FBI detects breaches against two state voter systems | Arizona & Illinois
– Yahoo News
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Federal Bureau of Investigation has found breaches in Illinois and Arizona’s voter registration databases and is urging states to increase computer security ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election, according to a U.S. official familiar with the probe.”
"In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world's dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA's dominant election results reporting company.
When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.
The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.
As local election results funnel through SOE’s servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get “first look” at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.”
...More @ BlackboxVoting.org
Microsoft’s Iowa Vote-Count A Dry Run for Bigger Corporate Role In U.S. Election Process
– Breitbart | Feb 2016
“The use of Microsoft’s vote-counting technology in Monday’s Iowa Caucus may foreshadow a future in which corporate technology plays a central role in U.S. elections, raising concerns about the possibility of private firms skewing the democratic process.
Andrés Sepúlveda rigged elections throughout Latin America for almost a decade via the internet. He tells his story for the first time to Bloomberg.
“When Peña Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.
For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peña Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.
Sepúlveda’s career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small—mostly defacing campaign websites and breaking into opponents’ donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn’t cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.
His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico’s PRI and the campaign of Guatemala’s National Advancement Party would comment.
Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who’s been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal, and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gaveBloomberg Businessweek of their relationship, but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. “If I talked to him maybe once or twice, it was in a group session about that, about the Web,” he says. “I don’t do illegal stuff at all. There is negative campaigning. They don’t like it—OK. But if it’s legal, I’m gonna do it. I’m not a saint, but I’m not a criminal.” While Sepúlveda’s policy was to destroy all data at the completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted third parties as a secret “insurance policy.”
Sepúlveda says he was offered several political jobs in Spain, which he says he turned down because he was too busy. On the question of whether the U.S. presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. “I’m 100 percent sure it is,” he says.”
Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe’s turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard—or, as he puts it, “When I realized that people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything.”
Media Blackout: an Elephant in the Room The Incredible Election Fraud of Hillary Clinton
Once again the Mainstream media seems to be completely silent, no surprise really, a recurring theme this election. That theme? Election fraud, and it just always seems to be in favor of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, against Senator Bernie Sanders. Whether its voter suppression, changing voting registration information or poll rigging machines. This election primary at every twist and turn has had it all and we’re not even to the general election yet. A compendium of the fraud is documented below by state.
Its become abundantly clear the establishment is cheating to get their candidate Hillary Clinton elected so why are all these facts ignored about Hillary’s campaign blatantly rigging to win states? As a Counter Punch article suggest its Highly Suspicious Hillary does good in states where machines can be hacked due to flunking security test..
However that’s not the only worry this election another worry is a whopping more than 30 states offered voters online voting. Supposedly at convenience but convenience for whom? The ones rigging it? Any security professional will tell you online voting is not secure and can also be heavily tampered with finding various vulnerabilities in outdated software, which Wired wrote an article about how insecure online voting really is during the Utah Caucus. The Washington Post also followed up and wrote an article where several experts warn online voting is 100% insecure.”
Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests: Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders Election Fraud Allegations
“CounterPunch has interviewed hackers, academics, exit pollsters, and elections officials and workers in multiple states for this series taking election fraud allegations seriously. The tearful breakdown in Hacking Democracy is not surprising. There is a well-beyond remarkable gap between what security experts and academics say about the vulnerability of voting machines and the confidence elections experts and academics, media outlets, and elections officials place in those same machines.
In Leon County, Bev Harris’ Black Box Voting team had just demonstrated a simple hack of an AccuVote tabulator for bubble-marked paper ballots. Ion Sancho, Leon County’s Supervisor of Elections, also fights back tears in the Hacking Democracy clip: “I would have certified this election as a true and accurate result of a vote.” Sancho adds, “The vendors are driving the process of voting technology in the United States.”
In 2010, and this reminder will pain those of you who can remember when Nate Silver’s outfit did real data journalism rather than primarily yay-Clinton boo-Trump punditry, a FiveThirtyEight column argued that hacking was one of two possibilities for statistical anomalies in a Democratic Senate primary in South Carolina: “B. Somebody with access to software and machines engineered a very devious manipulation of the vote returns.”
Joshua Holland’s column in The Nation “debunking” claims of election fraud benefiting Clinton rests its case on a simple proposition: why would Clinton need to cheat when she was winning anyway? Apparently, Mr. Holland has never heard of an obscure American politician named Richard Nixon.
Kim Zetter, the best reporter on hacking and computer security at Wired Magazine, delved into the Brennan Center report with an article entitled “The Dismal State of America’s Decade-Old Voting Machines.” Zetter noted that in 2002, after the Bush v. Gore disaster, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) with billions of dollars available for counties throughout the U.S. to upgrade to new voting machines. Zetter then hits the critical point for discussion of election fraud allegations in the Democratic presidential primary:
But many of the machines installed then, which are still in use today, were never properly vetted—the initial voting standards and testing processes turned out to be highly flawed—and ultimately introduced new problems in the form of insecure software code and design.”
– No, Bill, Hillary isn’t just used to fooling rubes in the hinterland, she’s used to fooling rubes like you in Hollywood, who then cover for her.
This election fraud didn’t occur in Rubeville, it occurred on his own turf in California./CJ
After Frustrating Democratic Primary, Millions of Ballots in California Remain Uncounted
The uncounted ballots would put the total number of voters at around 8.5 million, or around 47 percent of all registered voters
“More than 2.5 million ballots from California’s June 7 primary are still uncounted, sparking questions about the results of the presidential contest in which Hillary Clinton emerged the winner and leaving the fate of local races in the air as poll workers continue to grapple with reports of voter difficulties.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the uncounted ballots would put the total voter turnout at around 8.5 million, or around 47 percent of all registered voters. While the results are unlikely to impact Clinton’s win in the state, Bernie Sanders said Thursday he expected the final tally would show a closer race—one more in keeping with polls that predicted a nail-biter.
“I look forward to the full counting of the votes in California, which I suspect will show a much closer vote than the current vote tally,” Sanders said after a meeting with President Barack Obama, who then went on to endorse Clinton.
Los Angeles County, which on Tuesday voted 57 percent for Clinton versus 42 for Sanders, reported more unprocessed ballots than any region at roughly 616,000. San Diego County, where Clinton won 55 percent to Sanders’ 44, had 285,000 uncounted ballots.
Many of those were ‘provisional’ ballots, which are given to voters whose party registration cannot be determined on the day of the election. The LA Times wrote on Tuesday:
Instead of a quick in-and-out vote, many California voters were handed the dreaded pink provisional ballot — which takes longer to fill out, longer for election officials to verify and which tends to leave voters wondering whether their votes will be counted…. hundreds of Californians complained of voting problems to the national nonpartisan voter hotline run by the Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law.
Dissatisfaction with the voting system has become widespread this election cycle, as Sanders supporters rail against convoluted election rules and his treatment by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the corporate media, which came under fire earlier this week for claiming Clinton had clinched the party’s nomination before Californians—and voters in five other states—even had a chance to cast their ballots.
But as Freedom of the Press Foundation co-founder Trevor Timm wrote in an op-ed on Wednesday, it’s not just the Sanders supporters who feel disenfranchised by the system. “Virtually every major campaign in both parties griped about how the other was winning at some point during this campaign, and along the way almost all of them were right,” he wrote.”
Bernie Sanders Wins California Landslide But 2/3 of his Votes Aren’t Counted
June 7, 2016. California.The Justice Gazette reporters and others are conducting an investigation into voting irregularities and the theft of Bernie Sanders’s apparent California landslide victory by those supporting Hillary Clinton. According to popular actress Frances Fisher, a lawsuit is being prepared to require the counting of all the provisional ballots. If this lawsuit is successful, the actual vote count is expected to become known and Sanders will likely have a landslide victory in California.
The theft of California hasn’t deterred Sanders from his course. He has promised to fight on while noting it is a steep uphill climb. Given all the states where vote fraud in favor of Hillary Clinton has been allowed to swing primaries from Sanders to Clinton, it is in fact a steep uphill climb to restore democracy and force the now undemocratic Democratic Party to nominate the man the vast majority of American voters have voted for or tried to vote for.
It has been learned from poll workers that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposed to have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they would have to vote provisional ballots.
There were two irregularities leading to the forced use of provisional ballots instead of regular ballots. The first was that previously registered voters’ names had been removed from the rolls. The second was that someone (in most cases, not the voter) had marked them as vote by mail voters but they had received no ballot in the mail. Oddly, virtually all of those not allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters.
The next oddity is even more curious. Poll workers in Los Angeles and Orange County report that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2 to 1 margin, the opposite of the result of the vote count. The contrast between this and the outcome is indicative of vote-flipping. Also the outcome.. outcome does not match what anyone who has conducted polling in this state knows: Below the election night video is a video about black box voting (Hacking Democracy) , The Democratic Party has essentially endorsed this video, showing it at various conventions and another video of a computer programmer confessing to creating a vote-flipping program.”
Question: How did Bernie’s perceived landslide turn into a Hillary rout of Sanders? Vote flipping?/CJ
The Challenges of Digital Voting
– Scientific American
Information security expert Avi Rubin explains why we won’t be voting on our smartphones anytime soon
“In researching my Scientific American column about the dismal prospects for online voting, I interviewed Avi Rubin, Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University, technical director of Johns Hopkins’s Information Security Institute, and author of Brave New Ballot: The Battle to Safeguard Democracy in the Age of Electronic Voting. He’s been deeply immersed in the research surrounding electronic voting for decades.
Since I have more room on the Web than I do on the printed page, I would like to share more of our conversation here.
David Pogue: Are there any steps that would make you, a security researcher, comfortable with electronic voting?
Avi Rubin: In principle, I think that paper ballots are far superior to electronic voting machines. Even if the machines are high quality (and none of the current ones on the market have proven to be that), the inability to manually recount, to audit, and to prevent rigging and the potential for widespread, wholesale fraud are deal breakers for purely electronic voting. Paper ballots are not a panacea, but without them there is an opportunity for fraud that is much more widespread.
DP: What if the software in these machines is open source and can be inspected publicly?
AR: Just because software is open source does not mean that it will be subjected to many eyeballs. Voting machine software should most definitely be made publicly available, but we need to realize that it may still have security vulnerabilities. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have an assurance the actual bits that are running inside of a voting machine on election day match the software that was publicly available.
DP: What if voters could look over a printed receipt before leaving the electronic machine?
AR: A voter-inspected paper record can overcome many of the weaknesses of electronic voting. There is no perfect voting system, but the best one that I know is where a touchscreen ballot marking machine is used for voters to make their selections. The machine then prints out a filled-out paper ballot. The voter takes this ballot, inspects it, challenges it and starts over if it is wrong (and reports it), and when a correct ballot is produced, submits it to the polls where it can be optically scanned.
Some random sample of ballot boxes is counted manually and compared to the scanned results, and if there are problems, more stations are manually compared. In case of a very close election or any hint of foul play, the ballots can be counted by hand or by a different brand of optical scanner.
We will never get this perfect. It’s too hard a problem. But we can do a lot better than we have so far.
DP: Seems like the prospect of voting by smartphone would be even more vulnerable than the in-person methods, right?
AR: Yes, voting over the Internet or smartphones is a non-starter. You can’t control the security of the platform. Remember that you don’t even trust the manufacturer of the voting system. You don’t want to put control of the outcome of a presidential election in the hands of Samsung or Apple, or millions of app developers.”