clinton urged to challenge election because of possibility of hacking

>>87351
I'm pretty sure there will be little to no forensic trail left for proper analysis. The infosec polices in the US are a JOKE. They have given foreign government at least 16 years of poor policy to own everything.

>>87351
It's out of any ones control now, it's up to the CIA or FBI to find if there is anything they can do in 4 years.

Maybe we can fuck up Putin's re election so he only gets 95% of the vote.

>>87358

They should hack the decimal point over a few places.
>.01% of the vote
>1,000,000% of the vote

Either direction would be funny and totally undermine his election.

Sounds very real.

>>87351
>The scientists, among them J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to the source.
>The group informed John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, and Marc Elias, the campaign's general counsel, that Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked.
Holy shit that's crazy!!! Hopefully they have some proof...
>Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had NOT found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review.
>WHILE THEY HAD NOT FOUND ANY EVIDENCE
JESUS.
FUCKING.
CHRIST.
I get it, people are sad that Trump won, and that Putin/foreign leaders at odds with the US also probably prefer Trump to win, just claiming shit with 0 fucking evidence only makes you look worse.
The thing is, I 100% can believe a foreign body would hack the electronic voting if they could, but at least offering something more tangible than "MUH PROOF IS MUH CANDIDATE DUDINT WIN THOSE STATES WAAAA".

>>87468
you child

they are refferring to circumstantial evidence and suggesting further examination by an "independent review" i.e. not themselves

>>87498
That's not my point, my point was the flimsy reasoning behind their request.

>>87510

When you have some pattern that you want to confirm, you request further investigation. As far as I can tell, nobody is demanding that Trump tender his resignation immediately or anything stupid like that (which your ALL CAPS seems to imply), they just want time to look into or recount the vote to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.

>>87538
Their hypothesis is literally that Clinton lost in those states, and nothing else. If I was her, I'd be demanding recounts everywhere, but these guys come off as a bunch of whiners.
Point me to the pattern or circumstantial evidence that hint the Trump was illegally elected that these guys believe in.

>>87538
You won't convince me you believe your own words. There is a political motivation. The right has grounds to question the voting practices of California, and the legitimacy of ~those~ votes, but won't bother because it won. Everyone knows this 'independent review' will be conducted by people with the same political sympathies as those who've proposed the review. In many cases, the way universities are connected, they're probably even friends of those individuals.

A slightly uncommon correlation, that straight up could be causatively explained, even still, by hundreds of mediating variables, is not grounds for a vote re-count, or even 'an investigation into a vote recount'. Especially when people are rioting and blocking highways - and when such a practice would just encourage them to keep at it.

>>87539
I'm betting that Trump's promise to not prosecute her had some conditions.This was probably one of them.

>>87351
She won the popular vote - a recount isn't going to help her in any way shape or form. Dunno why some folks are pushing this crap.

>>87539
>>87541

Their pattern is in the article, the difference between the margins of counties with paper ballots vs counties with electronic ballots. This could obviously be nothing (coincidences happen all the time and usually no one cares) but it is a pattern which could warrant further investigation.

And remember, it's "could," not "should." I don't think anyone really wants to go down this route unless there is overwhelming evidence (such as the Russians crowing about how they got Trump elected or some shit). It would simply be too disruptive without any additional evidence. A public recount is probably not the wisest course of action, but undoubtedly someone will be looking further into the issue in a more discreet manner (hell maybe they already know the answer but won't share it because of the exact same reasons a public recount would be messy as shit).

>Everyone knows this 'independent review' will be conducted by people with the same political sympathies as those who've proposed the review

If that was true it wouldn't be an independent review. You simply need one group trying to prove the hypothesis and another trying to disprove it. It's not hard.

>>87602

It does if she wins those exact three states.

>>87693
Here we go: an actual explanation
https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.qun5bexaq
Oh wait, it's just that "muh candidate lost in paper-less states" argument again.
But whatever, do the fucking recount so we elect the slight less shit candidate or tell the whiners to shut up.

>>87697

I don't understand why you keep viewing this as whining. Maybe I don't read "maybe there's something there we don't know" the same was as you do, but to me it's just "eh might be worth checking out, but you need to give us permission to bother."

I agree a full-blown public recount is not a prudent course of action, but if there's a suspicion you might as well check it out in a discreet manner if possible. There won't be a sudden switch in president-elects (either because zero wrong doing or because it's simply too disruptive), but it's worth knowing if the voting system has been compromised (even if that knowledge isn't made public, since the government will still be able to enact policy to counter it).

>>87747
Because between people yelling about "muh fake news won Trump the election" (there was bullshit from both sides, let's be fair) and the entire media being completely unsubtle in their bias towards Clinton, getting sick of hearing about this shit. There was a pair of articles by the Huffington Post or something, where a few weeks before the election they were praising the Electoral System, but then once Trump won it was "we need to do away with it".

The senator that's been begging for a recount raised the money required for a recount/at least the bill of one, so it's all for moot. I hope they do a recount, so then everyone can accept that Trump won, or they elect Clinton in one of the most hilarious circumstances ever.

>>87778
>(there was bullshit from both sides, let's be fair)
No one can say with a straight face that the bullshit was somehow equitably pernicious or common in targeting both sides of the political spectrum.
It rarely is, and it got a remarkably worse during this election.

>>87778

I can hardly fault the news media for being against Trump given his constant threats against them. If you keep calling someone biased and evil they will inevitably try to defend themselves, thus making them biased.

You also need to be aware that more negative coverage does not indicate unequal coverage. Clinton was an old face, her controversies have been investigated since the 90's and she has a public record as a public official making her opinions and policy clear. Everyone already knows Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile Donald Trump was new on the political stage (outside of one aborted run for the 2012 cycle) so nobody knew what he stood for (and we still don't given his backtracking on nearly all of his statements). Couple that with multiple contradicting and/or inflammatory statements and you have a media feeding frenzy (which was very good for him when he was one of many candidates in the primary, but not so good during the one on one of the actual election).

I won't deny a general leftward bias in the mass media, but it's not as bad as you think.

>>87351
Computer scientists have been warning about how trivial the security on electronic voting machines is for DECADES now.

This is nothing new, it's just people are finally bothering to listen.

>>87357
There is no machines in Michigan, what did those Russian hackers hacked there? A joke. SJWs take us for idiots.

>>87351
Yea... professor of CS.... told the machines that WERE NOT USED in Michigan were hacked by foreign power. Man, what kind of computing is that?

>>87351
probably did happen, won't really effect the election en though maybe

>>87785
this

>>87778
>There was a pair of articles by the Huffington Post or something, where a few weeks before the election they were praising the Electoral System, but then once Trump won it was "we need to do away with it".
very nice strawman anon

>>87468
I can try to break this down for you since you don't seem to understand it.

Proper computer security is not done by secrecy. For proper computer security, you try and plan on the enemy knowing everything about your setup, and for it to still be secure. That's why open-source projects are some of the most secure software available; on top of sound design, they have lots of pairs of eyes reviewing the same code, which means they're more likely to find little logical screwups an attacker could exploit. Security by obscurity (ie, hoping your enemy won't know the details of your setup) isn't.

People don't actually understand that, and copyright/IP laws in the united states are absolutely borked. Ridiculously so. What happens with these voting machines (that computer scientists have been warning about being laughably insecure for decades now) is that some private company sells them to the government. The government, or literally anyone with half a brain, goes, "Hey, this is great and all, but we need this to be secure. Can you show us your code/let a qualified third party assess it?" (the latter is a common method of security rating in commercial enterprise.) The company starts screaming up and down about how it's their proprietary code, making them share it would be theft, you'll just have to take their word its secure. Trust them. They're professionals. (With no oversight. If they actually gave a damn or had any reason to do so, it would be trivial to make some fairly secure machines. They'd rather not though.)

Got that?

>>88043
Okay, I'm sure there are some die-hard clintonians who think y'all trumpkins cheated three ways from sunday, but fact of the matter is that the calls from say, J. Alex Halderman, have nothing to do with WHO won; he's saying that we should set the precedent of checking the paper ballot trails against the Evoting machines. The Evoting machines HAVE NO PAPER TRAIL. There is NO WAY TO CHECK THEM. We are forced to just HOPE THEY WEREN'T HACKED. That's kinda raw. However, with some fancy statistical analysis, it's possible to categorize and analyze the paper ballot trails (where people voted via paper, or mailin) and then compare that to the e-voting results. See if it's wildly off or about in line. No, it's not ideal, but it's something, anything, at all.

So the point (from those who know about the topic) isn't that they actually think it will change the results; it's that we actually ought to use what little safety methods we have. Having no special knowledge, I presume the results will vindicate Trump; voting machines are easy to hack, but to hack it and hide the signs of the hacking isn't quite so easy. (Which doesn't mean they're any more secure.) However, there's no point to having a calculator to check your work on the metaphorical math test if you don't USE it.

>>88043
>>88044
Good points and well made.
So when's the recount for Nevada then? I mean they have Evoting machines there and the winner of that state only won by 17,000 votes, way less than Wisconsin's 27,000 votes.

>>88083
Do they keep a papertrail?

If they have anything a recount can be done with, by all means, it should be done. The point is to actually use our backups and safety systems. If we don't use them, there's no point to having them, and who knows what's going on inside those voting machines?

Set the precedent so we can do it every time.

Perhaps they should recount Minnesota and New Hampshire as well. I think there are two issues. One is the integrity of our elections. The other is Stein/Clinton clutching for straws. On the first, we clearly need to clean up our voting. I've read estimates of some 3 million illegal voters voting, of anywhere between 1-4 million dead people voting, of people voting more than once, and of numerous other instances of fraud. This should be part of "draining the swamp." The second issue is a waste of time. The margins in Penn were too significant to realistically overcome any "noise" in the Wisconsin and Michigan votes. In the meantime, the only outcome is to create more dissension and resentment and more manufactured unrest. The thousands of death threats to the electoral college members and these publicity stunts are shameful. I seem to remember a different line of thinking from Hillary Clinton during the debates on how loss should be handled.

>>88086
Here's the fun thing; there are a heap (Wisconsin alone uses 7 or so) different models AND brands of voting machines. Now some do print out a paper slip before you confirm your vote as a double check for you, BUT then a separate, final slip is printed and stored for backup.
There are some (apologies that i can't recall) that store all the votes on a Voter Access Card that each voter is given and must return to cast their vote. No paper is involved.

Now both are shit in a technical, security aspect from there user operations; there could be malicious code that once a legit vote is submitted, it just changes the electronic AND prints a "fake" paper vote. The other has no backup so you have to take the electronic vote as fact. Proving that either cases have been affected by hackers is awkward; you'd need to inspect virtually every ROM card (what they use to input the candidate options and is protected by a "tamper proof" seal) to see if there is anything additional that shouldn't be there. You'd also, realistically, need to probably "simulate" the election on those machines again since code from the ROM may, depending on how the machines exactly work, have affected other components and "cleaned" the ROM cards of the original malicious code.

The interesting thing is IF anything malicious was detected, what would be the next step?

given his tweets, Trump is nervous because he knows he hinted he wanted to the Russians to curry favor with him. There may not have been official cooperation between them, but he's possibly wondering if it were really possible the Russians could have hacked the polls without his knowledge.

>>88119
Hard not to be nervous, considering he beat a system 100% geared against him from the start; between Russian potential involvement (fun thing about claiming the Russian's hacked X is that it's pretty damn hard to disprove it) and whatever the recount will throw up, I'd be sweating bullets too.

>>88087
Recount in MN is totally needed. Literally everyone i know here either voted trump or johnson. OP clearly loves satans cock