2016 9:17 PM

@ Another Kevin

What I am about to say is based purely on my own anecdotal observations. Excluding people who are admittedly totalitarian (ie, KKK sympathizers, Nazi sympathizers, communists "a la Stalin", etc), the most intolerant people I have interfaced with in my life are left leaning people. With them, your only freedom is to agree with them, otherwise you are a racist, a misogynist, homophobic, etc.

It is not surprising that this recount has been started by a left leaning candidate who has no chance of winning the election and supported by another left leaning candidate -Hillary Clinton- who still cannot get her mind around the fact that a plurality of voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania preferred Trump over her.

I have always had qualms with the Electoral College because I believe it disenfranchises most American voters. And yet, this is a year when I believe the EC did what it is supposed to do by design. If you remove wacko California from the equation, Trump wins by an EC landslide and by roughly 2 million votes in spite of the rest of the union having ultra blue states like Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts or Vermont. California's demographics and politics are completely out of step with the rest of the country so it is only fair that while it has the largest delegation in the EC, it cannot impose its wacky ways on the 280 million people who live outside California.

So I am very happy that we have free elections in which leftists, such as the academics backing this recount, cannot ask for proof that one voted according to what these leftists expected.

RatioDecember 4, 2016 10:26 PM

@Clive Robinson,

[...] if you chose to live here and broadly do what the rest of society does here I would think that you would be entitled to a share of "having a say".

Well, in some countries non-citizens have the right to vote when they've lived in that country (legally, of course) for some number of years.

But "having a say" doesn't end there. How about running for public office? Should non-citizens have that right as well? Is there any right that citizens have that non-citizens should not have?

And on the flip side, should non-citizens have the same obligations as citizens? For example, should non-citizens be required to serve in a country's armed forces if citizens in the same situation are required to serve?

I think the strongest argument (of the ones I've come up with anyway) is the following:

  1. Citizens have both rights and obligations.
  2. Granting non-citizens these rights without the corresponding obligations isn't just.
  3. IANAL nor do I play online, but imposing the same obligations on non-citizens would seem problematic.
  4. Since non-citizens can't have the same obligations as citizens, they can't have the same rights.

The way for non-citizens to have the same rights (and obligations) would be for them to become citizens.

Any thoughts on that?

On the unrelated politics you brought up:

[...] across the channel it looks like the far right are rapidly gaining in popularity yet again...

Is this meant to be taken literally or is it exaggerated for dramatic effect? (Rapidly: where is this rapid rise of the far right occurring? Yet again: when was the last time and what were the others?)

[...] somebody has quite rightly challenged in court the right for our elected representatives to have a say in Brexit if it actually happens.

I don't see how Parliament could stop what's been set in motion. MPs like to get reelected and I'm not seeing a drastically changed mood in the UK...

There is a price to pay, and it's quite a hefty one over which the UK has no say, and it's decided not by the UK but those veinal revenge seeking self elected few in the EU...

How are the heads of {state,government} of the other 27 members self elected?

Also, I'm not aware of any revenge by the EU. What does it consists of?

mozDecember 5, 2016 2:34 AM

@ratio

How are the heads of {state,government} of the other 27 members self elected?

Only the European Parliament is directly elected and EU law very much limits its power. The majority of the leadership of the EU is chosen via voting from the governments of the EU members or even more opaque, less direct systems. This tends to mean that the current leadership of the EU is made up of former leaders of the countries, voted for by the current (or, often former) leadership of those countries. Clive is almost literally right.

The Eurosceptics would be entirely right about the EU being undemocratic, were it not that the reason the current system is in place is because the Eurosceptics themselves blocked moves to more direct democracy within the EU.

@ab praeceptis

Nor can voting be taken away (e.g. for being in prison).

I think you need to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement.

RatioDecember 5, 2016 3:35 AM

moz,

Only the European Parliament is directly elected and EU law very much limits its power. The majority of the leadership of the EU is chosen via voting from the governments of the EU members or even more opaque, less direct systems. This tends to mean that the current leadership of the EU is made up of former leaders of the countries, voted for by the current (or, often former) leadership of those countries. Clive is almost literally right.

You are talking about the European Commission, I assume? (What are those even more opaque, less direct systems you mention and where are they applied?) How is that relevant for Brexit?

It is my understanding that any deal between the UK and the EU after the invocation of Article 50 will be made on behalf of the European Council after a thumbs up from the European Parliament. Finally the Council of the European Union needs to approve.

The members of the European Parliament are directly elected. The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the member nations; their democratic legitimacy is the same at the EU level as it is in their respective countries. The same goes for the members of the Council of the European Union (the Council of Ministers).

Who is self elected in all of this? I fail to see how this characterization is anywhere near right. What am I missing?

The Eurosceptics would be entirely right about the EU being undemocratic, were it not that the reason the current system is in place is because the Eurosceptics themselves blocked moves to more direct democracy within the EU.

I get what you're saying (and I too would favor more direct democracy at the EU level), but calling it undemocratic seems a bit much. It's too facile and black and white. Just take out one level of indirection and you have a system at the EU level that looks like what happens in EU countries at the national level.

RatioDecember 5, 2016 4:01 AM

Just take out one level of indirection and you have a system at the EU level that looks like what happens in EU countries at the national level.

I accidentally left out the words where necessary. For example, there's already direct democracy with regards to MEPs.

Also, somebody really should fix those damn names. (The European Council and the Council of the European Union? Are you kidding me?)

Wesley ParishDecember 5, 2016 4:39 AM

Re: voter fraud and dead people voting

Well, the obvious thing to do, if Kim Dotcom's case is anything to go by - the GCSB's illegal spying on Kim Dotcom and the subsequent legalization of GCSB's spying on New Zealand residents and citizens - is to legalize the dead voting. But not only that, it is to make compulsory the dead voting.

I mean, copyright legislation provides adequate reason - if publishing houses can compulsorily collect moneys on behalf of dead writers, then surely the dead who are so well catered for - much better than the living - also deserve a voice in public matters.

We have a skill shortage looming - the world's democracies need more witch doctors, mediums, necrophiliacs ...

Clive RobinsonDecember 5, 2016 5:24 AM

@ Ratio,

Well, in some countries non-citizens have the right to vote when they've lived in that country (legally, of course) for some number of years.

It's the simple principle of "if you are part of society, you should have a say in society" otherwise you will be subject to all forms of "legal abuse" that can be found in so many places so easily people would be forgiven for feeling "that's just the way it is". Having a say in your society is one of those fundemental measures of what a democracy is. It might have taken a few thousand years to realise that this viewpoint is valid, in part because those with power tend to not play as nicely with those who don't.

However this raises the question of what being part of society is? The Chinese and Russian's amongst others have been accused of exporting their people to other places to alter the voting base. Which is just another form of abuse that US "Democratic-Republican" and vice President Elbridge Thomas Gerry had his name appropriated to back a couple of centuries ago, at a time of some political turmoil due to just the same national expansionist invasion issues. That gave rise to the piric Anglo-American War of 1812, which "status quo ante bellum" nullified the American expansion. And in effect gave rise to a new nation of people (Canada) many of whom would have previously thought themselves US citizens by birth or close relatives.

When you get down to brass tacks on who is and is not a member of society, by far the bulk of it traces back to "rabble rousing" by the "hidden hand" of those with covert agendas to self enrichment. It works because by and large the prior policy of those of the hidden hand, has caused disengagement then disenfranchisment with the bulk of society, and the representatives who for various reasons dug themselves into a hole. Predictably a backlash will happen, the only question is where it will be focused and who will draw the fire.

It's getting more obvious that the West is heading this Way. In the UK we have "buyers remorse" over Brexit, it turns out that something like 65% of voters --if polls are to be belived-- were voting not on leaving the EU but rubbing the neo-con politicos noses in it for the harm they are doing. The US appears to have done something similar with "Trumpism". The EU elite over the weekend saw a glimmer of hope when the Austrian's decided in the rerun elections --due to voting irregularities-- to not have buyers remorse and go for moderate independent Alexander Van der Bellen and not to back what has been seen as "the most fascist of political ideology since WWII" of Norbert Hofer. But it was short lived as the Italian's stuck up two fingers at their political elite, in favour of the comedian in charge of the Five Star Movment (M5S), who the "elite" had tried to smear by making claims that Putin and Co were influancing/helping/etc --I think blaiming the Russians should now be called "Doing a Clinton"-- and the far right Northan League[1].

The broad picture going into the important 2017 European national elections is that the politicos are not getting where the bulk of society is at. Thus the far right and other non traditional candidates/independents are getting votes and support that perhaps they would not if for once the representatives actually listened rather than lectured the public. A friend in Germany has said that the "polls and bookies" are at variance over what is going to happen there. As I've said in the past that it's the bookies not the pollsters who have real skin in the game as unlike the polsters they put their money where there mouth is.

Some are trying to say that the apparent shift in votes to the far right is "not real" but a way for the ordinary voters to get the message across about "to many foreigners" as that's the far right traditional rallying point. They may be supported in that by the Austrian vote, but that could be due to the voters having got the message over in the previous now annulled election and having had the oportunity to go back for a refund on their buyers remorse.

From this it should be clear that citizenship / member of society / voteing rights is without doubt an ill understood issue and is very much a political football for extreamists and others who have covert intent against parts or all of society in general.

Which brings us to your,

1. Citizens have both rights and obligations.

We need to remember what the EU actually recognises as,

    Any person legal or natural

In it's legislation where you might expect "EU citizens" or some such. And importantly that definition actually includes companies under "legal". Which most would be in favour of when looking at the "Obligation" side of the coin. Likewise many would agree that companies should have "rights", but "votes" I suspect very few. Which is actually a problem, because it could be argued that the lack of "voice" via a vote, is a primary cause of lobbying and various forms of influence buying that most would agree should be crimes. But for some reason the legislators / representatives have chosen not to make so and even ignore existing legislation to prevent such influence buying (see "revolving door" / "special advisors" / "Consultants" / "Think Tanks" / "Charities" / "Foundations" / PACs / etc and even the likes of the "Press Barons").

I could go on but it would just get more complex.

Oh with regards,

How are the heads of {state,government} of the other 27 members self elected?

It's not the heads of state that are the problem in the main. However the UK's current Prime Minister was not chosen by the citizens, but by the throat cutting back stabbing of the likes of the 1922 Committee, and Mrs May PM unlike Gordon Brown --the last PM who got the job by party vote only- appears to know that the people would in no way vote for her, thus will not go for a General Election any time soon, or in fact untill forced to buy the usuall election rules.

The problem is in the EU structures and how various people get their positions, and considerable power in ways few would consider democratic, or for that matter acceptable. Which is one of the reasons Brexit happened.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/05/referendum-win-may-lead-nowhere-for-five-star-and-northern-league

AnselmDecember 5, 2016 7:30 AM

@Trump Supporter:

The original idea behind the Electoral College was (among other things) to prevent people like Trump from becoming President even if they might have won the election according to the popular vote. In theory, the electors would be trustworthy and sensible people of great personal integrity who, having been given the job of picking the new president by their state, would recognise that a candidate was unfit for office and decline to vote for that candidate. (Of course, the framers of the Constitution didn't buy the idea of political parties, either, which weren't an actual thing at the time and are not mentioned in the Constitution at all.)

Nowadays, electors are no longer chosen for their wisdom and integrity but for their loyalty to one political party or another. In fact, various states now have laws on the books that force electors to vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state, possibly against their own better judgement. This means that the Electoral College no longer works as intended by the framers of the Constitution. Many Republicans are constitutional literalists but funnily enough that doesn't seem to bother them just now.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 9:34 AM

@Anselm

However unqualified you believe Trump is, "people like Trump" as a disqualifying epithet is in the eye of the beholder. I believe he is going to be the best president we've had since Ronald Reagan. I say this not only because I voted for him but based on the nominations he's made so far to key positions. They are the most brilliant people we have seen in a long time to work in public service.

If you read your history, the real reason for the Electoral College was to assuage Southern, slave owning states that neither New York nor Massachusetts could impose their ways on the nascent nation as a whole.

While obviously everybody is happy that slavery is gone -thanks BTW to the first Republican president-, the same principle of not having wacko states like California imposing their wacko ways to the rest of the nation applies here. As I said, the 280 million non Californians do not share substantially demographics or politics with California.

My real beef is the winner-take-all, which is the real disenfranchising feature of the way electors are picked, but not letting crazy states dominate the nation's politics is definitely a good idea.

ab praeceptisDecember 5, 2016 9:37 AM

moz

My statement was obviously about legitimate and legitimately acting countries with a proper and working legal system. So certain "exceptional" countries are outside the scope.

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 10:07 AM

@Trump Supporter

Is this satire?

If you read your history, the real reason for the Electoral College was to assuage Southern, slave owning states that neither New York nor Massachusetts could impose their ways on the nascent nation as a whole.

Seriously, someone else regurgitated the exact same talking point the other day. You are obviously repeating what your masters told you to say. I'm guessing paid Russian trolls, as no American could really be that ignorant about the constitution.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 11:42 AM

@Anura

It is not satire, it is, what it is. This is a recent Time Magazine article on the topic: http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ .

Liberals might want to console themselves with lies -this thing of inventing imaginary realities is a very liberal thing to do- but the historical record is pretty clear.

As I said, I am in no way, shape and form condoning slavery, but certainly agree with the general principle of preventing wacky states from imposing their nonsense on the rest of the nation.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 11:46 AM

@Anura

BTW, the author of the aforementioned article, Akhil Reed Amar, is a constitutional expert who has been in the watch as possible US Supreme Court justice by liberals. Hardly a "paid Russian troll".

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 12:19 PM

@Trump Supporter

I'll just link you to the same response I gave the previous zombie that parroted the talking point you gave:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/11/hacking_and_the.html#c6739362

And no, I still don't believe you are an American just because you get commonly known aspects of American history wrong (e.g. Lincoln being the first Republican, or thinking that that has any relevance to the Republican party today) tells me you did not receive an education in American history, which you would have if you were an American. So yes, paid Russian troll. I don't believe you have any real knowledge about America, its people, or its history.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 12:50 PM

@Anura

It is what history, as a discipline, has: a bunch of data points into which one can build any narrative one wants without the ability of making falsifiable experiments in the future to test which narrative is the correct one. I stand by mine, so we will have to agree to disagree.

As to you questioning me being an American, I will only say that you are just a sore loser who lives in his own bubble, like the people who initiated and support this recount to nowhere.

The arguments given with Jill Stein or the so called "computer security experts" backing her are nonsense. If we were to accept their logic, we would never know if we are inside The Matrix and somebody has suddenly pressed the wrong bottom.

The end result of this futile effort is clear: Trump will still be inaugurated as the 45th president of the US on January 20th and there will be further erosion in the public trust that so called "security experts" are objective experts and not partisan hacks.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 1:04 PM

@Anura

And one more thing about the public trust. The public trust, like trust in general is something that is hard to build but that it can be lost in a second.

The so called "security experts" who decided to back Jill Stein in her nonsensical efforts will lose credibility when all is said and done.

What should worry those of us who are concerned about hacking and the ability of powerful adversaries to interfere not only with elections but with all aspects of our digital lives -which increasingly dominate our lives- is that next time people like these "security experts" warn about a genuine threat -instead of an imaginary one as in this case- nobody will believe them.

That Bruce decided to give these nuts a platform is beyond me.

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 1:11 PM

@Trump Supporter

You and your ilk were whining about election fraud since the second you thought you were going to lose; hell, Republicans have been whining about it without evidence forever. Also, your posts are purely about identity politics, and you think that the Republican party Lincoln was a member of has anything to do with Republicans today, so if you want to talk about partisan hackery, why don't you look at yourself. The hypocrisy of the Trump supporter knows no bounds.

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 1:17 PM

Hell, Trump was using election fraud as an excuse for why he lost the popular vote (he's an extremely weak and insecure person, and cannot accept anything that damages his ego).

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 1:21 PM

@Anura

Blah, blah, blah.

Remember that thing about extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

As Bruce says in the post "the NSA was on high alert for anything, and I have it on good authority that they found nothing". -as an aside, this is the main reason Bruce should not have provided a platform to the fringes behind this recount.

The notion that Jill Stein and these "security experts" that have no access to the kind of information the NSA has will uncover some massive hacking is quixotic and should be ridiculed. Otherwise our society will remain hostage of every lunatic fringe that comes along.

Already there are efforts in the targeted states to change the laws so that when an election participant requests a recount not only said participant covers the costs in cases like these that fall outside the margin of error, but that the participant will be asked to show that the result after the recount could change in the participant's favor. So far in Wisconsin, the state where the recounts effort are the most advanced, Trump has increased his margin over Clinton by a few dozen votes. And obviously there is zero chance that Jill Stein will emerge a victor in any of the three targeted states.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 1:24 PM

@Anura

"Trump was using election fraud as an excuse for why he lost the popular vote"

You lack a sense of humor. Somebody said that whereas Ronald Reagan was known as the great communicator, Trump will be known as the great shitposter. I will add, and the great "troll".

Peter Thiel famously said that while Trump's critics take him literally, his supporters, like yours truly, take him seriously.

Relax pal. It is going to be a long 8 years unless you learn how to deal with an internet troll in the White House.

ab praeceptisDecember 5, 2016 1:28 PM

Anura

Kindly stop spamming this blog with purely partisan propaganda, whining, hatred and fighting.

Trump won in democratic elections. Even obama recognized so much and even clinton didn't doubt that Trump has won.

If we here want contribute to a better election system and better mechanism and machines then we shouldn't be grossly partisan. And we should focus on the mechanisms and not on the candidates.

ab praeceptisDecember 5, 2016 1:31 PM

Trump Supporter

This is a blog on *security*. Your personal political views and preferences are of no interest here (neither aren't anuras).

Please stop the spamming. Let's instead concentrate on the points that are within the scope of this blog.

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 1:39 PM

@Trump Supporter

So if every single thing that Trump stated he wants to do or will do is a lie, such as building the wall, bringing manufacturing jobs back, and draining the swamp of the establishment, then what exactly is there to support? The person? He has no concern for anyone but himself, and is retaining control of his company - that will end well.

I think the answer is much simpler. Trump supporters live in a right-wing media bubble, and believe stupid things Trump said. You believe whatever right-wing media tells you. Right wing propaganda tells people Hillary ran a pedophilia ring out of a pizza parlor with absolutely no evidence, a delusional right-winger opens fire. Yeah, no, history has shown you people believe whatever you are told word for word.

trsm.mckayDecember 5, 2016 1:42 PM

Voter-id does not stop fraud, it is the fraud! The Republican party (this is not a both-sides do it issue) starts by hyping an almost non-existent problem, than manipulate the types of voter-id accepted so that you disenfranchise more of the types of people who tend to vote against Republicans.

I emphasized 3 points above:

1) In-person voter fraud is almost non-existent in the US. https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud

2) The types of acceptable ID are precisely targeted: gun owners tend to vote Republican, while students don't. That is why states like Texas allow gun permits to be valid ID, while student IDs are not (http://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id/). They also manipulate the process of getting an ID, making harder for people less likely to vote Republican. For example Georgia shuttering DMV offices in predominantly black areas (http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/voter_id_and_drivers_license_o.html)

3) The true results of voter-id are a bit hard to show scientifically, because the impact can occur at several stages: trying to obtain an ID, voter registration, and actual voting (and many studies focus only on the last stage after the voter has been registered). North Carolina voter-id was found by the courts to have almost surgical precision in disenfranchising black voters (http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf).

I understand the "feels right" argument that some people use to justify voter-id laws (including commenters in this thread), but denying people their constitutional rights is too important to rely upon your uneducated gut feelings. Your experience as a car owning person who does not mind spending a few dollars on keeping drivers license current, is very different than a poor elderly person who has been told their copy of birth certificate is not adequate (after they spent hours and a large percentage of several months disposable income in obtaining it). People's problems in getting an acceptable ID are why many of the laws have been struck down or suspended (for example: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/frank_v_walker_-_pi_motion_granted_7.19.pdf).

Here is the put-up or shut-up moment, if you truly believe in-person fraud is an important issue (perhaps as shown by your willingness to evangelize it here), and you are not doing this for partisan advantage, there are some things you could do. First, help make voter registration easy and automatic, there is no good reason (except for partisan advantage) to place barriers in the way of people voting. As soon as someone is born, or becomes a naturalized citizen they should enter the roles (obviously children will need to grow old enough before they can vote). When someone moves, the registrations can easily to the point of automatically update the list; something like the recent Oregon laws.

Second make getting the IDs easy and automatic. This second one is hard, because we have seen some token efforts in existing voter-id laws. But it is too easy for a party to sabotage this, they either underfund the program, or they attack it externally (like closing down DMV offices). It is so difficult to make this work, that this is probably the root reason of why voter-id now is just a fraud. But if by some chance we find a good workable solution and keep it from being sabotaged; that perhaps voter-id can be done with much disenfranchisement. If this that day of rainbows and free ponies ever comes to pass, the current Republican effort to hype in-person voter fraud will mysteriously end because they can no longer benefit from it.

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 1:44 PM

@ab praeceptis

This isn't your website, and you don't make the rules. You don't like it don't read it, but it's not your job to tell people what they can or cannot discuss; that's the job for the moderator(s). If they decide it's off topic or shouldn't be discussed, I'm sure they will let us know, but politics is not new to this site (ever read one of the posts on gun control?), and I think Bruce is smart enough to realize that when he makes posts on the elections, people are going to get into politics.

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 1:54 PM

@r

What you don't think the guy who thinks Egyptian pyramids were grain silos is a good choice for HUD Secretary?

trsm.mckayDecember 5, 2016 2:09 PM

Couple of embarrassing typos in my last paragraph, let me try again with some additional clarifications:

The second method of doing voter-id without disenfranchising voters is to make getting a citizen's ID easy and automatic. This is an extremely hard problem, given where the USA is now (and since, for some good reasons, the USA has rejected a national ID card). Actually many existing voter-id laws include some token measures about getting IDs easier. But even when those measures are actually beneficial (and many of them don't work at all, because the token measures were added to sucker people into thinking it was a reasonable law); it is too easy to sabotage them. Even effective measures helping citizens get an ID can be sabotaged by under-funding the program, and they all can be attacked by external actions (like closing down DMV offices). The difficulty of getting an ID for a partisan subset of people is the root reason of why voter-id now is just a fraud.

But lets say we find a good workable solution, and keep it from being sabotaged; and that no valid voters are disenfranchised. I will confidently predict, that when this day of rainbows and free ponies comes to pass, the current Republican effort to hype in-person voter fraud will mysteriously end because they will no longer benefit from it. If you want advocate for voter-id, show us there is a real problem, that voter ID actually solves that problem, and that US citizens are not being disenfranchised. In short prove that you are not a partisan hack, or being misled by the same, and work on real problems.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 2:28 PM

@ab praeceptis

I am all for keeping the conversation at the technical level, but let's be candid here. If the facts were exactly the same when it comes to the indicators of "potential hacking" except that Hillary Clinton had been the one having 10000, 20000 and 50000 votes advantage over Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania respectively, these so called "security experts" backing Jill Stein's effort wouldn't have given a damn about potential hacking nor we would be talking about a recount in Bruce's blog.

To de-link the concerns expressed by the "experts" from the political ideology held by these experts is disingenuous if not plain delusional.

When it comes to the issue of voting, in every civilized country I am aware of, there is requirement to show a government issued photo ID attesting to the potential voter's legal right to vote before a vote is accepted -ie, a regular driver's license doesn't do the trick. It is only in the United States that making such a requirement is a big deal. One needs to question the motivations of those who defend the exercise of the right to vote without a valid government ID. It's basically those who could benefit from taking to the polls people that don't have a legal right to vote who would make such a bid deal of the photo id requirement. To be candid, it is traditionally the Democrats that have a record of taking illegal voters to the polls (just check the 1960 election; dead people gave JFK the votes he needed in Chicago to win Illinois and therefore the presidency).

So my take on all this goes like the following: liberals believe, as in every area of life, that the only reason anybody would disagree with them is racism, homophobia or something like that. Therefore when they lose an election as decisively as this year, the election result is never legitimate and they will use every single trick of the book to de-legitimize the winner. This is what is basically going on here.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 2:33 PM

@Anura

I didn't hear concerns about exaggerated claims when those of your side heard this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto . Boy, Obama said that oceans would recede under his presidency. The last guy I remember making such claims was Moses.

What there is to like about Trump is what Peter Thiel explains here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 . If you have the time, you should watch the entire thing, both the speech and the ensuing interview.

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 2:43 PM

@Trump Supporter

I didn't hear concerns about exaggerated claims when those of your side heard this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto . Boy, Obama said that oceans would recede under his presidency. The last guy I remember making such claims was Moses.

"Because if we are willing to work for it and fight for it and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick, and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the ocean began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Even your own links don't support you. If this is how much you have to stretch to be able say "both sides do it" - misquoting Obama while simultaneously taking it out of context - then maybe you need to reexamine your position, because it sounds to me like you are trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.

ab praeceptisDecember 5, 2016 2:50 PM

Trump Supporter

While I consider the allegations that the clinton camp has (and quite probably encouraged) millions of illegal votes as credible, I still stick to a) there is a new president(-elect) whose victory is not seriously and credibly disputed by anyone with any clout and b) we here should discuss mechanisms, not politics.

You don't like illegals voting? Then let's constructively and professionally work on better mechanisms.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 3:00 PM

@Anura

Dear, that was just an example. The notion that some politicians lie while others don't is preposterous. And Obama was lying there in the sense, that he knew his Messianic propaganda was just, Messianic propaganda.

You have a better argument in asking why me, not Peter Thiel, preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

Without giving too many details of which you could infer stuff about me, here it goes.

I am neither nor poor nor wealthy. I am also highly educated (PhD degree from a top notch institution in an engineering field that pays reasonably well). I make a living as a so called "knowledge worker" and to a certain degree I have benefited from the increased push towards automation we have seen in the US economy during the last eight years.

And yet, none of that prevents me from seeing that an economy that doubles the public debt every eight years (as the US economy has done under both Bush and Obama) has only one way to go: the Greek way (as in contemporary Greece, not Ancient Greece).

A foreign policy in which we get away from a peaceful Iraq only to have to come back half way a couple of years later to cure a cancer like ISIS is irresponsible. For God's sake, look at the Middle East at the end of the Obama years. It was highly irresponsible for Bush to start the Iraq war, but at least he could claim the Middle East was stable by the end of his tenure. Now ISIS has metastasized throughout the Middle East and has reached Europe.

Speaking of Europe, the Obama mess has created a flux of refugees that has contributed a great deal to the Brexit vote and similar tensions in the continent.

Similarly, I believe that the evidence is in when it comes to NAFTA and similar trade deals: Mexico, India and China have experienced unprecedented economic growth at the expense of the American middle class becoming increasingly poorer. Remember that thing about garbage in, garbage out?

The establishment of both parties has shown that it only cares about one thing: itself and its cronies. They have created an international framework in which companies like Apple have every incentive of the world to manufacture cheap in China, sell expensive in the US and other European countries and assign the revenues of their sales to obscure subsidiaries located in tax havens. In the 1970s it was said that that what was good for General Motors, was good for the US. The political establishment has created a situation in which what is good for Apple, is good for its executives, some of its employees, its shareholders, China, Ireland but not so good for the average American. It is time to change course.

For all these reasons, we needed somebody smart and accomplished untainted by 30 years of sellout politics to make a correction course. That person is Donald Trump. I think the US should consider itself lucky that somebody like Donald Trump was available and willing to take the attacks he took for the love of the US. Other countries are not so lucky.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 3:06 PM

@ab praeceptis

"While I consider the allegations that the clinton camp has (and quite probably encouraged) millions of illegal votes as credible"

OK, then, tell me, why is that the Obama administration has come out forcefully denying those claims http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/white-house-hackers-election-recount-231849 ?

You see what you are doing here, right? Seeding doubt where the people who have most to lose from a Trump presidency and most access to the data - the Obama White House - claim that there is no evidence for the kind of mass hacking alleged by Jill Stein and the clowns supporting her efforts.

As I said, with that logic, we should all take every single conspiracy theory we read in the internet seriously, because "what if it is true"!!!

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 3:07 PM

@ab praeceptis

Thank you for making my point about Trump supporters believing whatever they are told without any evidence whatsoever.

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 3:34 PM

@Trump Supporter

And yet, none of that prevents me from seeing that an economy that doubles the public debt every eight years (as the US economy has done under both Bush and Obama) has only one way to go: the Greek way (as in contemporary Greece, not Ancient Greece).

That's great, because it's not going to happen:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/51xxx/51580-land-figure2b.png

Now your worries should be over.

It was highly irresponsible for Bush to start the Iraq war, but at least he could claim the Middle East was stable by the end of his tenure. Now ISIS has metastasized throughout the Middle East and has reached Europe.

ISIS didn't get started in Iraq, and the plan to withdraw from Iraq was under Bush, not Obama, and was mainly because Iraq didn't agree to keep US forces there. So what is Trump going to do to help stabilize the Middle East? Bomb them and take their oil is the only things he has said.

Similarly, I believe that the evidence is in when it comes to NAFTA and similar trade deals: Mexico, India and China have experienced unprecedented economic growth at the expense of the American middle class becoming increasingly poorer. Remember that thing about garbage in, garbage out?

Developing countries develop faster than developed countries. News at 11. The middle class is dying largely because of Reagan and the Republicans, and Trump is planning on making goods more expensive, reducing real income, while he is against things like minimum wage increases and education. Back in the 50s and 60s when we had pro-worker policy, incomes grew with productivity, and then we started focusing on increasing corporate profits and cutting taxes for the rich, and this is what happened. Hell, Trump benefits from it, and will continue to personally benefit from it. Why would he want to change that?

The establishment of both parties has shown that it only cares about one thing: itself and its cronies. They have created an international framework in which companies like Apple have every incentive of the world to manufacture cheap in China, sell expensive in the US and other European countries and assign the revenues of their sales to obscure subsidiaries located in tax havens. In the 1970s it was said that that what was good for General Motors, was good for the US. The political establishment has created a situation in which what is good for Apple, is good for its executives, some of its employees, its shareholders, China, Ireland but not so good for the average American. It is time to change course.

Apple, the Trump Organization, nearly every single durable goods producing business in the country. Trump benefits from all of that, and has surrounded himself with people who benefit from all of that. You cannot significantly reduce inequality without millionaires and billionaires like Trump and his cabinet taking serious losses.

But either way, US manufacturing output has been growing, not shrinking. It's automation, not trade killing the jobs, and automation only gets better. Trump knows this, but he also knows people like you take him seriously, so it doesn't matter what he says.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 3:48 PM

@Anura

I am not here to argue every minutiae. What I will say is this:

- The CBO projections are just that, projections. They depend on hypotheses about existing law and projected economic activity. They have been wrong in the past (certainly Obama didn't predict he would leave office with 20 trillion dollars of debt), and they can be wrong in the future. I am speaking of the results of the type of thinking embodied by both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush -to name somebody who represents the GOP establishment's thinking.

- It is laughable not to blame Obama for the mess that currently exists in the Middle East. I understand that in the liberal mind, you need to create a fantasy world where your Messiah can do no wrong, but the facts on the ground are pretty stubborn. And you know who, among others, advised Obama not to leave Iraq without a sizable troop presence? You guessed it, Hillary Clinton.

- With respect to the state of affairs when it comes to manufacturing, you are describing the reality as it is and selling it as the inevitable destiny. Guess what, it is not inevitable to have the world economy dominated by these forces. The current legal setup exploited by Apple -and as you say other players- exists because it was designed by incompetent politicians in the pockets of the lobbies that represent Apple and others. Take for example China. It is right now more dependent economically from the US than the other way around because whereas China holds US debt, the US is the largest market for products manufactured in China. If there is something Trump understands -you should read The Art of the Deal- is leverage. When it comes to leverage, the US has more than any other country in the world in the global economy. It is a question of how smart you are using that leverage. Until now, the leaders of the US have been quite stupid with it. That's about to change.

rDecember 5, 2016 3:56 PM

We didn't delegitimize anyone, the USMIC and Russians did.

Where my 'grab life by the ...' comment go?

I repurposed Trump's motto on my wife, I'm happier now - she just cries alot more - but I've compensated by screaming more so it all works out.

The only way to stabilize that nose dive of a death spiral is to double check the logs.

If you would prefer, we don't find evidence of self-determination

evidence of manipulation

evidence of ... nothing I presuppose.

But I'm not the only one presupposing here, am I?

rDecember 5, 2016 4:04 PM

What you have now is a temporarily fully aligned republican party, it's the red pill.

So for the meantime, not only are we going to be seeing opposition and voices from the trumpettes but also from the repugnicans for the mean.

Anura, specifically and I'm wearing thin quickly I surmise but: don't forget that if the musings of FBI support were true then we are likely creating frenemies.

AND, as an aside like Assad this footnote should point out that the comment in the other thread mentions body lice.

Body lice are the worst kind of tramp stamp.

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 4:21 PM

@Trump Supporter

If there is something Trump understands -you should read The Art of the Deal- is leverage.

Trump didn't write The Art of the Deal, and there is no reason to think Trump is a particularly good negotiator.

It is laughable not to blame Obama for the mess that currently exists in the Middle East. I understand that in the liberal mind, you need to create a fantasy world where your Messiah can do no wrong, but the facts on the ground are pretty stubborn. And you know who, among others, advised Obama not to leave Iraq without a sizable troop presence? You guessed it, Hillary Clinton.

You do realize this is the result of decades of both internal and external policies from a variety of countries, from the US, to France, Germany and the UK, to the former Soviet Union and now Russia. You want to know why there are so many terrorists? Because we spend years propping up dictatorships, and when they turn on us we go in, bomb the shit out of the place, and do relatively nothing by comparison in return to help the people, and then we take their oil - policies Trump supports today. Western occupation of the Middle East, followed by decades of meddling to keep our interests, while Republicans pushed (and continue to push) a dependency on oil, and now you have the Nationalists in their respective countries trying to rile up anti-muslim sentiment, which only feeds the terrorism domestically, and validates the message that the West is at war with Islam. Obama was naive that he thought that the people would prevail over the powerful, but to blame him for everything is naive.

Nick PDecember 5, 2016 4:57 PM

@ ab praeceptis

The politics and security engineering are entertwined. It's inevitable. Plus, many considerations like escrow or need for government-proof crypto come directly from political schemes in and around police states.

We can try to minimize it but not eliminate it.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 5:13 PM

@Anura

If you think it is easy, like anybody would do it, to go from where Trump went - heir to a low income rental business- to this http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/ , then be my guest. Talk is easy, delivering results not so much.

As to your attempt to take away from Obama his responsibility for the mess he created, it just doesn't fly. Your justification reads like an op-ed from The Onion. If you truly believe what you said then I must conclude that your delusions are worse than what I originally thought although they would provide a reason why you believe the nonsense put forward by Jill Stein and her "team of experts".

ab praeceptisDecember 5, 2016 5:32 PM

Nick P

Maybe, if anura and accomplices don't devastate this blog too much, we may discuss here again later. Right now I prefer to not dignify their utter loss of civility and their reckless partisan bitching by having discussions between people who actually contribute here (like yourself).

AnuraDecember 5, 2016 5:41 PM

@Trump Supporter

A low income business... Wow, you have no perspective, do you? Fred Trump was rich, loaned his son a million dollars in 1974 , gave him his connections. It's really easy to turn wealth into more wealth, especially with connections; the entire system is set up for it. Trump lost money, however, and had to be bailed out, first by the banks, and then by the taxpayers, and today we have no clue how much he made back.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 6:21 PM

@Anura

Lost in translation? I'll repeat: low income rental business. If you prefer a business that made money out of renting to low income renters. That is what he inherited. There is a zillion businesses like that in the US. You don't hear of many becoming anything like what the Trump Organization is today.

It is clear to me that your experience with the real world of business is zero. Either you are an academic, you work for government or if you work at a private company you are one of those who believe that money grows on trees (or on government grants or on writing lines of code). In the business world, if you don't a build product that creates value for your customers, you won't get customers and you won't have a business.

Anybody can write code -each year our universities produce tens of thousands of very capable engineers. Creating a successful business of the kind we are talking about here is a very different skill from the kind that will give you an A+ in a Operating System class at MIT.

The problem with progressives, in my experience, is that they believe that their skill creates wealth when in fact wealth is created by products that add value to customers. Skillful professionals is just one of the many things required to build a successful product.

Trump Supporter December 5, 2016 8:59 PM

While Jill Stein and the "geniuses" computer security experts provided no evidence for the kind of massive hacking they were alleging, more and more evidence is coming out that the whole thing is a fund raising scam perpetrated by Jill Stein on desperate, gullible left wing voters:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/politics/Little-change-in-Wisconsin-recount-results/42710230

"Six Wisconsin counties have completed recounting ballots in the presidential race and the margin between winner Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has not changed."

http://billypenn.com/2016/12/05/the-philly-recount-is-done-and-it-didnt-help-hillary-much-at-all/

"The great Philadelphia recount has ended, and Hillary Clinton got five more votes than she had in her previous total. "

I wonder if after the whole process is over, these "geniuses" will appeal to the galactic lord Xenu to "clear" the world of these insidious hacked machines.

The main problem that I see with this whole thing, as I have said repeatedly, is that it creates the precedent -unless laws are changed- for fringe political figures to hold the entire nation hostage with recounts by providing no evidence other than "what if Martians have hacked the electoral system".

Clive RobinsonDecember 5, 2016 9:20 PM

@ Nick P,

Your first and last points,

The politics and security engineering are entertwined. It's inevitable.
We can try to minimize it but not eliminate it.

Tell a story by themselves. As we know from the past Bruce dors not like certain subjects discussed on the blog, "party politics" is one.

I think as an outsider to the US it is safe to say that US elections are noticeably tending to get nastier and more contentious. Especialy for President where personal attacks have been to say the least down right unpleasant. Now who this reflects most badly on --of politicos, corporations, MSM, citizens-- is a subject that is sociological / party political not technical in nature, and as you note discussion it is inevitable.

Our host has a number of choices when it comes to dealing with it. He can try to "tell the tide to stop" which as in nature would be a major engineering project. He can just "duck-n-cover" till the storm passes then clear up the mess which is likely to be a Herculean task of Aegean stables size. Or he can try a little of both, by providing a technical solution to the sociological problem, which your last point suggests might be the "politic thing to do"...

Thus I suspect this particular thread as I do a couple of others are sink holes for these types of "sociological" discussions, that "give the children a playroom, for the sake of the rest of the house and it's occupants sanity".

If that is the case, then I'm happy to go along with it as "it keeps the mess in one place" and it's up to individuals if they want to look at the mess or not by entering the room, or staying out. Thus like the Friday squid pages you can have a bit of a free for all in the provided playrooms provided you keep the noise and tempers down (oh and open the vent to let the steam out ;-)

Which brings us back to your other points which like ab praeceptis and others, I would rather discus such as the technical measures of the,

... many considerations like escrow or need for government-proof crypto come directly from political schemes in and around police states.

The only question is where... if @Bruce provides a thread for each actual individual technical subject that's fairly easy. But it disperses what is perhaps the more important collective discussion of why each thread is needed to be discussed in relation --but not including-- the messier "sociological" issues in level ten[1] and upwards of the computing stack.

I'm sure several other people would be interested in trying to do this (sadly though I get the feeling a number have already left).

[1] For those not as "old and jaded" as some on this blog the ISO OSI "seven layer model" like the DoD Arpar TCP/IP model is a restricted view. Thus it has been "informaly" extended, with layer 8 being users, 9 being managment, 10 being local political and 11 being international. Which leaves the question of what to do with the rest of the "computer stack" down to device physics, and how to number them, now we have minus numbers being used for security rings etc...

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 9:36 PM

@Lymbic Disorder

Going low? I am just stating the facts. Jill Stein and the "computer security geniuses" who are backing her nonsense might think very highly of themselves, but people with big egos usually forget that for society to function properly, you need many people of very different skill sets working for the good of the whole.

Organizing elections and ensuring their integrity is the responsibility of entire departments at the state level. Some of the most vigorous push back against the recount efforts came from these officials - the chair of Wisconsin's Elections Commission is a Democrat for instance- because it questions their ability to carry out elections in a fair and transparent manner. The statement coming from the White House had a similar intent: to remind these whiners that the federal government -which has more access to intelligence than any "security researcher" in the world- didn't detect anything during the election season to support the complains raised by the "geniuses".

So guess what, the early results of the recount effort show what these officials have been saying all along: the recounts are not changing in any significant way the results in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania from what were reported on election night and the following days.

So we are led to conclude that either the "geniuses" are incompetent, or that they are so biased by their ideology that are unable to think clearly or -my preference- the whole thing was a scam all along intended to raise money and notoriety for a fringe candidate, Jill Stein.

rDecember 5, 2016 9:39 PM

@Clive,

I'll keep this short,

The incoming guy, harped on our sitting president for 8~ years - and now he demands an apology from the members of a play who singled out someone other than himself.

With all this talk of fake news and damage to our political image I wouldn't find it strange to see freedom of the press erode - doubly post Snowden triply post 911 quadruply 1985. The FBI just won sweeping extra jurisdictional protections and over-involved themselves in the affairs of a presidential cantidate. There are musings of feverish thrill and excitement within the FBI over the direction of our most glorious country. All republicans it seems, including the ones who didn't support the Orange Lord initially have all embraced the idea of painting the walls of the senate red. I can't support someone who I suspect might be the Anti-Christ but w/e if that's what you all want I can deal with it. Freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of speech... I don't see any of these winning out against the incoming admonistration. Conservation is going to be swept under the rug in the name of conservatives... The Four Riders of the apocalypse are going to be attached to underside of what seem to be unrelated bills.

They deflect reasonable safety and curiosity by claiming the other side is stuff their bros.

Now they are claiming to find ulterior motives for wanting to look at just a few of their hands and they want us to keep a straight face?

**** you, come into my house and try to get me not to ask how you pulled out that many hands in your favor.

I triple dog dare you.

rDecember 5, 2016 9:51 PM

@Purporter,

I don't care if dems or reps are offended over being asked to reproduce results, if some dem wants to cry about it I'd say the same thing - let them check that you weren't cheating.

We get told all the time if you've got nothing to hide right?

This is what makes me nervous about the whole thing, we have specifically seen 3-4 things completely flipped around on us this season.

#1 Freedom of the Press - nytimes etc
#2 Freedom of Speech - the cast of Hamilton
#3 The whole "nothing to hide argument"
#4 give me some time I'm sure I can fill this and more in.

I'm not comfortable with this move, hopefully it was just chance - if it was some sort of machined bias nobody should be comfortable with that.

Nobody.

A fluke?
A real authentic win?

The Orange Lord has my best wishes and full cooperation.

rDecember 5, 2016 10:03 PM

@Purporter

The government couldn't keep our clearances secret and you want me to believe that some skid of a democrat can keep a machine that's 20 years old safe for 2+ years at a time?

**** you, show us you're more responsible than that.

People outside of __our__ curious endeavors don't know the first thing about sterilization and isolation techniques.

****, until I came here I didn't realize how dangerous EW truly is.

You think that the people who don't track these pieces of conceptual hart have a chance in hell?

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 10:05 PM

@r

It is not a matter of "being offended" as in "you hurt my feelings" -which BTW is the liberal way of being offended- rather, it is a matter of not understanding how elections are carried out and the logistical effort they entail.

To put things on an imperfect analogy, is like a theoretical physicist pretending to have authoritative knowledge on how to develop a cure for cancer. Is it possible that the best theoretical physicist will know better than the best oncologist how to cure cancer? Sure, like it is possible that there is life on Mars that we haven't detected yet. Likely, well, no.

Your other 4 points are irrelevant red herrings that have no bearing on the question at large.

There is nothing that Americans dislike more than a sore loser who believes to have a God given right to blow up the party for everybody else, specially the winners. The people backing the recount effort are nothing but sore losers of this kind.

rDecember 5, 2016 10:08 PM

@Purporter, _all_

Been camping on this for a week.

Flynn broke rules he thought were stupid. He once told me about a period he spent assigned to a C.I.A. station in Iraq, when he would sometimes sneak out of the compound without the “insane” required approval from C.I.A. headquarters, in Langley, Virginia. He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser

Don't let this pass quietly into the night without letting the dealer know that you think the house is trying to pull a fast one.

WE ALL stand to lose alot.

rDecember 5, 2016 10:31 PM

it is a matter of not understanding how elections are carried out and the logistical effort they entail.

This same argument can and has been purposed for use against the partisan swamp of D.C., so let's label that #4.

Anarchy will always be a popular choice until people start to think about the logistics behind actually removing the benefits of having a sometimes disfunctional government.

rDecember 5, 2016 10:43 PM

Make no mistake,

The issue of external funding _has_not_been_solved_as_of_yet_, the man called McCain a coward.

Campaign Finance Reform has not even came close to being addressed.

Government is not an easy job, I have alot of respect for that but OPM loses our records?

The IRS deletes documents?

Hillary "loses" emails?

Russia "hacks" American Election?

This stuff makes you feel safe? redteam/blueteam/redpill/bluepill?

My eyes are wide open, I had Trump pegged as Hillary Sponsored because I couldn't see as far as the house.

Lo, was I wrong.

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 10:56 PM

@r

"The government couldn't keep our clearances secret and you want me to believe that some skid of a democrat can keep a machine that's 20 years old safe for 2+ years at a time?"

Typical "appeal to arrogance" fallacious reasoning. I am sorry, but the real world needs more people to function than self appointed, arrogant, know-it-all a-holes.

To give you an idea of the "validity" of the nonsensical arguments put forward by Stein and the "geniuses". If somebody were to audit my own ballot, that somebody would see that the section of the ballot that dealt with candidates was blank except for the presidential choice that was marked with a vote for Donald Trump. Was this vote anomalous? Who says so? Further, if that somebody were to correlate that with my voting history, that somebody would notice that I haven't voted for a candidate - at the state, local or national level- in years. Was my vote a "fraudulent vote" or the vote of somebody who had decided to send an F-you to the political system after having avoided it for years. You tell me how many people like me voted for Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania who had not voted for years or who had voted straight Democrat until this year.

The bottom line here is that the mechanism to ensure that the voting happened fairly are very different from preconceived notions of who voted for whom based on demographics, past voting behavior or polling data. That's the beauty of our system. You don't have to justify in front of anyone -certainly not to Jill Stein- why this particular year you voted the way you did. You just vote.

Our election systems are designed so that all stakeholders have a voice both leading to and during election day. Political parties send observers to voting booths and counting sessions to ensure that everything is done according to existing law. The time to mount a legal challenge is election night -when everybody is watching- not many days after because self appointed "experts" have detected patterns of voting that don't match their per-conceived notions of who should have voted for whom.

I don't like sore losers. And I have nothing but contempt for self appointed expert losers who make authoritative sounding statements outside their own area of expertise.

RatioDecember 5, 2016 11:03 PM

@Clive Robinson,

On voting ("having a say") for non-citizens:

It's the simple principle of "if you are part of society, you should have a say in society" [...]. Having a say in your society is one of those fundemental measures of what a democracy is.

You've made this point a couple of times now, using similar phrasing (once, twice), but my questions related to this point remain unanswered. This latest formulation (participation in society) leads me to wonder how you feel about e.g. having a minimal age for voting or about voting rights for those in jail.

In short, it's not clear to me what such a phrase actually means to you. (On one extreme, if a government polls non-citizens about issues, would that do it for you? On the other, do you think that each and every human being present on the day elections are held should automatically have the right to vote merely because of this presence?)

[...] Which is just another form of abuse that US "Democratic-Republican" and vice President Elbridge Thomas Gerry had his name appropriated to back a couple of centuries ago, at a time of some political turmoil due to just the same national expansionist invasion issues. That gave rise to the piric Anglo-American War of 1812, which "status quo ante bellum" nullified the American expansion.

I don't get this. Why go off on a tangent that includes compressing the origins of a war into something the size of a couple of tweets? It's hardly related to the issue and it's guaranteed be simplistic since there's only so much information that'll fit into something of that size. So why do it??

Anyway, there was lots more tangent:

In the UK we have "buyers remorse" over Brexit, it turns out that something like 65% of voters --if polls are to be belived-- were voting not on leaving the EU but rubbing the neo-con politicos noses in it for the harm they are doing.

It's not a left-right thing. It's anti-establishment; it's populism. It's "the outsider against the establishment" and all that.

The US appears to have done something similar with "Trumpism".

Right. See above.

The EU elite over the weekend saw a glimmer of hope when the Austrian's decided in the rerun elections --due to voting irregularities-- to not have buyers remorse and go for moderate independent Alexander Van der Bellen and not to back what has been seen as "the most fascist of political ideology since WWII" of Norbert Hofer.

And why was the second round between Van der Bellen and Hofer? Because the candidates for the SPÖ and ÖVP (the two parties that have practically owned Austrian politics since WWII) came in fourth and fifth in the first round. It's more of the above.

But it was short lived as the Italian's stuck up two fingers at their political elite, in favour of the comedian in charge of the Five Star Movment (M5S) [...] and the far right Northan League[1].

From the article in your footnote: In the face of a resounding defeat of centre-left prime minister Matteo Renzi, Northern League leader Matteo Salvini wrote: “Viva Trump, viva Putin, viva la Le Pen e viva la Lega!” Combine all those and you have viva che cosa? It's not sinistra or destra, that's for sure. It looks like yet more of the above.

Some are trying to say that the apparent shift in votes to the far right is "not real" but a way for the ordinary voters to get the message across about "to many foreigners" as that's the far right traditional rallying point.

And here I was thinking that that was the nationalists' traditional rallying point. They come in different flavors, you know?

... and with that we're apparently back on the topic:

From this it should be clear that citizenship / member of society / voteing rights is without doubt an ill understood issue and is very much a political football for extreamists and others who have covert intent against parts or all of society in general.

What? *blink* I don't even know what that means.

Anyway, on to citizens have both rights and obligations:

We need to remember what the EU actually recognises as,

Any person legal or natural. [...]

In it's legislation where you might expect "EU citizens" or some such.

Such as where? What are you implying? (The rest of that goes off on yet another tangent, on lobbying this time.)

Oh with regards,

How are the heads of {state,government} of the other 27 members self elected?

It's not the heads of state that are the problem in the main. [...] The problem is in the EU structures and how various people get their positions, and considerable power in ways few would consider democratic, or for that matter acceptable. Which is one of the reasons Brexit happened.

Who are these people in the EU and how do they get their positions?

You said earlier that regarding Brexit there is a price to pay, and it's quite a hefty one over which the UK has no say, and it's decided not by the UK but those veinal revenge seeking self elected few in the EU.... Who of the people involved in Brexit on the EU side (as I understand it) are self selected? And what is this revenge you speak of?

rDecember 5, 2016 11:24 PM

You tell me how many people like me voted for Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania who had not voted for years or who had voted straight Democrat until this year.

A whole heck of alot of them if you as me.

Political parties send observers to voting booths and counting sessions to ensure that everything is done according to existing law.

The devices in question in WI and PA don't support counting sessions.

I don't like sore losers. And I have nothing but contempt for self appointed expert losers who make authoritative sounding statements outside their own area of expertise.

So, you just like me don't like random drops huh? What a co-incidence that you value your privacy so.

If somebody were to audit my own ballot,

Are you saying you're butthurt? DO YOU enjoy a whole ballot to yourself?

E.g. Doth thou protest too much?

If somebody were to audit my own ballot, that somebody would see that the section of the ballot that dealt with candidates was blank except for the presidential choice that was marked with a vote for Donald Trump. Was this vote anomalous? Who says so? Further, if that somebody were to correlate that with my voting history, that somebody would notice that I haven't voted for a candidate - at the state, local or national level- in years. Was my vote a "fraudulent vote" or the vote of somebody who had decided to send an F-you to the political system after having avoided it for years. You tell me how many people like me voted for Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania who had not voted for years or who had voted straight Democrat until this year.

I'm not understanding whether that was a singular or bulk statement, anyways...

I would hope that provided the rules given as per the depth of the individuals markings on a ballot that it would count as a vote. If there is a discrepancy then we may have a bigger problem than merely a simple recount.

---

Believe me, I have entertained both sides participating in fraud and even the concept of hack or no hack.

I still want a snapshot of the situation, this is only 3 states if there is anything uncovered expect it to widen to larger arena's than what we are looking at now.

I said when the first whiffs of tampering hit the air that we should disqualify all three cantidates to begin with. Furthermore, if there's a problem paying for this any assistance required by requested states should be offered by the entities that initially purported interference.

NSA, this means you - either post up your data or make like the national guard.

Clive RobinsonDecember 5, 2016 11:38 PM

@ r,

Like you I want to keep it short, as this thread is getting rather rowdy as I suspected it would...

The problem is "party politics" like religion and gun ownership engender strong beliefs and all the problems those cause. Try as we might some people will always go way beyond where polite society asks them to stop.

Your, "With all this talk of fake news and damage..." section should be a reasonable discussion on the ethics and technical merits, however some want to refight past party political wars that are long done and dusted. Hence the problem of keeping the two parts apart.

As others have noted the founding fathers were not particularly in favour of "political parties" for the attendent rowdyness and coruption. A point I hoped someone would pickup on when I mentioned Vice President Elbridge Thomas Gerry, and the party political fixing/coruption he unfortunatly got his name appropriated for (gerrymandering) but they have not. Likewise they missed the parallels with the current war or terror, the then Anglo-American war and the US expansionist problems. I guess the teaching of history in US schools is not what I thought it was. Likewise it appears that they have a desire to be spoon fed answers rather than go look up a little history and do a little reading / thinking... I wonder is there an emoticon for "Keep Off the Grass" as this thread could do with a lot of them ;-)

Trump SupporterDecember 5, 2016 11:40 PM

@r

"I still want a snapshot of the situation, this is only 3 states if there is anything uncovered expect it to widen to larger arena's than what we are looking at now."

Which conveniently happen to be the three states that would need to be flipped to give Hillary Clinton the presidency. Why not audit Nevada, Minnesota and New Hampshire that had similar or smaller margins? Specially New Hampshire since it had the smallest margin in terms of absolute number of votes of the entire night.

It is sometimes said that the cover up is worse than the actual action. In this case, the rationales -aka red herrings- provided to target Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan do not make any sense except if one assumes that the real goal is to de-legitimize the election of Donald Trump. When these "geniuses" are caught in their nonsense, they double down in their nonsense. This increases the suspicions of the majority of the American people who have accepted the result and want to move on.

These people would have my respect if they had been more straight forward: "we are pathetic leftist sore losers who want to have a last chance at winning the election using legal, but subversive, ways". I would say, if you have the money, go for it. Instead they want me to believe pathetic chimeras that are no better than the conspiracy theories I read in Alex Jones' website.

rDecember 5, 2016 11:40 PM

If somebody were to audit my own ballot, that somebody would see that the section of the ballot that dealt with candidates was blank except for the presidential choice that was marked with a vote for Donald Trump. Was this vote anomalous? Who says so? Further, if that somebody were to correlate that with my voting history, that somebody would notice that I haven't voted for a candidate - at the state, local or national level- in years. Was my vote a "fraudulent vote" or the vote of somebody who had decided to send an F-you to the political system after having avoided it for years. You tell me how many people like me voted for Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania who had not voted for years or who had voted straight Democrat until this year.

Are you eluding to a systematic ballot stuffing mechanism or scheme?

Here's to hoping you were referring to yourself.

I would certainly hope that No Such collusion or fraud has been perpetrated, and if, such a scheme had been discovered that efforts were put into place to find and identify the entities involved and that a referendum would be held as to the dilemma.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've discovered someone's hands in the cookie jar.

rDecember 5, 2016 11:46 PM

@Clive,

"Social Studies", are particularly weak in the US. About the only revival of American history we've had in the last 30 years is the "pledge" of allegiance.

My generation played video games with our television, the upcoming generation plays video games with their little brother.

It sucked when I was in 11th grade English in my third grade class and it still sucks now.

rDecember 5, 2016 11:56 PM

@Trump Supporter

Oh, that's what I forgot to include:

I'm even entertaining the risk of introducing malware through the current speculative efforts.

I'm not happy with the position our process has been put in, but randomly timed and randomly sampled audits seem to be the best idea going forward until someone proposes something else or we happen to stumble our way into some sort of infallible.

Personally, I think our soon-to-be Sun-kissed dilemma was brilliant in sexting Taiwan.

Marvelous.

Trump Supporter December 5, 2016 11:57 PM

@r

"Are you eluding to a systematic ballot stuffing mechanism or scheme?"

Don't be silly. What I am saying is that there is no statistical way of detecting "voting fraud" because human beings like me are non predictable free agents who vote however we want at any particular election. Statistical inference has absolutely nothing to say on whether an election is or isn't fraudulent.

As I said, the way the integrity of elections is guaranteed is by giving all interested parties -typically representatives of political parties- transparent access to all the aspects of the voting mechanics including on election day access, if they chose to, to voting booths and counting sessions. Anything else is absolute baloney. This is why state officials have been so outraged with the whole thing. The "geniuses" have been questioning their jobs without any shred of evidence that there has been massive fraud. If there is a short coming in our elections laws is that the threshold for an idiot like Jill Stain to hold the system hostage of their delusions is too low. I hope that reforms ensues that make this type of scam more difficult. For example, nobody who doesn't have a chance of winning, because say finished second on election day, should be able to ask for a recount. Or, if that is too stringent, nobody who doesn't have at least 10% of the vote on election night should be able to do the same, etc.

This recount exercise is nothing but a bad taste joke -in addition to a fund raising scam.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:04 AM

@Don't be silly,

Except we have a omnipresent USM(IC)2 and multiple other government entities and corporations more than both privy and capable of such a "fuck them both, I'm not voting this year" to fill out the blanks.

So again, f*** you drop your pants: I own stock in KY, Rubber Globes and Chore Boy.

Trump SupporterDecember 6, 2016 12:05 AM

@r

"I'm even entertaining the risk of introducing malware through the current speculative efforts."

Precisely because I am not oblivious to the possibility of hacking electronic machines, I am all for exclusive use of paper ballots with dumb optical readers for counting that make hacking next to impossible.

But guess what, Michigan is a state that used exclusively paper ballots. So the premise of the recount effort is already baloney over there. Conveniently, the recount started in Michigan because an Obama appointed federal judge said so. You see? It is impossible to avoid politics on any of the agents involved here.

The real fear that I have with recounts is because they involve necessarily a number of people from interested parties that is lower than the number of people one can mobilize on election night, "interested parties" could manipulate the ballots during the recount when nobody is watching conveniently in favor of the candidate requesting the recount.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:06 AM

I'm also troubled by the ensuing delays of this examination, are we waiting for the marijuana to clear our system or what?

Who's got a spare dongle?

rDecember 6, 2016 12:09 AM

100% agreed with what is going to happen in my state (MI), I still lol at the incoming incumbent asking for computers to speed it up. Makes me think everybody freaking out has a hot stock tip or something, no big deal. But, you can't argue against the point that unfortunately MI will give a nice baseline for the others.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:12 AM

Do you have any idea how many apps on your phone knew EXACTLY when you were voting?

How many knew IF you were voting prior to then?

I want a peek, just a peek.

Trump SupporterDecember 6, 2016 12:13 AM

@r

"Except we have a omnipresent USM(IC)2 ... "

Sorry to break the news to you, but anybody who knows a thing or two about statistics knows that statistical inference requires an underlying model that doesn't change its statistical properties for its predictions to have any value.

Normally the dynamics of elections don't change very much every four years, which allows models developed with the data gathered 4 years ago to have significant predictive power in the current election year. This whole thing breaks down in years like this one: when the underlying dynamics do not match anything the forecasters has seen before. This is not the first time something like this happens, although it is perhaps the first time it happens in the era of Big Data. There is a first time for everything.

The "geniuses" obviously know this, but apparently don't give a damn. Their own partisanship took over clear thinking in their case.

So between the option of believing that 2016 is a year with particular dynamics that escaped the models developed with the data of 4 years ago and the hypothesis of massive hacking by foreign actors that went undetected by the NSA, I obviously find the first option way, way more likely.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:14 AM

As the above comments (both yours and mine) illustrate, we may not find any evidence of an attack depending on the reality of the situation.

"How do we identify fraud?"

By looking.

Trump Supporter December 6, 2016 12:19 AM

@r

"do you have any idea how many apps on your phone knew EXACTLY when you were voting?"

As a computer security conscious person, I don't own a smart phone. Sorry :-).

Just as Bruce, or whoever administers this website, probably has noticed that I am using the Tor Browser to comment around here.

Nothing is going to change in Michigan because traditional swing states like Ohio, Florida and North Carolina also went decisively for Trump. Similarly, Minnesota was closer than other years. And, as I said, the data from both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania recounts shows no significant changes. There is plenty of evidence to conclude that this is a year in which Trump was able to run the table in ways no other Republican since Reagan was.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:21 AM

particular dynamics that escaped the models developed with the data of 4 years ago

You think these dynamic models are only 4 years old?

The dynamic models are updated et minimum every 2 years going how far back?

So, if you accidentally over-correct you/we/I/us perceive as a baseline often it's the same thing as correcting a self-learning intelligent loop.

I'd assume it allows for the burying of any ledger errors.

Alot of things people don't grasp is that when you say something it describes a 4d object.

It evokes a 4 dimensional field, as strange as that sounds - memory and association.

It poisons everything around it, back and fro - it had better be addressed - or is the general cynicism and disaffection as usual to be dismissed?

Trump SupporterDecember 6, 2016 12:24 AM

@r

" we may not find any evidence of an attack depending on the reality of the situation"

As I have been saying during the whole day, the only effective way to detect massive fraud, given human's non predictable behavior on election day, is effective monitoring leading to and including election day. That is already being done and none of the usual suspects -ie the NSA- detected any unusual activity during that time.

Recounts open the door for more fraud by the people involved in the recount rather than providing assurance that things were done well.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:26 AM

Blah blah blah, the NSA didn't detect 11TB of data walking out of their doors either.

So don't give us that shit.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:30 AM

I let a trump supporting ex-counterfitting DRUNK who's banging a heroin addicted CI minor touch my FDE'd laptop earlier when I walked out of the room WOOPS.

So don't get me started on the risks involved with this election.

I want to see something official.

Trump Supporter December 6, 2016 12:32 AM

"The dynamic models are updated et minimum every 2 years going how far back?"

Let me give you a specific example of what I am talking about. One of the "serious polls" (I forgot if it was CBS' or NBC's) aired in the weekend leading to the election as giving Clinton an insurmountable lead had a serious methodological flaw that any serious person could have noticed, but the forecasters decided to ignore. The universe of "likely voters" was picked among those who had voted in either 2012, 2014 or were between 18 to 25 years old this year. While no question most 2016 voters belonged to that universe, does anybody need convincing that a sizable chunk of 2016 voters were people who did not match that demographic? I for one, am one of those Trump voters who didn't vote in 2012 or 2014 who is long past the age of 25.

As I said, this is basic stuff that Nate Silver and the like are going over to try to come up with better models for upcoming elections. The recount though, is just a sore loser attempt at re-writing history.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:33 AM

habitual drunk driver.

But you guys can't even stop speeders in my school zone, what faith do we have in this system if not to f*** us?

Trump SupporterDecember 6, 2016 12:37 AM

@r

"Blah blah blah, the NSA didn't detect 11TB of data walking out of their doors either."

I am assuming you are talking about Snowden. That was an inside job.

Another of the points I have been making to highlight the ridiculous premise of the recount is precisely that the most powerful adversary with the ability to execute the massive hacking that the backers of the recount allege is precisely the NSA. Given that Obama obviously preferred Hillary Clinton to win, it would have required an army of rogue Edward Snowdens working unnoticed by the NSA to pull off something like what Jill Stein alleges. Again, I see more likely the hypothesis that this year was a year with different political dynamics than 2012 or even 2014.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:42 AM

Let me rephrase that,

A Trump supporting habitual drunk driver and convicted-ex-counterfitter who's banging a heroin addicted working girl and collects social security because he had a biopolar drunken diabetic meld down over his ex-girlfriend stringing his codependant and drunk ass around and threw himself into traffic as a last ditch effort at sympathy and revenge.

Wow, that was a mouthful.

I know full well Trump won, I want to know why/how.

Was it 12 years of Gerrymandering? Was it Trump? was it racism? was it emails?

I just want to make sure it's not turkey-stuffing.

rDecember 6, 2016 12:47 AM

That was an inside job.

No, I wasn't referring to ES.
Yes, that (both of them) were inside jobs.

Inside job?

What do you think would be required of these voting machines?

They would fall under the "inside job" scope too, but as you illustrate - the scope is essentially large. Which is why random samplings are important, it would take an army to get it 100% - even just 5% would likely take an army especially when you consider the number of precincts involved. But these machines haven't been checked EVER(?), there is plenty of room to do a two-step here and with enough of a delay a three-step would be possible.

I don't know if you know this about me, and I do appreciate that YOU are HERE especially with the honesty about using Tor. Bravo. But - I'm not much of a dancer, sorry.

Trump SupporterDecember 6, 2016 12:51 AM

"I just want to make sure it's not turkey-stuffing."

The recount cannot provide you with that assurance.

Also, as to the nonsense of the popular vote argument, the House of Representatives election, that plays by different rules from the EC and has gerrymandering on it, delivered a decisive popular vote victory for the Republicans this year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016 (49.9% Rep vs 47.3% Dem).

So I have no doubt that given this year's dynamics, if the president had been decided by a nationwide popular vote, Trump would have won anyway because his campaign would have designed a different overall strategy. This is a change year not only in the US but also in Europe and other parts of the world. No way a country as forward looking as the United States would pick as president somebody who represents everything that is wrong with the way politics have been practiced during the last 30 years. BTW, you know what other politician Hillary Clinton lost the popular vote to? Barack Obama during the 2008 primary election. So!

rDecember 6, 2016 12:57 AM

I'm not worried about the popular vote, I think Trump being elected no matter how disastrous is a nice safety feature. All in all I think democracy won, I just want to make sure it's not a setup.

What needs to be done then?

I am fine with the NSA coming more-forward or doing like the National Guard and guarding something of national interest like the expense we're about to incur when their budget is inflationary.

I, and hopefully others want - assurance.

Will you/they comply?

Trump SupporterDecember 6, 2016 12:59 AM

@r

Not sure about what other thing you are talking about but this thing is impossible to do,

"Which is why random samplings are important, it would take an army to get it 100% - even just 5% would likely take an army especially when you consider the number of precincts involved"

Implicit in the secrecy of the ballot, which is essential to a free society, is the impossibility of verifying that ballots reflect accurately the intention of the voter without asking the voter. The last thing I would be in favor of is making it so it is possible to associate a particular ballot to a particular with the intention of doing an election-day (or post election) audit. We just need to live with the system as it is an expand transparency opportunities in those states that are not currently transparent enough.

A recount is no way to increase trust, quite the contrary, because as I said, there is less people watching than what you have on a regular election day.

RatioDecember 6, 2016 1:07 AM

@r,

I know full well Trump won, I want to know why/how.

You still haven't detected the populist, anti-establishment mood?

Trump Supporter December 6, 2016 1:13 AM

@r

Oh, that case. Yeah, I am aware of it. Still an inside job though perpetrated, as in Snowden's case, by an agent trusted by the NSA.

That's the problem with security - that these "security experts" should know-: the buck stops with "whom you trust". A free democracy requires governments trusting that citizens will vote their consciences without any ability by the government to verify how those citizens voted. That is the intrinsic feature of our system that makes it impossible to be 100% sure that there is no fraud, because nothing prevents say ten thousand people to collude to vote one way or another, even though most jurisdictions make vote buying illegal.

The only way to increase trust is transparency leading to, and on election day. Then you just need to trust that the system results are accurate.

rDecember 6, 2016 1:18 AM

Oh I detect it, I heard it a while ago when my old buddy came over for help with his social security financed bluetooth radio to have me download firmware from my laptop to unzip to his thumb drive.

I find it very unnerving that people are getting as cynical as me, I feel like a traitor at this point for maintaining my disbelief in my countrymen.

I'm just taken back, hopefully not to 1933/39/w/e.

I called INS on a company like 15 years ago, it's not like I don't sympathize with the vote the Orange Lord just turned me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off.

Ratio, it just makes me feel like we really are sheep - how are these blue collar workers going to feel when they find out their tax-deductible medical expenses only go as far as their deductible income?

Idiots, I really hope all this was was an immigration vote but we both know better... there are 2 sides to every vote - the candidate and the voter - there's always going to be what we want and what we get in the reel world.

It's the reality of things, and we just have to keep muddling through to the other side. I don't like all that power concentrated in one hue. People win protections for a reason, no matter how any of us feel about any particular segment of society and some people just want to rip the rug out of anyone and everyone. Things might not turn out so great for those who wanted jobs, but I'm adopting a wait and see you never know - I don't run a billion dollar company - the company I do run is me, myself, and I and is accountable only to me my clients and the government.

rDecember 6, 2016 1:27 AM

You still haven't detected the populist, anti-establishment mood?

The populist part is easy to see,
the Anti-Establishment portion?

NOt So mUCH.

Considering the appointments of A) Goldman Sachs, B) A potential Spy, C) an extremely pathetic Dog Bone for the devout black republican, D) The Climate Change Denier, E) The Net-Neutrality critic, F) ?

rDecember 6, 2016 1:29 AM

F) dog bone for republicans e.g. potentially state department (additionally PAT "KISSY FACE" RYAN)

RatioDecember 6, 2016 1:39 AM

@r,

The populist part is easy to see, the Anti-Establishment portion?

Draining the swamp ring a bell?

It's BS (it always was, but now it's out in the open for anyone to see), but people were (and some still are!) buying...

rDecember 6, 2016 2:03 AM

Trump, was a vote against the established status quo of the world in the face of a growing global economy.

I, and many more white people will embarrass themselves over these events.

It will become but a minor footnote in world history as the straw that broke the free worlds back with respect to the bigotry that african american and other minorities complain about.

We have shown our true red white and a little blue colors to the world.

rDecember 6, 2016 2:32 AM

https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/12616/is-the-10th-man-rule-purely-fictional-or-is-it-based-in-fact

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/13/president-obama-renders-hobby-lobby-ruling-obsolete-rule.html

Yanno, another thing that irritates me about the current err... is the traditional abortion rights issues but there are zero murmurings about the fact that tax payers are throwing money hand over fist at the overdose epidemic to save people who choose to kill themselves and their familiars by choosing a needle over a real life.

It's suicide and we're bringing these wanton disease spreading lying thieves a solution.

I would prefer them to see heroin as a one way street, I'm not going to stop you from aborting yourself in such a peaceful manner or matter.

I think this shit is all just vote buying (lick my ass and i'll lick yours).

No thank you, if I want a hand job I'll just do it myself thanks.

rDecember 6, 2016 2:45 AM

Believe it or not, I'm a smoker and I feel that way about the choices I make as per what medications or homeopathic remedies I may or may not ingest.

I feel the same way about the right to die, they were taking family homes from people because the cancer ridden owners in california didn't have the foresight to play the shell game with their assets prior legal castration.

I consider it in the face of non-constitutionally enforced mandatory medical insurance to be an "opt-out" and within our legal and humane rights of autonomy.

It seems you have to listen to every word that is said, and then listen to it twice to listen for inflections.

It's odd, we listen for the inflections by others to gain inflect within our selves?

Reflections?

rDecember 6, 2016 2:50 AM

E.g.

Obamacase is not broken, it's suffering from rampant botchulism.

The environment is rife with corruption, don't get it confused with non-functional because the people cashing insurance checks are getting fat paid.

rDecember 6, 2016 2:59 AM

THAT environment is funny thought, I wonder if someone more specific will weigh in ((here))...

Medical Billing entities have no choice but to inflate prices in today's environment, why?

Because of a lack of employment #1, but also because without the ability to spend _real_ money on _real_ problems by having these companies pay out based on insurance money and a debtors environment (long term rate hikes and lack of true backing by the holder) we find ourselves in a situation where a hospital must sue to get paid. Thus introducing arbitration, and arbitration and debt do not mix.

They dilute.

So if I come after you for the real cost of your 12 hour hospital visit I will get likely 1/2 of what you own me or maybe less in the end.

What's more?

To compensate for this fact it has become industry standard to "float" values higher as it means when and if a company is paid they are paid that much more by the allocutor.

If you're not allowed to "opt-out", they pretty much own you.

Wait until debtee rights are implemented en-mass, got hit by a car and owe $100,000 dollars?

We're going to auction off your whoregans.

Bong-Smoking Primitive Monkey-Brained SpookDecember 6, 2016 3:17 AM

@r,

Believe it or not, I'm a smoker and I feel...

Damn, boy! So many posts in succession! I want whatever good stuff you're smoking! Or is it 'shrooms you're on?

ModeratorDecember 6, 2016 8:59 AM

@Wael, yes, that was an ugly comment, and it has been deleted. @r, no more comments on this thread, please. @Trump Supporter, you have made your point; it is time to move on. Agreeing here with @Anura: posts on elections will inevitably attract discussions on politics. Agreeing here with @ab praeceptis: this is a security blog. Discussions on politics that stray from security-related issues should be short-lived.

Trump SupporterDecember 6, 2016 9:55 AM

@Moderator (I would assume Bruce),

Sure, I will move on. But you have a responsibility, from a pure technical point of view, to qualify posts like this.

The bottom line is that the self described "computer security experts" backing the recount have provided absolutely no evidence to justify their claims other than conspiratorial talk and innuendo. You raised their profile by mentioning them here as if they had done a serious forensic work, from a computer security point of view, with the election. They didn't.

So I would say that from a pure editorial point of view, you should be more careful in the future before giving a platform to crazy talk like this, if you want the blog to continue to be respected on technical grounds.

ab praeceptisDecember 6, 2016 11:14 AM

Trump Supporter

You see, for me too it basically came down to "everything but clinton". For me too, that green mrs. recount is but a lying viper trying every trick in the book to piss on the us-american voters and to somehow enforce "everything but the preoperly elected Trump" upon the country.
As for the experts I made very clear statement, clearly saying that halderman has lost whatever reputation he might have had. Anyone ever citing halderman will get but a rather dirty smirk from me; (s)he might as as well cite the village idiot.

We *had* our chance to state and to discuss our positions. But we also had a chance to either value what Bruce Schneier offers us here or to sh*t on it - unfortunately some, incl. yourself, chose the latter.

Can you change steins attacks on the people and the elections by endlessly and mercilessly debating here? No, you can't. Can you change the way elections have been done by endlessly and mercilessly debating here? No, you can't. Can you contribute to a better election system and elecetion mechanisms by endlessly and mercilessly debating here? No, you can't.
All you can do by endlessly and mercilessly debating here is to destroy this place and to drive away the professionals who might actually be really able and willing to contribute.

Some days ago I would have said "Most of us", now I say some of us are here to discuss security, mainly IT security, a field that is *very closely related* to election mechanisms.
This blogs comment section is a place where some smart professional people really might come up with, discus, refine, and peer-scrutinize concrete ideas on better election mechanisms or mechanisms for election related verification and the like. It btw is also a place where "experts" like halderman can be and actually were shown as incompetent players with a clear agenda.

Had you, for example, taken some statements from here and, based on those, carried your view to other places, citing people from one the better known and respected security communities, you might have achieved something.
Now, however, thanks to you and some others that card is rotten and worthless. Would I, for example, (not yet knowing this place) come here to check on something you mentioned (elsewhere) I'd be disgusted and not accept your "evidence".

That's *not* theory! I *did* experience situation where "some guys at Schneiers blog discussed that and seemed to consider it OK" *did* carry some weight.

Now, however, I wouldn't suggest anyone to try that. It will take weeks to recover from what happened here.

I think pretty everyone has some position and emotions about the elections. The real difference is between those of us who could stay civilized and reasonable and halfway rational and those who just went into berserk mode. Unfortunately you chose the latter and such created damage that also works against your own interests.

Uncle Joe StalinDecember 6, 2016 11:21 AM

Again, a few Senators sign an anti-Roosky letter and somehow the Russians (or "inscrutable" Chinese) have hacked elections in an unspecified "evil" manner. Here's some related security news: Sen. McCain and a few other nuts want to bomb Iran cuz "security". I don't hear the B52s revving up though. Enough propaganda Bruce.

As yet there are no publicized problem discoveries in the 3 state "recount", but when you look at states that don't have a history of past problems (ex. Florida,Ohio,Kentucky) then maybe you don't find many problems just like the old story of looking under the street lamp for your lost wallet because the light is better.

There are counties and states known for election problems, round up the usual suspects first, you will probably have better luck actually finding a problem.
Vote differences in the multiple 10's of thousands are not going to be overturned with this "recount".

Trump SupporterDecember 6, 2016 11:32 AM

@ab praeceptis

I am sorry, because I had every intention of the world to move on, but I have to respond to this,

"But we also had a chance to either value what Bruce Schneier offers us here or to sh*t on it - unfortunately some, incl. yourself, chose the latter."

I didn't sh*t on it, I just pointed out that the emperor had no cloths, namely, that if we are going to take at face value the allegations made by the "security experts" that Bruce chose to give a platform to, then there is no limit as to the amount of baloney we will have to accept as "evidence" that a computer hack has occurred.

You see, I am a serious guy. Incidents like this go to show that when it comes to getting carried over by petty political interests, self described "computer security experts" are no better than the average Joe. In fact, this incident is exhibit A as to why universal suffrage is such a revolutionary idea: the vote of a petty computer scientist is worth the same as the vote of a petty trunk driver.

And now seriously, I am gone for good.

BSODMakoDecember 7, 2016 1:06 PM

@Follow the money
Is that a real paid donation? Messed up. It's okay, that was just Bruce's clone voting and donating. Here is a question: could something like that be the result of a cheap scantron-ish recognition software, in the best flavor of high school technology?

Not a dissimilar story: back when Junior was running for office(Bush), you might remember that Florida was hanging on their count. It looked suspicious but I made an assumption that there might be a time lag in counting soldier votes on deployment... and questions about that. Later on, I had been told by several people that the state of Florida has volunteers running this, as do the other states. So, I would say yes, it is valid to question the people at the wheel, not just the policy itself.

@Andy [in between the rants]
How quickly I fail to apply testing theory on accounting auditing. It goes beyond boundary testing and into failed conditionals.

Here is what I see:
The election hacking or rigging argument is precipitous. If the Dems won, they would not say a damn thing. If the govt honestly wanted to tackle the issue, it would not be after the fact. This country has had decades of campaign debauchery. That is not a dismissal.

1) The ballot system still needs to be centralized and federalized, as a singular project and deployed technology. Do not leave ballot procedure up to the states for any reason. Do not have hundreds of contractors on the job, like the ACA debacle.

2) Lack of voter fraud laws. Also should not be left up to states.

3) Stop leaving federal voting up to the states.

4) There is not an excuse against a direct democracy. We do not need an electoral college. It was supposed to prevent ties but it is just an abstracted power grab that prevents anything more than a binary system from existing. I need options. This is not a representative democracy; it is a lobby-backed technocracy. Our voting power has been co-opted by elitism from both sides.

5) Again, you could have been duped. The press was pre-loading our minds with information warfare tactics, prior to the vote. Stop paying attention to the press puppets unless proof has been given. Foreign hacking of a voting would be a precept to war, no different than Mid-Easterners sick of the shadow government. We are practically in a proxy war with Russia on Syria, but Putin plays the hypocrisy game well. Iraq got us put in that position. I need absolute proof without the jaw-jacking.

Peace out.

Follow the moneyDecember 7, 2016 10:50 PM

@BSODMako

"Here is a question: could something like that be the result of a cheap scantron-ish recognition software, in the best flavor of high school technology?"

For all I know, this could be a massive man in the middle attack carried out by Russian intelligence agencies that have broken public crypto. Why would they do this? Simple, to make us believe that Bruce donated $2300 to help elect Barack Obama in 2008 as a way to attack his credibility when he writes about hacking of elections in US soil, specially when a candidate of the Republican Party wins the presidential election.

I think that we should all ask the FEC or Bruce for a paper proof that the donation happened to be 100% sure. Otherwise we will never know if we are victims of an attack designed to undermine Bruce's credibility.

BSODMakoDecember 8, 2016 9:29 AM

@Ztrul
That's one of the few credible stories I've read that actually exhibits some neutral bias. And that story is what I'm talking about.

@Follow the money
A little paranoid. There must be other Bruce clones out there. I must admit though, when a name is jacked up that bad, it wreaks of hacker purpose. On the other side, you'd be surprised at how incoherent government workers are. They're obviously not checking our IDs when we vote.

That's why I came up with the third option, bad hand-writing recognition. Like it was manually filled out and the government thinks the software actually works. Since I have actually tested OCR against evading font-types, crafted to defeat recognition, there is definitely a built-in error rate that is high even for your standard serif font. We all write like elephant man so how good can the software be? Dunno.

I am thinking of the OPM story. Some heuristically retarded expensive firewall fails because of an email attachment? Does DCSS not reach out on its mandates? I would say internal... knowledge of topology if the story was real and not a fake justification for more budget. With that concept in mind, how many government workers are 1st and 2nd gen citizens, that you could question their loyalty and access to data? People get their feelings hurt on that, but it's a valid question. There are desks I wouldn't let our Congressmen touch.

Follow the moneyDecember 8, 2016 2:01 PM

@BSODMako

"That's why I came up with the third option, bad hand-writing recognition"

Or perhaps a hacking of the software that runs on the hand-writing recognition device? It is not very different from the hypothesis advanced by the "experts" who are backing the recounts: "what if the machines counting the votes were hacked".

I think we should all ask for access to the paper trail of those FEC records to clarify whether Bruce actually donated money to the Obama campaign in 2008. Else, we will always have doubts about his motivations on any entry he writes on the intersection of politics and hacking, particularly when the Republicans win.

BSODMakoDecember 9, 2016 9:54 PM

@Follow the money
Maybe that is true. For a person like myself that wards off favoritism for a genuine problem-solving approach, I would play devil's advocate on this also.

Here is a logic question I pose:
People have mentioned Russia and Putin's potential interest in Trump. Would that be from some intuition that Trump would let shadow government fly, or from distaste at the Dem's innate fear of Communism? Both angles seem illogical to me, yet realistic at the same time; like a Daoist black hole of wisdom. Our Dem's piss scared of an enemy they need like an addiction, yet we do business with China. Putin, preferring Trump even though both parties loved to hate during the Cold War; nevermind a predominantly conservative controlled Pentagon. There's a bad joke somewhere in this, and the U.S. has more enemies than that.

...or Bruce is a Sith lord. Those penetrating eyes.

Since it got me re-interested, I reviewed my OCR test on obfuscated font types. OCR results can result in more or less characters/spaces on a translation of any font type. Scanning whole documents results in better contrast difference than clips of words. If a scanning region(coordinates) were known, such as where an entry was on a scantron, this would be an algorithm flaw or difficulty to overcome. Sure, I ran tests with Tesseract which has only an 81% success rate, but ABBYY OCR touts 100%; a little gutsy. Consider how difficult hand writing recognition is. Every result still has to be reviewed. If the govt would use this method, they are doing it to save money. If you still have to pay someone to review every entry, picture a govt employee smoking crack surrounded by stacks of papers.

BSODMakoDecember 10, 2016 12:36 PM

Today Reuters UK, CIA says Russia aids Trump:
[http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUKKBN13Z05D]

Okay, let's talk about John O. Brennan, current CIA director for Obama:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan]
[http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/john-brennan-cia-communist-vote/]

"In 1976, he voted for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall in the presidential election; he later said that he viewed it as a way "of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change."

So given this Dem post-Kennedy commie fear, how does this psycho get into the CIA and pass these claims and get away with it? I can't pass security clearance because I want to solve problems, and I see through everybody's bullcrap.

As a centrist, I'm here to remind Dems that they are also in trouble. JFK started something he couldn't finish which amounted to more than just measured response. He didn't get assassinated; he got himself assassinated. It's what happens when your righteous family blows their mouths off constantly. Nobody needs the fake panic anymore. Concede already. Your incumbent jacked up.

Follow the moneyDecember 10, 2016 12:40 PM

@BSODMako

It has been fun to joke about this. The sad part, as I have mentioned earlier, is that the credibility of the "experts" who have backed this travesty has been seriously damaged. Here is what was heard in federal court yesterday,

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pennsylvania-election-recount-federal-court-hearing-20161209-story.html

The "computer security experts" doubled down with the nonsense although they qualified it a little bit,

In a hearing Friday in federal court in Philadelphia, lawyers for Stein presented testimony from a computer science and electronic voting expert who said that although it's likely any deviations between election results and polls in Pennsylvania were the result of poor polling, the possibility of hacking cannot be ruled out.

"I don't think a cyber attack is much less likely than that," University of Michigan professor J. Alex Halderman said. He noted Pennsylvania's decade-old electronic voting technology and position as a key Electoral College state make it a likely target.

Said thought was the target of mockery by the actual experts in voting presented by those who are against the recount -those against the recount include the Pennsylvania Secretary of State who happens to be a Democrat-,

But Michael Shamos, a former voting machine inspector for the state, testified that "the scenarios that have been posited are about as likely that androids from outer space are living among us. It's possible but there is no evidence to support it."

What this whole episode has shown is that when it comes to having petty political interests that bias one's work, "computer security experts" are no different from the average Joe, providing one of the strongest arguments I have seen in recent history to the notion of universal suffrage: it would be very dangerous to give the vote of a "computer security expert" more weight than the vote of an average Joe.

BSODMakoDecember 10, 2016 10:04 PM

@Follow the money
Yeh, I would say a recount just on the technology argument. Valid argument, but look at the next step then. Recount how? Manually by Tibetan Buddhist monks? Someone would have to define the extent of data corruption or whatnot.

Questioning the "IT experts" is not much different than me questioning the volunteers that work at the voting stations. Everybody has a right to vote but that implies undue influence in the position in question. While Jeffersonians quickly claim that judges are allowed to vote, otherwise pushing their influence underground, my argument was always you should give up a power to gain another. Since when does a judge talk of his personal opinion anyway? By the same token, you have to build a ubiqtorate of some kind composed of non-voting a-holes such as myself that either don't care or hate both... the closest to neutral you can get. Obama's idea of hundreds of Canadian contractors to work on the ACA was proven a nightmare.

This is a fractalized abyss and how we proceed would also be in question. I think the best chance is to take a bullet, cut off the dead limb, and rebuild new; next time unified across the nation with the same machines and procedures. Anyone should goff at the idea of letting states handle this anymore. That's not what Clinton fans want to hear but by the time a safe solution is found and deployed, we are at least 6 months down the road (and that would be demigod-like speed).

There are many states doing this but look at the money being dumped into recounts. You could gather it all up and build a holistic system for next time around. It is all in hopes that Clinton has a chance. The Michigan story is compelling. In that case, no retarded comments about Russia, and really valid.

Re-read your stuff on Penn though. "any deviations between election results and polls". Why does it matter? Polls are poor and pointless anyways. They slide that word by like it matters. Liberals are in shock.

I'm serious, I got my 54% premium rate hike in the mail at the end of October. It was more than timely to burn the Dems at the last minute. Comey was nothing. People voted against Hillary with their checkbook in mind. Honestly, Clinton should be glad she didn't get the job. The Republicans were poised to fry her every day in office. Why else would they back out their candidates? We've got Obamacare pissing people off, Syria, Yemen, N. Africa, refugees from hotzones, demographic crisis looming, etc. Pick a landmine for her to step on. If I were Hillary, I would go on a vacation. Nothing lost. Now we can watch Trump mummify himself in barbwire. It's gonna be fun. Promise.

Follow the moneyDecember 11, 2016 12:51 PM

@BSODMako

I was sold on Trump ever since I watched the first Republican debate. To me Trump is the ultimate "malware" or "virus" to attack the corrupt Washington establishment. So far, I like very much what I see in terms of how is he handling the transition as well as the picks he is making for his cabinet and beyond. Truly dynamite. Bush appointed mostly Washington cronies from the old Republican establishment; Obama appointed a mixture of Democratic cronies and clueless academics and lawyers. Trump has favored, for the most part, people who are very accomplished in the real world who will be making the US government a favor (not the other way around).

Speaking of clueless academics. Only people with a self-righteous "expert" mindset will notice something like "deviations between election results and polls" and conclude that the discrepancy must be due to hacking or fraud. What about the models underlying the polls were wrong? Nate Silver's 538 convincingly explain that the three states that flipped this year to Republican that had been blue in the EC since 1988 have been electing Republican politicians to statewide offices lately http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-not-all-about-clinton-the-midwest-was-getting-redder-before-2016/ . Then there is the Brexit vote. Fundamentally, there is the notion that in a democracy, the only poll that matters is that which happens on election day at the ballot box. But hey, for these clueless academics, the statistical models are the reality if said models contradict empirical evidence.

And then there is the final joke. What the recount attempt in Michigan uncovered is that there was probably fraud in the heavily Democratic Wayne county -which includes Detroit- http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/ . The actual margin Trump got over Hillary Clinton in Michigan was probably higher than the official 10000. In 2020, the Michigan Republican Party should make sure it sends observers to the counting sessions that happen there. Certainly, what the Detroit News reports is as fishy as it comes.

My bottom line is this: I understand what it must have felt like for the Hillary Clinton supporters to discovery that the reality American voters produced on November 8 didn't match their models built on polling or the mantra echoed by the mainstream media that Hillary's win was a sure thing. In 2012, inside the Fox News bubble, Mitt Romney's win was also also a sure thing, but voters had a different plan -for the record I didn't vote for anyone in 2012.

What I find it pathetic though, is that the leaders of the left, instead of doing a serious forensic analysis why is that their party platform has become effectively the platform of the coastal elites that appeals to nobody else, they go after red herrings.

First it was the excuse "but we won the popular vote". Sure, but that is not how you win presidential elections in the US. Further, if you exclude California's totals from the popular vote, Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states combined by almost 2 million votes and a landslide in the EC represented by those same 49 states.

My conclusion is that the gap between California's politics and the politics of the rest of the nation is now so big that we are talking about two fundamentally different political realities: California's, and that of the other 49 states. A political party with national aspirations would do two things: 1- moderate its platform to make sure it appeals to people outside California, 2- work to make California closer to the rest of the nation, not the other way around. If anything, the EC worked this year the way it is supposed to work: the most populous state of the nation wasn't able to impose it wishes on the rest of the federation.

Finally, there was the recount effort which was a scam perpetrated by Jill Stein on people who were hurting. When Jill Stein came up with the idea of the recount, Hillary Clinton should have denounced the effort unequivocally. Instead, we've had a distracting side show, funded by people who have not been given the chance to heal.

BSODMakoDecember 11, 2016 3:19 PM

Well, I thought about it this morning. With technology available to us, or lack thereof, would it not be smart to build in a mandatory recount for the election anyways? You use a random time delay and whatever chosen security mechanisms. Just out of principle. If you make it a standard, nobody can complain except about the extra time/manhours. I was also thinking we should vote on this during July and provide for some slack to solve serious issues. Apparently, some people think that forcing ID is "unconstitutional." I have a feeling its not going to be a choice in the future.

My deal about Trump is that he said everything wrong and still got in. That scares the hell out of me. I don't even think he or the Republicans expected it either. I thought it was a blacklist test, like the Tea Party, to find out how nationalist and protective US citizens are becoming. Surprise, our communities look packed to the brim with failing infrastructure. How long can you gut the middle class out before there is nothing left but people at the bottom? That is an argument against both parties and excessive special interest.

My concern, for this forum in particular, is that many go into IT security because they are privacy advocates, not humpty dumpties. People are going with Hillary thinking she might veto or brickwall excessive prybar. That comes at a cost, generally stalemating Congress for 4 years. I can't think of much more the govt can do to violate consumers and private business. I try to remind people, Bill signed CALEA within his first year of office. That laid the foundation for too much: FBI's DCSNet point-and-click wiretapping, interface backdoors, and updated in 04/05 extending into stingray non-whitelisting microcells and such. It's the law that brought arguments about bundled warrants and excessive scope. I think voters are kidding themselves on the kind of protection Hillary might afford.

BSODMakoDecember 11, 2016 3:44 PM

Sorry again, but I forgot to mention my thoughts on California.

They pay insane state taxes, and as such, have demanded transparency. With Obamacare, they saw little change this time because the state demands control of their insurance market space. In this way, they are insular when it comes to what is happening with the rest of the country. When I hear or read journalists from California, it blows my mind.

In San Fran, they are scared of immigration crackdown. That's because all of their cute little startups are using cheap labor to fill cubicles. When the company sells out or crumbles, it creates a meat grinder.

Consider this: their governor recently signed a $15 minimum wage to take effect within a few years. It was reported in LA there are 90K workers in apparel, American Apparel has already laid off people. The effect is going to be something like peeing on a fire ant hill. If you remember, in 2000 San Fran had their .com bust which laid off like 40K workers within 12 months, reabsorbed or not.

If you doubt the future effect, come to Austin. Californians are like cockroaches there because TX has no state income tax... yet. They gave tax abatements to businesses but now houses only worth 40K are tax evaluated at 240K because they can't pay for the roads and utilities. Thank you for destroying SxSW festival.

With the water issues and whatnot, I think it is safe to say that California smokes crack for acting like there's nothing wrong with the numbers. That's why I listen to those people as I bite my tongue.

AnuraDecember 11, 2016 4:40 PM

@BSODMako

Why don't you start looking at tax and economic data, and stop regurgitating bullshit talking points given to you by your so-called "unbiased" news sources.

Seriously, you write as if you live perpendicular to reality. California collected taxes equal to 6% of GDP in 2015, with the US average being 5%; it didn't even make top ten!

The ten states with the highest taxes as a percent of GDP:
North Dakota - 10.3%
Vermont - 10.1%
Hawaii - 8.1%
Arkansas - 7.7%
West Virginia - 7.5%
Mississippi - 7.5%
Minnesota - 7.4%
Maine - 7.1%
New Mexico - 6.4%
Connecticut - 6.4%

Stop getting your information from right-wing propagandists! Actual facts are available to anyone willing to look.

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=70&step=10&isuri=1&7003=200&7035=-1&7004=naics&7005=1&7006=xx&7036=-1&7001=1200&7002=1&7090=70&7007=2015&7093=levels

Follow the moneyDecember 11, 2016 4:45 PM

@BSODMako

Things will be fine with Trump. People need to calm down and separate the campaign rhetoric from the reality. Trump is not the monster the mainstream media made him to be. Peter Thiel, who is one of the smartest people in Silicon Valley -albeit prone to crazy ideas- put it best: the media takes Trump literally, his supporters take him seriously.

What I know is this: California exists because it is in many ways parasitic with respect to the United States. If you talk to the average liberal do-gooder that dwells in Silicon Valley, they live in an imaginary land that doesn't need any armies to protect itself. They ignore that the rest of the United States is still California's largest trading partner. They are similarly ignorant that California, the progressive mecca, is also America's most unequal state http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/05/news/economy/california-unequal/ with one third of its population on the medical plan for the poor http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-medi-cal-growth-20151224-story.html. This type of "mecca" in which only a small portion of the population gets to live what in other states would be a middle class lifestyle while the rest is pretty much on welfare is not something other Americans want for themselves.

With respect to the issue of the integrity of elections: the fundamental problem is that it takes a lot of people to ensure the integrity of the voting mechanism because our elections- and rightly so- are based on the notion of secret ballots. It is simple not possible to verify that a ballot has a legitimate issuer after the fact. The stakeholders put a lot of effort in monitoring election sites on election day or on the days leading to election day in those states that have early voting or absentee voting procedures. This is not something that can be repeated easily afterwards. One of the concerns of recounts is that they necessarily involve less people monitoring than the people you can mobilize on election day, something that opens the door to fraud during the recount process.

I personally believe that the notion that people can vote in many states without a government-issued voter ID that attests the voter's right to vote is insane. I understand the argument for not having a national ID card as many European countries do -I for one think that the less the federal government knows about you, the better-, but states could do this by including the state issued driver's license or photo ID an indicator that the holder is also a US citizen. On the day you get your first driver's license, you take to the DMV proof that you are a US citizen, and you get the mark on your license. If you are a naturalized citizen, after your naturalization you go to the DMV to get your ID re-issued. I don't get what is so difficult about this. It seems to be working great in every civilized country on earth that is not named "United States of America".

Making it mandatory to show a government issued photo ID prior to voting plus increased monitoring leading to and during election day would take us very far in ensuring that elections happen with integrity.

What I do not favor, of course, is this notion that a statistical analysis based on assumptions on how the vote distribution should look like is good evidence of voter fraud. As long as human beings are free agents endowed with free will, no statistical analysis will be able to be right most of the time about how the vote distribution will look like on election night.

Follow the moneyDecember 11, 2016 4:49 PM

@Anura,

With all the nonsense about Calexit in the aftermath of the election, somebody made a study of economic flows of California with respect to the rest of the USA and reached the conclusion that California takes in more than it gives back,

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/26/calexit-just-some-flaky-california-dreamin/

“A recent study by the group found that California and its businesses fork over about $330 billion in federal taxes, but receive about $350 billion in return. That includes the salaries of federal workers – a line item left out of many studies — said Lindsay Koshgarian, the group’s research director.”

This notion that Silicon Valley would be as successful as it is today if California were to be an independent country is nothing but liberal propaganda.

AnuraDecember 11, 2016 5:10 PM

@Follow the money

By comparison, $20bn is 0.8% of California's GDP, which grew 3.8%, or 90bn, last year alone. That's pretty small, and considering you will always expect some states to give more than they receive and some states to receive more than they give, that seems pretty "meh". Generally, money tends to flow from urban to rural, and California has both urban and rural areas. For that information to be useful, you need to look at where all receipts and expenditures are coming from and going and why, and you need something to compare it to (which means looking at all states, not looking at a single state without context and saying "Aha! That one data point fits my argument!").

Follow the moneyDecember 11, 2016 6:32 PM

@Anura

"For that information to be useful, you need to look at where all receipts and expenditures are coming from and going and why, and you need something to compare it to"

Au countraire, it is for the part that wants to separate from the larger whole to make the case that it is being "taken advantage of". As Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence,

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The information I provided shows that at the very minimum California breaks even in pure financial terms wit the federal government. Then it benefits from access to the market of 280 million consumers who live in the other 49 states. It also benefits from the fact that California, due to ideological considerations, doesn't send a lot of people to serve in the US army http://ijr.com/2015/02/251918-data-shows-highest-numbers-united-states-military-come/ , yet it benefits from the protection of the most powerful army of the world.

Finally, just because this year there was a disconnect between the winner of the EC and the winner of the popular vote, it doesn't take away the fact that California is the state with the largest number of electoral votes: 55. The next state, in terms of number of electoral votes, is Texas with 38. The fact that California has moved so far to the left that it makes it next to impossible for a Republican to reclaim its electoral votes for the foreseeable future, forces Republican candidates for president to seek the necessary electoral votes elsewhere, which is what Donald Trump did this year. California cannot claim its interests are not represented at the federal level properly. Any federation faces similar issues: larger components have a bigger say, but at the end of the day, they need cooperation from other parts to be able to implement ideas.

The question California should ask itself is whether it would be better off by itself. I for one, don't see the large Silicon Valley companies remaining California companies if California were to become independent. Direct access to a market of 280 million people will always be more appealing to corporations than direct access to a market of 40 million people. With California in the US, they have access to both. I have no doubt that if politics were to force these companies to pick between the two, all of them would pick access to the 280 million people market over remaining in California.

AnuraDecember 11, 2016 8:13 PM

@Follow the money

I don't even know where to begin, but your argument about US trade rests on the assumption that there will be an immediate and complete elimination of trade relationships with the US - if the US did that it would be hurt pretty damned badly, since when there are large changes in markets, capitalist economies tends to implode.

This is exactly the problem I am talking about - you start with a conclusion, and then cherry pick evidence, stripping away context until it fits. You are talking long-term impacts of California's economy by cherry picking figures that you think fits your narrative; but this is an extremely complicated issue, and the long term affects of everything being different cannot be extrapolated from a few data points (especially when you don't know exactly what the changes would be).

It's irrelevant anyway, as very few people are actually talking about California secession in the first place; just like in Texas, people are willing to say yes to a poll, but that doesn't mean they've put any actual consideration into it.

As for electoral votes, I don't know if you are intentionally dishonest, but electoral votes per voter ends up decreasing as population increases, so no Californians do not benefit from the electoral colelge; support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact if you don't like that California's 55 electoral votes shuts out every non-Democratic voter in the state (which is a problem in all states for voters that go against the majority) - California passed it already, as well as many other states, and you only need 105 more electoral votes for it to go into affect.

Follow the moneyDecember 11, 2016 8:56 PM

@Anura

You threw a lot of stuff and ended up saying nothing. The points I made about a potential California independence- which I agree is very unlikely if not impossible to happen- is the kind of points that are made in every context where a part is thinking about seceding from the whole. The most recent precedent in a civilized context is not Brexit vote but rather the failed attempt by Scotland to exit the United Kingdom two years ago. The UK, being an independent country in the international context and not sharing its currency with the Eurozone, has a much easier path to exiting the EU and creating multilateral trade deals with other independent nations that are already established than if Scotland had decided to secede from the UK. A hypothetical California independence would be much more like a potential Scotland exit from the UK than the Brexit. It would be chaotic and I have no doubt that were it to happen, the largest and most influential Californian companies would leave the state.

From a strictly legal point of view, it is settled case law that individual states do not have a unilateral right to secede from the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White .

To be clear what I meant by California having 55 electoral votes is that it is disingenuous to say that California didn't matter this election. It did, as it has always mattered, but in a different way: by making the election of Republican presidents much tougher than it could be if the California electors didn't all go straight to the Democratic Party.

With respect to the Electoral College, I have to admit I have mixed feelings. First, I have no doubt that were the presidency decided via an straight popular vote -like the NPVIC or a constitutional amendment- political parties would adjust their strategies to the new reality. I find it very fallacious to suggest that just because under the current EC regime, Clinton won the popular vote, she would have also won the popular vote had the election been decided via the popular vote.

Second, I admit that I don't like the current system in the sense that it automatically disenfranchises the majority of voters. Up until this election I was in favor of the NPVIC or similar arrangements. This election made me reconsider. Not because my candidate won the EC and lost the popular vote, rather because of what I said: the only reason Trump lost the popular vote is California. He won the popular vote in the other 49 states combined. So in a pure popular vote situation, a few large centers of population could impose their say on the nation as a whole.

Right now I am more leaning towards leaving the EC as it is, but asking states that they abolish the winner take all approach and replace it with one in which without being strictly proportional, at least leaves room for all votes to matter regardless of your geographic location. One approach would be to assign electors statewide via the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method . Said method assigns premiums to the parties that get the most votes, but allows for parties who do not get a majority or plurality of votes to get some representation. This method would re-enfranchise voters, but it would still give smaller states more representation than what they would get if it was a straight national popular vote.

BSODMakoDecember 11, 2016 10:51 PM

@Anura
Actually, I didn't want to focus on the taxes, so much as proving that the people there have demanded transparency on where their tax dollars are going. In effect, they kept their ACA premium jacking down. Qualitatively, they still have high taxes and property taxes. My concern there is they when Cali journalists and politicians say things like, "ACA is the greatest.", everyone else responds with a resounding no. It makes their commentary on the national stage look insular. You can give people subsidized insurance premiums for almost free, but they can only pay to chat with their doctor. The real solution was to expand Medicaid and stop the tax write-offs for people at the top. Keep reading if you please.

My main beef is their pure volume of human flesh. Yes, its out of control. I've still been looking at moving to the west coast purely because they are protecting their citizens from ACA jacking. I can plan for their state income tax, I can't plan for Osamacare. That was too little time. Californian self-payers are not seeing an extra 200/mo disappear out of their budget. I have to drop to Bronze. Why talk about deductible if you will never reach it? Why is it on paper?

As far as data, I built my own spreadsheet. You don't use the census.gov site, that's the front. I go to the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics and for some international resource usage(algorithms flawed), FAO.

My research starts out adolescent: why do near-future sci-fi writers think ~2045 is some crisis point? I figured it out. By the time the planet's (and our country's) population tripled geometrically, the agri-land usage only increased around 5%. What looks like a stupid 2045 date was when they projected our country's population to double. The theory is that by that time, the population will be a guaranteed cause of crisis, if nothing else.

You might say, from what year were they starting? Serious labor statistics started to be gathered in 1950, so that's when people start their apocalypse math. Technically, it took a 10-year census before labor stats actually rolled in solid, so that is where I start. Since I use the smallest(minimum) annual and 10-year census growth rate, my conservative estimate is 2076 if I can remember.

It sounds childish, but look at any map's metropolitan/megaplex area... double it's boundaries. If that doesn't shock you, consider that there were years in which our immigration accounted for 40% of the nation's population growth. For labor stats, we don't have enough data, but if you subtract the population growth from our job growth, it reinforces why we should only have around a 4.5% unemployment rate. Our country was recently barely making it. Our 14% recession numerically almost reached the Great Depression numbers, except our government thinks it can hide the numbers. During Obama (peaking 10% unemployment), he wanted to give amnesty to several million at least but only got 700,000 because somebody told him the correlation and high fallout rate from immigrants or students trying to assimilate.

So basically, instead of looking at cooked government projections, which is a lot of sunshine, I am creating curves based upon stats, min/max/avg, highest avg and lowest avgs. We can cut our immigration in half right now and still lose. Yes, California is part of that. The only good news is that Americans do, in fact, realize the cost of living and our birth rate is like 1.8. That is less than a 0 growth factor(2 children for 2 parents).

As for agriland usage, its up in the air. People complain about GMO crops. In the future, it won't be a choice. That 5% increase means we are staying alive with microbiology, agritech, preservatives, and improved logistics. It's actually a thin thread if we continue to piss off the world with shadow government strategy. The FAO has this baked food price volatility index that uses the US as a formula base. The formula essentially states that under any circumstance, we will still have no price volatility, assuming purchasing power. I find that to be an immature theory.

I'm not interested in raw GDP, I'm interested in the environment, water and air quality, and quality of life. Cali is great for GDP. It is also a problem when they choose walnut trees over salmon and stream quality, among other issues. Texas and Florida is the same way. I'm looking 40 years down the road, when it's too late to manage the raw demographics, not 8 years down the road at the end of 2-term presidency.

What's the end point? Wallstreet's central failed logic: they need the positive growth that California, Texas, and Florida provides. They are doing it with cheap labor policy. Our primary retirement mechanism is a roulette wheel that can break off the spindle. It's never been directly about immigrants. It about how little they are being paid and how the slave owners are just taking more off the top. No trickle down. We are being offshored and outsourced to death. Many IT people are contractors under self-payer insurance and Obama just passed a law that jacks self-payers between 35-60g/yr. It's not what he says, 1.7million people. That's only from the marketspace. There are millions on self-pay because small businesses(

As for anura's links, good start but most people are using USBLS. I have lived in two of those states on the top 10 list. They have flat profit margin and zero job growth. That's not what I'm getting at. I'm getting at the fact that people don't see demographics as tangible yet and we probably have only decades before something bad happens, like another 9/11 or something that makes Ferguson and the Rodney King riots look like a simple cleanup on aisle 4. We have liberals that throw out the deck of race cards, and Mexico turns out to be a diversion from the real problems.

People also throw out the whole "your killing the trade table mister BSODMako." No. Since when does human trafficking have to be part of a trade deal? The kitchen-sinking and reductionism is not good on either side of the aisle. I'm looking for some confidence but I see our govt trying to dump refugees from hotzones. Do we know what physical security means? The State Dept. VOLAG and PRM is in charge of that, then use it as an excuse to backdoor everything. Yeah, I'd like to see the State Dept. burned down to the ground. Refugee dumping doesn't solve problems.

As for Brexit, they stated it was to bring down their immigration from 300k to 100k annual. The UK are islands and the EU thinks they can do more than run a bank. There are even liberals in Britain that think they have all the space and job opps in the world. You've got to be kidding me.

I would love to vote Dem, but the "superhero save the world" crap is going to stop one way or the other. I live in a country that affords visas more employment protection than their citizens. Yeah, I have trust issues.
Now, the Commandant of the Marine Corps asked Santa for more toys. I don't get off on this. I am a centrist only because our politicians lack self-control or exhibit the ability to define and solve problems without a lobby house puppeteer pulling strings. It would be nice to give another country a genuine handshake. I'm now generally afraid to go abroad, regardless of perceptions. Our govt is embarrassing.

My weak attempt to bring it back to voting: we don't have intelligent choices because business law degrees are outstripped by people that are paying attention. We are talking about election problems that should have been solved 10 years ago, not because Hillary said so. And stop thinking in binary please. Define problems, find solutions, understand that politicians will never use the conviction you have.

AnuraDecember 11, 2016 11:12 PM

@Follow the money

To be clear what I meant by California having 55 electoral votes is that it is disingenuous to say that California didn't matter this election. It did, as it has always mattered, but in a different way: by making the election of Republican presidents much tougher than it could be if the California electors didn't all go straight to the Democratic Party.

With respect to the Electoral College, I have to admit I have mixed feelings. First, I have no doubt that were the presidency decided via an straight popular vote -like the NPVIC or a constitutional amendment- political parties would adjust their strategies to the new reality. I find it very fallacious to suggest that just because under the current EC regime, Clinton won the popular vote, she would have also won the popular vote had the election been decided via the popular vote.

Second, I admit that I don't like the current system in the sense that it automatically disenfranchises the majority of voters. Up until this election I was in favor of the NPVIC or similar arrangements. This election made me reconsider. Not because my candidate won the EC and lost the popular vote, rather because of what I said: the only reason Trump lost the popular vote is California. He won the popular vote in the other 49 states combined. So in a pure popular vote situation, a few large centers of population could impose their say on the nation as a whole.

This is consistently the most ridiculous argument people have to defend the electoral college; it basically boils down to "I think rural people should be able to impose their will on the rest of the population because they are more important." That's elitist bullshit promoted by the same self-righteous pricks that tell the rest of the country that they aren't "Real Americans" because they have a different lifestyle than their own - no portion of the population is better than the rest, no portion is smarter than the rest, and you are completely missing the point of the phrase "tyranny of the majority" if you think it suggests that "minority rules" is the suggested alternative.

And yes, your obvious disdain for all urban dwellers tells me that the only reason you support disenfranchising them is because you want power over them. Your obvious ignorance of facts while maintaining complete conviction tells me you draw your entire political philosophy from this spite for others, not from any critical or objective analysis of the situation.

Follow the moneyDecember 12, 2016 9:25 AM

@Anura

"And yes, your obvious disdain for all urban dwellers tells me that the only reason you support disenfranchising them is because you want power over them. Your obvious ignorance of facts while maintaining complete conviction tells me you draw your entire political philosophy from this spite for others, not from any critical or objective analysis of the situation."

When it comes to urban dwellers, the only ones I truly, truly despise -in fact I have utmost contempt for- are San Francisco dwellers. But there are many other urban dwellers that I love. I myself live in a suburban environment that surrounds a city larger than San Francisco. So your argument doesn't fly. In fact, if you consider the 49 states that are not California, you have uber liberal cities like Seattle, New York City, Boston, Chicago, Houston, etc.

What I said, is that given that California politics have gone so crazy -so San Franciscan if you will- the Electoral College has done a great job of containing them. This doesn't mean that the rest of the states cannot go equally crazy, but you will need more than a single state -the most populous state- to go completely insane to affect the entire nation. 280 million people live in the other 49 states. So you tell me how is it fair that in a federal system, the insane politics of 40 million people corrupt the other 280 million people.

Follow the moneyDecember 12, 2016 9:34 AM

By the way, the opinion by the federal judge on the Pennsylvania recount request is out and I am happy he has had the guts to say what every sane person was thinking all along,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/12/12/pennsylvania-recount-request-green-party/95328846/

"Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election “borders on the irrational” "

There you have it. The computer security community would do well to distance itself from the "experts" who backed this effort or it will be tainted as conspiratorial.

AnuraDecember 12, 2016 10:34 AM

@Follow the money

Fucking hell man, you are completely out of touch with reality if you think San Francisco controls the country, or California has insane politics imposed on the rest of the world. This country has been bending over backwards to help rural people; red states have engaged in a race to the bottom telling people it would bring them jobs, but all it has done is dry up cash flows to those parts of the country, at which point the response from people whose ridiculous policies have destroyed incomes in this country has been to find enemies to blame to placate their base (party of personal responsibility my ass):

"It's the corporate tax rate!" despite corporate profits after tax as a percent of GDP being at an all time high, not to mention the high income inequality and every single economic indicator suggesting a demand-side problem not a supply-side problem

"It's immigrants!" despite the fact that immigrants produce more than they get back, and minimum wage laws and cracking down on employers that use illegal labor prevent the race to the bottom.

"It's China!" despite the fact that US manufacturing output has increased, and a trade deficit means increased incomes - as long as you don't have policies to suppress incomes across the entire country in a failed attempt to save a handful of jobs.

Even California bends over backwards for rural folks - less than 2% of California's GDP is agriculture, but they use 80% of the water. Because California's water rights laws give farmers the ability to use all the water they want without consequence, the rest of the state had to make sacrifices so those farms could bulk up the water-weight of their produce.

Stop acting like you're the victim of liberalism - you've had 40 years of cutting wages and taxes on the wealthy, regulations, and it did jack shit for rural jobs; but by all means, double down, screw over the rest of the country, attack education, unions, minimum wage. You are dead-set against the only policies that have ever helped rural people, the only policies that have ever helped the working class, but you are so blinded by your irrational hatred of people that you refuse to take responsibility for the failures of the policies that you support.

But, of course, you have your imaginary distractions. Socialism, birth certificates, voter fraud, emails... God forbid we have an actual discussion about real problems that affect actual people; no, all that I'm seeing coming from you is blind hatred of anyone that your propagandists tell you are responsible for all of your problems. Now you've gone as far as to convince yourself that you can't even be wrong - if facts tell you otherwise, the facts are part of a liberal conspiracy!

Nick PDecember 12, 2016 10:45 AM

@ Anura

Great write-up! Having lived in three red states, I can confirm about everything on your post is present there. The rural areas have few jobs that mostly pay minimum wage if they're not factories or something. Republicans were opposed to that. The insurance for many comes from some form of welfare or Obamacare. Republicans are opposed to that unless it's for defense contractors or elderly voters. They gripe about rich people dodging taxes. Republicans supported that legislation.

These states are among the most self-defeating group I've seen. The only exception is Texas. Oil is the common explanation but I think their policies are a big effect. They worked hard to make places like Dallas and Austin boom. They also welcome the brown and intellectual people so long as they can squeeze cash out of them. Austin is a good example being a huge, tech hub. The rest of red states suck, though.

Follow the moneyDecember 12, 2016 11:31 AM

@Nick P @ Anura

Surprise, surprise, I live in California myself. Only I live in the sane Santa Clara County, not in the crazy San Francisco city and county.

And surprise, surprise, I am a naturalized citizen myself. So you can take your "Trump supporters hate immigrants" rhetoric elsewhere. The first and foremost aggravated by the insane San Francisco politics when it comes to immigration are legal immigrants like myself. If you are a legal immigrant of Chinese, Indian or Mexican origin, be ready to wait 15-20 years -if you combine the time as H1B, greencard and madatory 5 years period- to become a US citizen. The bill that Mark Zuckerberg et al wanted to become law in 2013 gave a 11 year guaranteed path to citizenship to those who were here illegally. In addition, it gave them protections all the way through that no H1B immigrant has: the ability to switch employers or not be employed at all without risking their legal status. You tell me how this is a "sane" policy.

I speak of first hand knowledge here. I am very happy that the crazy San Francisco politics were soundly defeated in the 2016 election.

BTW, here comes the decision from the federal judge in Pennsylvania. You should read it entirely,

http://media.philly.com/documents/Stein+el+Al+v+Pedro+A.+Cortes.pdf

"Unsuccessful Green Party Candidate Jill Stein and Pennsylvania voter Randall Reitz allege that because Pennsylvania’s voting machines might have been “hacked” during last month’s election, I must order the Commonwealth to conduct a recount of the votes cast for President. There are at least six separate grounds requiring me to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion. Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any “hack” occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania’s voting system was not in any way compromised."

It is going to be a long 8 years unless you accept the result of the election.

AnuraDecember 12, 2016 12:41 PM

The bill that Mark Zuckerberg et al wanted to become law in 2013 gave a 11 year guaranteed path to citizenship to those who were here illegally

A clear majority of the country supports a path to citizenship - it's beneficial to everyone in the end, and most Americans understand their situation. Sounds like the visa application system is the bigger problem; all the path to citizenship does is allow people to achieve a legal status, which would put them in the same situation as anyone else here in the US with a green card.

Follow the money December 12, 2016 12:54 PM

@Anura

"A clear majority of the country supports a path to citizenship - it's beneficial to everyone in the end, and most Americans understand their situation. Sounds like the visa application system is the bigger problem; all the path to citizenship does is allow people to achieve a legal status, which would put them in the same situation as anyone else here in the US with a green card."

And it seems to be that if a law were passed that would confiscate Goldman Sachs' wealth and distribute it among homeless people, many of these homeless people would appreciate it. Perhaps there would be even popular support for said law given how hated bankers are.

Alas, we are a country of laws that has a tradition of fairness. This tradition of fairness is what attracts people here from all parts of the world. If you want a banana republic type of country in which moneyed people like Zuckerberg can impose their views, I can suggest you move to Mexico, India, China or even Russia.

The 2013 bill was a travesty that can only be popular among nutty San Francisco liberals. As I said, I am very happy that said nutty liberals were unable to impose their nutty ways (perhaps "your nutty ways"?) on the rest of the nation.

BSODMakoDecember 12, 2016 2:47 PM

You can chew the air in L.A. and China thinks it's breathable by comparison.
GDP for who? The sweatshop owners?
It's my point: if you think volume growth matters, when does the "flaming train wreck logic" break?

If these so-called professionals had solved the problem, with all of their statistics geared towards volume, expectation, and average, we wouldn't be talking about it. That was my comment on PRNG analysis, the difference between algorithm and implementation, but I'm also using it for this election and just about everything these days.

What happens when your discretionary net income gets cut in half?
What happens when both parties let socialism happen as a logical conclusion to failed population management? Look at ACA. Does that not look like a slide step?
What happens when we forget what a penny looks like?
What happens when the govt is so paranoid about their citizens that they start backdooring everything? Oh wait, my bad.

When Dems burn taxpayers with special interest, they don't realize they are keeping conservative policy in place. I'm not looking to provide incentives but human rights is human rights. You have to solve the problem properly or not at all. Cutting down on immigration is the safe route, but Wallstreet doesn't put brakes in their Tesla. It would be like slapping their own hand. If we actually pay immigrants to live, the game is over, so that is what I rail. Write principled law to benefit everyone. The people at the top are gonna have to dig into their pockets. Unfortunately, the politicians view the middle class as the largest tax base. They think they are immune to civil unrest. It's been too long.

Nick PDecember 12, 2016 10:06 PM

@ Follow the money

"So you can take your "Trump supporters hate immigrants" rhetoric elsewhere."

What do your personal circumstances have to do with the majority of Trump supporters' preferences? Nothing. It's them hating on immigrants in most of their rallies, Twitter accounts, and Facebook. I've followed it closely. I've also just listened to rural people from all over the country where the right-wingers mostly thought of immigrants as taking their jobs. Illegal immigrants they wanted thrown out of the country or in jail. That was pretty consistent.

It doesn't surprise me that there are immigrant, Trump-supporting Republicans with a different take on things. It's a huge, diverse country. Even in Trump's camp. Most of his supporters are anti-immigrant, though, from the vast majority of their statements on the matter that I've seen online and heard in person.

Note: Congratulations on your naturalization. I talked with my old Spanish teacher from Costa Rica about that process in depth. I know it was hard although I keep getting surprised on Hacker News by even more difficulties people post. Startups are at least helping with some of it.

"It is going to be a long 8 years unless you accept the result of the election."

It's going to be a long 8 years for most Americans in working class or lower, supporting civil rights (including privacy), and Trump opponents. Regardless. I don't contest whether he's the President or not as all people of character are eliminated by the primaries in this dumbass country with the most corrupt two being the final choice. Usually. In this case, they stick with most corrupt candidates even when campaign saboteurs and Russian hackers are aiding them.

I'm beyond contesting elections when a candidate wins the national shouting match. More important to focus on the Congressional and local elections given they happen more with better chance of getting almost-decent people in.

Follow the moneyDecember 13, 2016 12:07 AM

@Nick P

Thanks for your good wishes on my naturalization. Indeed, it is a very rough process. When I hear natural born Americans, typically on the left, shouting "give 'em a path to citizenship" when referring to people who are here illegally, it makes me sick to my stomach. Even measures that look innocent on the surface, such as DACA, that benefit illegal immigrants can have devastating effects on the lives of legal immigrants, as this New York Times article says https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/us/program-benefiting-some-immigrants-extends-visa-wait-for-others.html .

"Most of his supporters are anti-immigrant, though, from the vast majority of their statements on the matter that I've seen online and heard in person. "

It is very difficult to generalize from your personal experience. My own, having connected with many Trump supporters in the San Francisco Bay Area -who are forced to keep their support secret because of lunatics like Anura-, is that we are a group of mainstream Americans who disagree with the path both Bush and Obama set the country on.

You have to understand one important point: socialism is the political system that exists in the country I came from. It wasn't worth for me to go through the tough naturalization process to end up in a place that has the same political system that I left behind. The Democratic Party in the era post Obama is essentially a socialist party modeled after other Western social democratic parties. These parties take inevitably all their societies to financial ruin because there is never enough money to confiscate from the tax payers to pay for all the goodies they promise during their campaigns. I came to the United States in search of opportunities, not in search of welfare payments. I had already plenty of those in the country I came from.

I have known many naturalized Americans who are Trump supporters. We came to the conclusion that the only possible way to reclaim control of our government is to have somebody like Donald Trump cleaning up the establishment. Trump owes absolutely nothing to anyone in the political establishment, something that hasn't been true of any president in recent memory, not even Reagan.

The reality is that close to 63 million Americans voted for Trump. Trump also got more votes during the Republican primary than any other Republican candidate in history. He won by landslides the primaries in the Northeastern states where the Republican primary electorate is made almost exclusively of so called "RINO" or Rockefeller Republicans. This notion that Trump is the candidate of the fringes of the American society is just not numerically true: a candidate supported by the number of votes he got during both the primaries and the general election cannot be by definition "fringe".

In the Bay Area, the people who have destroyed property when they didn't get their way were Occupy Oakland, Black Lives Matters and the losers of the November 8th election. In every case we are talking about people who either voted for Hillary Clinton or would have voted for Hillary Clinton if they had bothered go to the polls. Does this mean that Hillary Clinton is a fringe candidate? Give me a break. The media has created this false narrative every since Trump announced he was running.

The biggest source of "Fake News" during this political season have been CNN, Fox News -which backed RINO candidates until the very end of the Republican Party-, MSNBC and the national networks. They put forward a narrative about the type of people backing Trump and the chances of Trump winning the election that was simply not a reflection of what was going on in the country. The only poll that matters is that which happens on election day. Everything else is bull s*****t.

The losers of the election -and that includes the aforementioned media- are coming with increasingly unbelievable tactics to delegitimize Trump's win. First we had the aforementioned astroturf demonstrations in the aftermath of November 8th that were given coverage on par with the Trump victory itself, then we had the scam of the recounts. The same day the recount efforts came to an end, the media conveniently "leaks" innuendo from anonymous sources from the intelligence community about Russia's influence in the US election.

What these losers fail to understand is that these tactics didn't work during the election and won't work once Trump becomes president. Technology has given Trump the means to completely bypass the traditional power brokers in the media. The only thing these media are accelerating is their own demise. If Trump wants to send a message to the American people, he puts a youtube video that he announces to his 17.2 million (and counting) followers in Twitter. The combined audience of CNN, Fox News and MSNBC on any given night in prime time doesn't reach 4 million.

We see this dynamic happening in business all the time. When IBM saw itself threatened by Microsoft in the late 1980s, it doubled down its bullying tactics only to came to the brink of bankruptcy. In the 2000s it was Microsoft that was threatened by Google and Apple. Steve Ballmer doubled down with traditional Microsoft bullying and he had to be fired because he too was about to take Microsoft to oblivion with the Nokia deal and other strategic blunders.

If the executives running these media outlets were smart, they would realize what is going on and they would revamp their operations to match the new reality. They would try to reach out to the voters that put Trump on top to understand what is that they missed. Instead, you have the sad spectacle we are witnessing.

Take it easy. I know what is like to be on the losing side. While I wasn't a fan of Bush or McCain, when Obama won it felt like the sky was falling. The media pushed the narrative that given the demographic changes, we might never have a Republican president again and that the march towards European style socialism was inevitable. There were talks of the emerging permanent liberal majority. The narrative went nowhere. I have no doubt that Democrats will get the presidency and congressional majorities again. However, unless Trump makes a major blunder akin to the Iraq war -and he is too smart to fall for the same BS Bush fell as shown by his reaction today to alleged CIA intelligence- the Democrats will need to adapt their platform to the reality that the United States of America is not, thanks God, the United States of Socialist America.

BSODMakoDecember 13, 2016 12:06 PM

@Follow the money
I tend to agree on your stuff.

Press:
I thought there were pivotal moments, during Junior's administration, that radically altered how the White House deals with the US press corp and AP. Primarily, when special forces gunned down Reuters journalists for driving their unmarked van into a targeted area. Never forgotten. Both sides were sloppy but when the US says quarantine, we mean it. Foreign journalists think they can do whatever in a hotzone. I saw an immediate change in how CNN reported on the conflict, or lack thereof. Prior to that, we had morning press conferences where liberal journalists were just short of throwing rotten cabbage at the Press Sec. because they knew he wouldn't answer any hard questions. Bush went through how many Press Secs.? There were all sorts of random events that also shaped our new press control: Abu Ghraib, white phosphorous use, the validity of the Nick Berg video, etc. Our country has a long history of media control, and the deeper you dig, the less you want to vote.

I personally feel that journalism doesn't exist in this world of information warfare. The parties are planting fake journalists into fake news sites and broadcast to tell history their way. You have to deobfuscate everything once you figure out the lie. The reductionism, the kitchen-sinking, and the marginalization on both sides is staggering. The legal point is that we have a govt that can sue journalists for defamation even if it is true. You can't call the slimebags out on the carpet without having your body disappear.

IBM:
I don't know where you were going with that.
I would also mention that they also fell victim to poor management. You have apparently never administered a Domino server. As one of the early collaboration/comm suites, it sucked hard. Companies like IBM and Borland happened because Microsoft never stepped up to the plate to provide a quality IDE. IBM/Matsushita also let go of their hard drive which I thought was long lasting and durable for consumer use. I don't know anybody intelligent that likes Steve Ballmer, who basically lost control. They still don't get it, which is a shame because I think Visual Studio and .NET is the quickest way from my brain into an app, even if every CLR'd app has insane overhead.

Follow the moneyDecember 13, 2016 2:18 PM

@BSODMako

"Our country has a long history of media control, and the deeper you dig, the less you want to vote."

Totally. And as Martin Luther King said: "freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed".

The power brokers of the Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior and Obama eras did everything within their power to deny Trump a victory. You just had to watch for example Megyn Kelly's face the moment Fox News projected that Trump would become the next president. She knew that from that very moment, her book -whose main line was Trump bashing- was doomed. Not only that. She became instantly more toxic to Fox News than if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency.

When I watch the GOP cronies of the WSJ or Karl Rove at Fox News lecturing "Trump should do this or do that because that is what G W did", I know I am watching "Fake News". When I watch the Democratic cronies like Dan Pfeiffer at CNN warning of Armageddon coming to America because Trump won the election, I know I am watching "Fake News".

Are you familiar with the expression "rude awakening"? The sooner these sources of "Fake News" have their own, the less painful will be for them.

In a world where information flows freely through the internet 24 by 7, the notion that you can have media power brokers the same way you did when there were only 3 big networks controlling the flow of information via radio broadcast is delusional.

Take for example Reddit's unofficial Trump fan page, https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ . It went from zero to more thank 300k subscribers (and counting) mostly via word of mouth (which is to say in the internet world, via facebook/twitter/email sharing).

Follow the moneyDecember 13, 2016 8:11 PM

@r

"https://motherboard.vice.com/read/donald-trump-has-no-idea-how-hackers-get-caught"

In which way does this contradict what Trump said? The DNC hackers were caught. When hackers are not caught it is very hard to know who did what. Remember the Sony hack? A group of "experts" tried to exonerate North Korea until it learned that the reason the NSA was so sure that North Korea had done it is because it had hacked North Korea earlier and knew the IP addresses it found in Sony's servers. To my knowledge no evidence of this sort has been made public by the CIA in this case.

Besides, the notion that the only reason Russia -or hackers in Russia's orbit- might have hacked the DNC and Podesta's email is to help Donald Trump is very naive. Most likely, Putin believed the polls and the projections -I am watching Trump now saying that he himself the day of the election wasn't sure he was going to win- and did the above to embarrass the person who in all likelihood was poised to become next POTUS. In fact, what I would have expected, had Clinton won, is another leak with the emails she deleted from her server since I find it very likely that her server was hacked given that it had zero protection against hacking and the intelligence agencies of countries like China or Russia are not stupid.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, doesn't agree with the CIA's assessment that Russia's intention was to tilt the election in favor of Trump.

"http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politics/russia-us-elections-2016/index.html"

John McCain has been a sore loser since he couldn't pull off in 2008 what Trump did this year. Graham is his best pal.

Here is what is going to happen: absolutely nothing. Check who's the person Trump has nominated for Secretary of Transportation and her relationship to the US Senate leadership. It's all political theater for gullible people like you or the people who funded Jill Stein's recount to nowhere.

Clive RobinsonDecember 13, 2016 9:22 PM

@ Follow the money,

A group of "experts" tried to exonerate North Korea until it learned that the reason the NSA was so sure that North Korea had done it is because it had hacked North Korea earlier and knew the IP addresses it found in Sony's servers.

I don't know who your "group of experts" was or are, but as I and several others pointed out that level of information was not evidence, and why it was not evidence.

If the NSA had "hacked in" then so could many others such as the CIA or groups of the US military, where the likes of War Hawks have been trying to restart the Korean war for the past sixty or so years. All of whom would have an interest in planting evidence as part of a false flag operation.

As I and others point out "acurate atribution via technology only is near impossible" you need other much more human evidence, of which we have not seen anything...

As an example fitting of your handle, if I picked somebodies pocket and stole their wallet, and for some reason dropped it in your pocket and then cried out loudly I saw you steal it... Does it make you a thief or a fall guy?

rDecember 13, 2016 9:33 PM

"and the intelligence agencies of countries like China or Russia are not stupid."

And let's not forget that the entire Chapman crew wasn't trained well enough to randomize her MAC.

/FACEPALM

rDecember 13, 2016 10:31 PM

Here, since we need a refresher course

http://www.dailytech.com/Russian+Femme+Fatale+Spy+10+Others+Busted+by+FBI+After+WiFi+Monitoring/article18898.htm

^_^

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/how-the-fbi-busted-anna-chapman-and-the-russian-spy-ring/
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0628/Anna-Chapman-sleeper-spy-ring-betrayed-by-Russian-officer
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/12/anna-chapman-call-father-fbi-spy-arrests

So, considering she was a life-long trainee I'd say there's gaps in her [former] understanding. This all transpired in 2009-2011, in 2013 the spider caught a fly...

Do you think by 2017 snowden will have helped russia to short out their systemic failures in intelligence?

Top of the morning to ya.

Remember also, that illustrated in these articles is the very difference between NSA information and CIA based informatics.

Where as one is in-attributable with prove-ability and the other is attributable without prove-ability.

Take your pic, ADHOC 802.11b is WEP in 2011 with a static MAC address.

Follow the moneyDecember 14, 2016 12:23 AM

@Clive Robinson

I was referring to these people on the Sony hack http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/27/tech/north-korea-expert-doubts-about-hack/ . On the other stuff that you say, I don't think there is disagreement between what you say and what I say.

I remind you that the controversy is, on the one hand "anonymous" CIA sources claiming that Russia hacked the DNC servers and Podesta's email with the intention of tilting the election towards Trump. These "sources" provide no evidence of the finding of "intent" other than "they say so". On the other hand, the FBI says that there is no conclusive evidence that Russia intended to tilt the election towards Trump. In addition, you have the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, that oversees the CIA and 15 other intelligence agencies, that says it doesn't share the CIA's conclusion on intent.

The above controversy hasn't prevented left wing zealots from crying that the Russians stole the election.

Trump has called, duly so, the whole thing baloney. I am with Trump that making conclusive statements like those attributed to "anonymous CIA sources" is almost impossible and that the whole thing is the latest attempt by the losers of the election to delegitimize Trump's election.

Sancho_PDecember 14, 2016 10:20 AM

Re “Who did it and why?”

This crazy situation is questioning the average sanity of the upper third of our population [1].

The leaker and their motive are completely unimportant in the first place.

For any revelation / leak the first question would be:
- Is it true?

If true, the next question would be:
- What does it mean for us, is it serious stuff, do we have to draw consequences from that facts?

And last not least, if the leak was true & serious:
We should applaud the leaker, known or unknown, and progress.

[1]
This causes any democracy, even if only the top third of the population is involved, to be insane.

rDecember 14, 2016 1:41 PM

If the same (or hentity) was involved with the legitimate leaks and the fake news then the motive has been exposed and the valitidity of the information DROPS.

As for "stolen" ?

How long have you been here in the states? You seem to have gaps in your henglish...

Do you work at Vlassic?

Stolen is a bad word to use, maybe you don't understand it.

Interfered, Manipulated... "Helped".

...Hax!

Stolen just doesn't fit the bill.

Just like how you seem to not understand "consensus".

Keep discrediting others for trying to understand SCOPE.

Why don't you take a very long (not longing) look at what's (not) **our** tee and Crumpets and get back to us?

Follow the moneyDecember 14, 2016 2:15 PM

"Do you work at Vlassic?"

Are you referring to me? Well, for all you know, I could be a Russian troll passing for a naturalized US citizen. The thing about internet and using TOR is that you will never know for sure!

I could also be a 400 pound basement dweller like those mocked by HRC getting my taste of revenge.

Speaking of Russians, to mock the insane media, The_Donald is now decorated with Russian ornaments. Enjoy https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ .

The Russians are not taking over, it's the internet trolls who are -from the comfort of our mothers' basement.

BSODMakoDecember 14, 2016 6:07 PM

Man, the elevator got stuck on the way down to hell. That's all I know.

Pooty so smug for Trump. Well, whatever. The fact that 2 parties want to do a "bipartisan" study doesn't mean anything to me than a publicity front. I need somebody to really justify this to me. Its like I said, The Director of CIA voted commie back in the day. I need to start smoking something in order for this distorted BS to make sense. This goes way beyond "pot-call-kettle black." Besides, I am excited that we could be receiving more hot Russian spies. I love the Motherland!!

I see Obama and Hillary telling their appointed intelligence officials to talk trash without backing it up. They can't take a loss so they are dumping gasoline on the Whitehouse on their way out the door. If they were mature, they should shut their pieholes and save some face. The poo-pong is old.

I got 5 womenz in the oval office writing my bio... however they want.
I got General Petraeus DJing
I got a disco ball
I got black lights
I got Cubans and mojitos on the desk
I got the launch codes but it doesn't matter
cuz I got Pooty breakdancing over there.
Hate Me Naoww!!!

Clive RobinsonDecember 15, 2016 12:14 AM

@ Tobby Todd,

That was a very dull read, especially when you realise that they are realy clutching at straws to try to make news...

Firstly the bit about the FBI contacting a contractor, morphs into a lowely contractor who regarded the FBI call as a prank or hoax, and the FBI doing nothing further for a year...

Then the regurgitated cossy/fancy bear unsuported claims, which again produced little or no action from the DNC / DCCC, which begs the very real question of "Why not if they are so credible?".

But we get onto,

    So, while the Trump folks suggest that this had no impact on the election, I think, if you look at some of the House races, in particular in Florida, there was a particular House race where the party wanted one woman who was running, Annette Taddeo, to be their candidate, and she lost after the document dump embarrassed her, and it became a subject of debates and news coverage.

    And that was — that was consequential. And it didn’t get much attention from the media, because we were so focused on other things.

    --ERIC LIPTON

That made me laugh... You've got Eric claiming that Trump Folks are now not taking the claims seriously, you also get him claiming that something people "now" consider consequential was not considered so at the time...

Where I come from we have an expression about such comments, and it's not that nice...

But... He compounds it all when --deliberatly?-- forgets to mention that the Trump Team had made comments about the election being rigged during the running, and the press made derisary comments about it...

So it sounds like it's not just the Democrates are sore loosers, it's the press also, and they are trying not just to re-write history but paint themselves as whiter than white, having in reality been wrong at almost every turn...

I suspect the reality is that few people belived Donald Trump saying the election was rigged, and had a laugh over it or compleatly ignored it otherwise. Likewise the release of documents actually had at best inconsequential impact compared to what was already an ongoing saga of the Clinton Mail Server and the FBI compounded by what came out through other sources about her actions or more correctly inactions that many claim needlessly cost American lives.

I would say the Clinton campaign became like the last journy of the White Star Liner Titanic. It was full steam ahead despite dire predictions of trouble ahead. Then the guts were torn out of it under the water line and it was doomed. But the band played, people danced on, whilst up on the deck, the chairs got rearanged. And now we have an inquiry as to if those bellow third class could be blaimed for the inactions of those in charge, even though the whole thing was doomed before it ever set sail...

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of IBM Resilient.