Obama administration throws cold water on vote recount effort

RickyBobby26

RickyBobby26

Well-Known Member
Officials in the Obama administration threw cold water on the effort to recount votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania on Friday. The effort was spearheaded by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who echoed arguments that Russia may have hacked US voting machines to interfere with the outcome of the November 8 election. A statement from the Obama administration cited by The New York Times acknowledged that the Kremlin likely expected the hacking of some Democratic Party entities in the run-up to Election Day to raise questions about the voting process and the legitimacy of President-elect Donald Trump's victory. "Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect ...

Full story here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5127f3ab-509e-330f-be3c-b00df3b6d8f3/ss_obama-administration-throws.html

Question: How the hell can Russia hack voting machines that are NOT online?
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
RickyBobby26 said:
Question: How the hell can Russia hack voting machines that are NOT online?
Click to expand...
Seriously? Are you that dumb? First off, I think the odds of this actually happening are minuscule, but for you not to be able to conceive of it shows that you are pretty unaware and don't mind who knows it. Ever hear of Stuxnet? It destroyed Iranian nuclear centrifuges despite the fact that they weren't online.

Hypothetically speaking, one might use spearphishing to infect a particular user's computer system at the company that designs the software for the voting machines. From that point on you can do a lot, including, more than likely, altering software meant to compile and report votes at every polling place. Et voila.

Nobody denies that such a thing could happen (except dumbasses such as yourself). This is why election boards do random audits of the results against the actually hard copy.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Seriously? Are you that dumb? First off, I think the odds of this actually happening are minuscule, but for you not to be able to conceive of it shows that you are pretty unaware and don't mind who knows it. Ever hear of Stuxnet? It destroyed Iranian nuclear centrifuges despite the fact that they weren't online.

Hypothetically speaking, one might use spearphishing to infect a particular user's computer system at the company that designs the software for the voting machines. From that point on you can do a lot, including, more than likely, altering software meant to compile and report votes at every polling place. Et voila.

Nobody denies that such a thing could happen (except dumbasses such as yourself). This is why election boards do random audits of the results against the actually hard copy.
Click to expand...
Right. And then don't do anything when there are clear discrepancies.
 
RickyBobby26

RickyBobby26

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Seriously? Are you that dumb? First off, I think the odds of this actually happening are minuscule, but for you not to be able to conceive of it shows that you are pretty unaware and don't mind who knows it. Ever hear of Stuxnet? It destroyed Iranian nuclear centrifuges despite the fact that they weren't online.

Hypothetically speaking, one might use spearphishing to infect a particular user's computer system at the company that designs the software for the voting machines. From that point on you can do a lot, including, more than likely, altering software meant to compile and report votes at every polling place. Et voila.

Nobody denies that such a thing could happen (except dumbasses such as yourself). This is why election boards do random audits of the results against the actually hard copy.
Click to expand...
I've read a lot of your posts sir, and believe me, before you call anyone else dumb, you should reread your posts.

Have you ever debated with anyone without calling names?

BTW, have you and your immature clique of fake e-friends over in TnT gotten your decoder rings yet?
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
RickyBobby26 said:
I've read a lot of your posts sir, and believe me, before you call anyone else dumb, you should reread your posts.

Have you ever debated with anyone without calling names?

BTW, have you and your immature clique of fake e-friends over in TnT gotten your decoder rings yet?
Click to expand...
Up your crack weirdo. Nice diversion to avoid facing that fact that you are an ill-informed imbecile.
 
Justin-case

Justin-case

Well-Known Member
RickyBobby26 said:
I've read a lot of your posts sir, and believe me, before you call anyone else dumb, you should reread your posts.

Have you ever debated with anyone without calling names?

BTW, have you and your immature clique of fake e-friends over in TnT gotten your decoder rings yet?
Click to expand...

You got cutz deep, lol
What happened to your other account, did you get banned or are you just ashamed?
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Seriously? Are you that dumb? First off, I think the odds of this actually happening are minuscule, but for you not to be able to conceive of it shows that you are pretty unaware and don't mind who knows it. Ever hear of Stuxnet? It destroyed Iranian nuclear centrifuges despite the fact that they weren't online.

Hypothetically speaking, one might use spearphishing to infect a particular user's computer system at the company that designs the software for the voting machines. From that point on you can do a lot, including, more than likely, altering software meant to compile and report votes at every polling place. Et voila.

Nobody denies that such a thing could happen (except dumbasses such as yourself). This is why election boards do random audits of the results against the actually hard copy.
Click to expand...
The voting machines have to be online, otherwise there'd be no way to collate or parse the data.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
???

I'm saying it'd be far easier than is being portrayed.

If it's connected to a network, it's vulnerable, security methods are only truely secure on day 0 (and sometimes not even so).
Click to expand...
I do not understand the question.

Voting machines are seldom, if ever, connected to a network on voting day. Stuxnet was passed on a flash drive I believe. The same thing can happen when the local election officials design the ballot, update the program, etc.. It would take some coordination, but so did 9/11.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
I do not understand the question.

Voting machines are seldom, if ever, connected to a network on voting day. Stuxnet was passed on a flash drive I believe. The same thing can happen when the local election officials design the ballot, update the program, etc.. It would take some coordination, but so did 9/11.
Click to expand...
If they're not online then there's no way to prevent local tampering.

With most phones coming with a secure element it would actually almost be more secure to use an app, no bullshit.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Define online please.

Apps have verification problems of their own.
Click to expand...
If they're not connected to a remote server there's no way to monitor for tampering at the local level, but if they're online it exposes them more to external tempering.

Online in this context meaning connected to an external WAN.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
RickyBobby26 said:
Officials in the Obama administration threw cold water on the effort to recount votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania on Friday. The effort was spearheaded by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who echoed arguments that Russia may have hacked US voting machines to interfere with the outcome of the November 8 election. A statement from the Obama administration cited by The New York Times acknowledged that the Kremlin likely expected the hacking of some Democratic Party entities in the run-up to Election Day to raise questions about the voting process and the legitimacy of President-elect Donald Trump's victory. "Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect ...

Full story here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5127f3ab-509e-330f-be3c-b00df3b6d8f3/ss_obama-administration-throws.html

Question: How the hell can Russia hack voting machines that are NOT online?
Click to expand...
LOL, why do you care about a recount in a close election? Nobody but you is talking about the Kremlin fixing the election. Obama is taking an appropriate position as the outgoing prez. He can't get close to the issue without getting involved and he still has a job to do.

I'm looking forward to the slow drawn out negative commentary that will dribble out when they start finding examples showing cheating on the side of the Republicans. Also there will be much ado over "potential" hacking the vote recording and counting system. It all will go towards casting doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's presidency and weaken his position.

While I think that all of this is bad for our democracy, I also think that these same actions were exactly what Trump's team was going to do should Clinton won. So, cut him, cut him deep, I say.

Some good might come out of this if it brings about meaningful change in the security and transparency of our voting system. I don't know much about Wisconsin's polling stations but there are some dreadful paperless polling equipment that needs to be upgraded in several states.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top