dagblog - Comments for "Hackers break into voting machines in 90 minutes at competition"

Yeah, that's the ticket - a

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 19:02:17 +0000

Yeah, that's the ticket - a lot of bombast, but not enough replicable facts and way too much sounds-too-good. Had a bunch of people point to The Voting Project or something on Twitter, same kind of story - lots of implication, but actual proof pulls up short. Still waiting for the non-gumshoe credible source.

Palast has always done

artappraiser — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:47:23 +0000

In reply to I don't trust Greg Palast for

Palast has always done strong advocacy journalism, it's just that simple. Which is a fancier wording for spinning the facts, and selecting out facts, like lawyers do in court.

Also on the personality side, he's got this Drudge thing going on with the fedoras, wanna be a movie role journalist.

Edit to add: I might have a abit of a sour grapes attitude because bad memories of being plastered with Palast links after Bush won over Kerry. Because: everyone on the (liberal) site didn't know anyone who voted for Bush, so it must have been hacked, it was always: see Palast's latest for "proof" over and over and over, way past Kerry fading from public view.

I don't trust Greg Palast for

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:15:28 +0000

In reply to Hackers break into voting machines in 90 minutes at competition

I don't trust Greg Palast for some reason, but he's been reporting this issue for a long time (here's an article from 2012). Maybe the lack of trust is my own brainwashing, who knows. But it's been pretty clear for some time that 1) voting machines are hackable, and 2) there are enough dishonest politicians and party workers to give physical access if remote access is too difficult.

Plus the Palast's article makes a good point - the most ignored and repressed districts are going to get the crappiest, most hackable machines.

I still don't believe Putin risked the US election simply on using paid spammers using micro-targeted marketing. I think he made sure machines were hackable and that he could switch enough votes. I.e. the vote count was always going to be close - just enough. In those key states. Despite Hillary's advantage in the polls (who would believe crooked Hillary anyway? Certainly the Republican majority in Congress would give Trump the benefit of the doubt - "anything to win" is their motto.)

And it's been a year now with evidence of Putin trolls and we're back to whether Putin & Trump "colluded", despite it being ever more and more obvious they "conspired", with Sessions, the now defended AG meeting with Kislyak *several times* that he denied to do help along this bit of dirty work, as did so many others.

But yeah, I want the bit about the machines to come out too - those "reviews" in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were shut down way too quick and were never designed to dig into all the hacking possibilities that could have been.