So Georgia rather then let DHS look at their machines decided to delete and wipe them clean? and the backups? Why would they do that unless something was wrong?
I remain shocked that voting machines are not open source and publicly auditable.
I'm also surprised the NSA isn't specifically tasked with a regular, detailed, high-resources code review of the codebase.
Georgia was traditionally a red state so even if the votes were changed it wouldn't have affected the result.
Are any swing states suspected of having their voting system hacked to have changed the final result?
It is weird that the electronic voting system is u likely to get fixed. I guess it will have to get much worse in the future to cause action?
We are hackers, and this is a technology problem. Was it flagged because it have overlap with politics?
>Russia actually got inside the voting systems of seven states, including 4 of the 5 largest states in terms of electoral votes—California (55) Texas (38) Florida (29) and Illinois (20).
And yet two of those states listed went for Hillary. Maybe the Russians didn't want to be obvious.
Author spends a lot of time on Georgia, with its "D" rated voting system and its 16 electoral votes.
>Georgia’s systems would have been an “ideal” target for Russian hackers because the state doesn’t use a system with a paper trail so there is no way to audit the system.
Let's accept that for the sake of my next question - would a paper trail actually help? Maybe, depending on who gets the paper. Does it mean the voter gets a receipt? That might cause a few problems of its own.
For instance, a group of well-armed people acting as a "voting integrity militia" might decide to inspect people's voting receipts for any "errors." One can only imagine how the article's writer would characterize that.
Now let's pretend some of all of the states admit their systems had been compromised. Should we trust the results of any election, or just the results we don't like? We can reasonably guess the author's answer to that question.
This is a really weak article that does not support its headline and veers into conspiracy theory territory.
What a waste of time. There's not a shred of evidence in that article.
Georgia Exit polls: Trump 51%, Clinton 46%, Other 3%
Georgia reported results after possible Russian hacking: Trump 51%, Clinton 46%, Other 3%
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/georgia...
https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president...
This article asserts that Donald Trump is the Kremlin’s Executive in Charge of U.S. Operations. That makes it very difficult for me to take seriously.
This article is amateur.
> And despite what Donald Trump, the Kremlin’s Executive in Charge of U.S. Operations, would have you believe
It's hard to take an article seriously when it uses a tone like this (even if there is some truth behind it).
Russians decide to hack campaign in order to create chaos in target nation; and hopefully establish a Russia-friendly authoritarian.
Russians weigh the costs of good opsec to avoid being caught - versus the effect of word getting out.
Good opsec is expensive. Particularly when it's on the adversary's network, using tools that spy on you - Russia lacks the manufacturing capacity and supply chain discipline to ensure their devices are secure. (NOTE: One of Trumps VERY FIRST acts of office, was to relax a very obscure commerce-department rule on Russian Sanctions; forbidding export of certain encrypted communication devices. It was VERY targeted, and VERY low key. The press glossed it over. I suspect it was a direct request from Trump's GRU handlers to accomplish a very specific goal).
(also; you'll recall the fire at the Russian embassy in SF last year - just prior to Trump's fake "expulsion of Russian spies"; massive destruction of evidence - - remember also, Trump attempted to release the Russian spy compound back to Russia; the one that Obama seized when Magnisky act was passed.)
So the EFFECT of getting "caught" - actually accomplishes Russia's goal better than a stealthy intervention. It costs less. And it sews more distrust in our election system, if the tampering is discovered, and the stories get out. This fosters unrest, and hopefully chaos and likely even violence, when the American People learn (enough but not all of) the truth of what happened.
To that end: one of the most prolific early spreaders of "Russia-Trump" stories, was Twitter's Louise Mensch. Who worked for Rupert Murdoch (but claimed to be a "citizen journalist"). With the help of a small team of followers, plus a stable of sophisticated bots (and other tools) for amplification and promotion, Louise Mensch (and her team) made sure that the ball got rolling.
Note: Rupert Murdoch has associated with one Wendy Deng; who is also closely associated with Vladimir Putin.
We have all been shocked, of course, to learn that many GOP congressmen and senators received money from Russian sources. Even more shocked to learn that a lot more money was funneled through the NRA. I think Americans are going to be REALLY shocked when they discover that FoxNews, and related Rupert Murdoch organizations are also agents of Russia.(or: they have interests in common with Russian oligarchy/organized-crime).
Was Roger Ailes assassinated? (Trivially accomplished - an old man on blood-thinners, one little bump in the head, and it looks like an accident). Was Andrew Brietbart also assassinated? Was Antonin Scalia assassinated? Was Bill Shine's efforts to foster an environment of sexual harassment at Fox, designed to create enough compromising blackmail material to make sure all of their on-air personalities kept going along with their plan?
Even stronger evidence shows the Republican Party worked with Russian intelligence to obtain the voter rolls that they used in their micro-targeting ad campaigns, but oddly enough nobody is talking about that. Aaron Nevins literally bragged about recieving stolen property from Russian intelligence and using that to further his political goals of electing republicans.