Did Anonymous save the election? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kana -> Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 4:35:39 PM)

Not taking a side, just passing on a muy interesting story

http://bonjublog.com/2012/11/19/rumor-has-it-hacker-group-anonymous-screwed-karl-roves-plans-to-hack-election-for-mitt-romney/



tweakabelle -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 4:58:55 PM)

My! What an interesting little tale! It doesn't strain the limits of credulity to think Rove guilty of such duplicity.

But why has it taken so long for the story to emerge? One would think that Anonymous would be quick to claim the credit for such an operation.



tazzygirl -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 5:05:16 PM)

The story has been out there for a while tweak. It would certainly explain his response on election night and why he argued with everyone on Fox.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 5:11:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The story has been out there for a while tweak. It would certainly explain his response on election night and why he argued with everyone on Fox.

Don't it piss ya off when you buy an election and it doesn't get delivered on time?[:@]



tazzygirl -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 5:15:10 PM)

Oh we sat here laughing like hell as he was losing it on Fox!



DesideriScuri -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 5:20:20 PM)

FR,

If it's true, I applaud Anonymous.



Aswad -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 5:22:29 PM)

Well, Anonymous isn't a single, simply defined entity in that sense, so it doesn't make much sense to say they're usually quick to claim credit. To say Anonymous did X is to say "someone did X, but it's not clear who this someone is.", as it isn't a group at all in the usual sense. It's an idea, a phenomenon, an awareness... one even the Zetas were smart enough not to antagonize.

«We are anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.»

Anonymous is a superconsciousness, in which individual human beings are like neurons, and just like consensus firing in our brain forms the coherent thoughts we have, the consensus processes in the Anonymous supermind are forming coherent thoughts that transcend individual participants (it would be silly to speak of "members"). How do you deal with a consensus?

Well, for one thing, by making sure it doesn't see you trying to hack an election. [:D]

IWYW,
— Aswad.



tazzygirl -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 5:27:00 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98frqrKFnQ8

This was published Oct 22.



Kana -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 5:42:30 PM)

Yeah, and Anonymous sent their letter 11/12, so it's actually a few weeks old. I just happened to run across a story today.
Frankly, I was kinda surprised no one, especially the left wing conspiracy types (Fargle, can you hear me?), had already posted it here.



tazzygirl -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 5:43:56 PM)

I saw it a few weeks ago.... but with the election and all, we had enough issues on the boards.



Kana -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 5:48:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I saw it a few weeks ago.... but with the election and all, we had enough issues on the boards.

Sheesh-this one is just to juicy not to post.
I mean, even if it turns out not to be true, what a salacious rumor



tazzygirl -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 6:31:34 PM)

hahahaha... didnt we have enough of them pre-election? The Admins would have shot me!



Aswad -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 8:37:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

I mean, even if it turns out not to be true, what a salacious rumor


Bit more than just a rumor. If you've read the source code for the voting machines, you know it's a mess. Easy to slip something in there. And, more to the point, a statistical analysis of the GWB elections indicated a small but significant and systematic discrepancy that could be accounted for by one of the "bugs" in the source code. It may have been a simple mistake, as the code isn't exactly high quality, but it's also not the least bit difficult to plant it.

Really, with voting machines, public disclosure of the whole design is necessary.

And even that doesn't change the fact that for an average voter to be able to audit the election to the same extent as a paper ballot would require the average voter to know the programming language used, which unfortunately isn't going to happen. This kind of thing just moves the voting process into the realm of magic, something the voters have no idea about the workings of, no control or influence over, and so forth. Using formal verification, public disclosure, standard tools, independent audits and legal codes to regulate implementation of voting machines is a prerequisite to retaining anything resembling free, open and anonymous elections in practice.

Just a little bit of incompetence or malice could sway an electronic electon, as-is.

Either of those seem possibly applicable to some figures in politics?

IWYW,
— Aswad.



JeffBC -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 9:15:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
I mean, even if it turns out not to be true, what a salacious rumor

We will never know. There will never be an investigation on this. That's my prediction. Nobody official will even look into it despite the magnitude of the claim and it's implications for American democracy.



tweakabelle -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 10:03:41 PM)

quote:

We will never know. There will never be an investigation on this. That's my prediction. Nobody official will even look into it despite the magnitude of the claim and it's implications for American democracy.


Your cynicism here is understandable Jeff. However, the magnitude of the implications for American democracy are immense. Which is precisely why someone official should be investigating the claim. Revenge of the nerds and geeks aside, this represents a direct threat to the integrity of universal suffrage and the ballot box.

How long before some canny politicians realise that this is a far more potent weapon to guarantee election or re-election that a well funded PAC or superPAC? How long before some cunning programmers start hawking the program to politicians whose ambition exceeds their ethics (no shortage of those is there?)?

This needs to be subjected to intense official scrutiny immediately, with defences against malicious interference in vote-counting devised and installed. Until this happens there will be legitimate questions surrounding the integrity of every result using computer counting.



JeffBC -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 10:15:32 PM)

We knew from the very beginning that the entire concept of electronic voting machines was flawed. None of this is any surprise. In fact, given the absolute certainty of both the flaws in the system AND the way that such systems allow a massive single attack I can only think of one reason why they were implemented. Someone wanted to exploit those vulnerabilities. Hence my confidence that nothing will come of this. Data security researchers tend to simply throw up their hands on disgust when you mention electronic voting.

I'll be fascinated to see if this gets any play at all in MSM.



littlewonder -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 10:41:48 PM)

I'm with Jeff. As much as I want there to be an investigation into this and in 2004 and the death of Michael Connell in 2008, there never will be. For this to be done, both parties would be taking a chance on illegal activities on both side being done. Neither side in government will risk that. Instead it will just be ignored and swept under the cover.

Besides, they don't have time for some kind of silly election tampering. They're too busy stringing up Petraeus for infidelity. Because let's face it, a man sleeping around on his wife is more a priority these days. [8|]



tweakabelle -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/25/2012 11:12:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

We knew from the very beginning that the entire concept of electronic voting machines was flawed. None of this is any surprise. In fact, given the absolute certainty of both the flaws in the system AND the way that such systems allow a massive single attack I can only think of one reason why they were implemented. Someone wanted to exploit those vulnerabilities. Hence my confidence that nothing will come of this. Data security researchers tend to simply throw up their hands on disgust when you mention electronic voting.

I'll be fascinated to see if this gets any play at all in MSM.

I'm sure you will understand if I say that I hope you are wrong, though the cynic in me tells me you probably will be proved right.

If I was a sitting politician, especially one in a swing constituency or State, I would be raising this issue with anyone who would listen. I would hate it if my chances of re-election depended not on how well I had performed, or my voting record, or whether the policies I advocate have popular appeal, but on which side has the better hackers ........



Aswad -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/26/2012 5:05:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I would hate it if my chances of re-election depended not on how well I had performed, or my voting record, or whether the policies I advocate have popular appeal, but on which side has the better hackers ........


... unless it went in your favor. Politicians, as a group, aren't exactly known for their high ethical standards.

The evidence of voting irregularities in the GWB election pretty much shows us the problem has come to pass. And the fact that there isn't a clear standard in this department also makes malice probable; besides, sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. As it stands, the various powers out there should have little difficulty rigging an election, as demonstrated by several groups that have played with different voting machines to showcase the vulnerabilities.

If one wants to move to electronic voting, the best bet would seem to be to have Lockheed-Martin develop a voting machine and related software, designed for high auditability, and the solution published with full disclosure of all details and documentation so that anyone with the relevant skillset can have a look at it. Announce a cash prize for every flaw found, large or small, as LM aren't in the habit of leaving a lot of them to be found. You can pretty much bet most of the major universities and security companies will have a go on a regular basis.

Along with the corporate personhood idea, electronic voting is more than a threat to democracy as it is being done now.

I mean, why even vote, when the votes aren't being counted fairly?

IWYW,
— Aswad.



SpaceSpank -> RE: Did Anonymous save the election? (11/26/2012 5:55:01 AM)

Anonymous, when talking about the sum of all the disparate parts, can do just as much harm as good... but few people would now deny that they are capable of at least doing something.

This story could be true, or it could be a case of creating scrutiny where there is no evidence, but lots of things that are somewhat related and point to the possibility being true.

Both of those things are not unheard of for Anonymous to use. In fact, I'd say they are more skilled at social engineering than the actual hacking. Many of their "big scores" have been done not by hacking code, but by gaining access through unsuspecting people.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125