Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results

[Lewdog]

1. He posted an article stating how they successfully hacked a voting machine, and how it can be done remotely even though the voting machines are not connected to the internet. So you do know what he is saying.

2. You are saying that you know he is wrong, despite the fact he says it can be done. Thus, you are saying you know something he doesn't.

3. You don't ask for someone's IP unless you plan to hack them. Why don't you ask for my Skype ID to make a call? Then you can scan my computer and get the IP for yourself and then hack me? Seriously. I reported you for threatening to hack me. You don't like what I have to say, you could either not answer, or you could put me on ignore. threatening to hack me? Yeah that makes you worse than anything you can say about a Liberal.

Sure, he hacked voting machine. He had access to machine and it's software, I have no doubt he had plenty time to prepare the hack. Wait, but Russians...

Yes, I am saying that he's wrong, but not about possibility of hacking. You're still lying. If you had longer attention span than a gold fish, you would notice that I was referring to his claim the hack wouldn't leave the trace and that is false. Given that for removing every trace specialty tools/programs have to be used and for that you have to have full access to the hardware and software, which I don't think can happen.

You don't? You are making assumptions that my intent is to "hack" you. You're also making an assumption that I can't do the same thru the Skype. You're imagining things. Scratch that... you're lying, again. Pathetic prick.

Now, quote exactly the post where I "threatened" to hack you. A quote, not your interpretation of the post.

Yeah and give a good reason you would ask someone for their IP other than to hack them?

And here is exactly what I said in the email to him:

" My name is ------------ and I am a student at Easter Kentucky University. I read your article about the voting machine problems and shared it with a large online forum call usmessageboard.com. Some of the members, and in particular a member that graduated University of Michigan's Electrical Engineering MSE and Oakland University's Computer Science MSE said that your theory is impossible. In your theory on how malware could be transferred to the voting machines that are not hooked to the internet, you said the malware would be attached to the ballot file and then transferred to the voting machines using a memory card that is inserted into the voting machines. Then when the election is over, the malware can delete itself and not leave a trace. This member says that is impossible, unless you follow it up with some kind of program like Bleachbit. Is he correct or can you please tell me how this malware is able to do this. Also some members were curious how a hacker would know about how the machines are assembled, and what kind of programming it runs to be able to write malware that would work on it. Is this public knowledge? I really appreciate your time, as I know you have to be swamped with this issue and dealing with your own students!"

 

[Ame®icano]

1. He posted an article stating how they successfully hacked a voting machine, and how it can be done remotely even though the voting machines are not connected to the internet. So you do know what he is saying.

2. You are saying that you know he is wrong, despite the fact he says it can be done. Thus, you are saying you know something he doesn't.

3. You don't ask for someone's IP unless you plan to hack them. Why don't you ask for my Skype ID to make a call? Then you can scan my computer and get the IP for yourself and then hack me? Seriously. I reported you for threatening to hack me. You don't like what I have to say, you could either not answer, or you could put me on ignore. threatening to hack me? Yeah that makes you worse than anything you can say about a Liberal.

Sure, he hacked voting machine. He had access to machine and it's software, I have no doubt he had plenty time to prepare the hack. Wait, but Russians...

Yes, I am saying that he's wrong, but not about possibility of hacking. You're still lying. If you had longer attention span than a gold fish, you would notice that I was referring to his claim the hack wouldn't leave the trace and that is false. Given that for removing every trace specialty tools/programs have to be used and for that you have to have full access to the hardware and software, which I don't think can happen.

You don't? You are making assumptions that my intent is to "hack" you. You're also making an assumption that I can't do the same thru the Skype. You're imagining things. Scratch that... you're lying, again. Pathetic prick.

Now, quote exactly the post where I "threatened" to hack you. A quote, not your interpretation of the post.

Yeah and give a good reason you would ask someone for their IP other than to hack them?

And here is exactly what I said in the email to him:

" My name is ------------ and I am a student at Easter Kentucky University. I read your article about the voting machine problems and shared it with a large online forum call usmessageboard.com. Some of the members, and in particular a member that graduated University of Michigan's Electrical Engineering MSE and Oakland University's Computer Science MSE said that your theory is impossible. In your theory on how malware could be transferred to the voting machines that are not hooked to the internet, you said the malware would be attached to the ballot file and then transferred to the voting machines using a memory card that is inserted into the voting machines. Then when the election is over, the malware can delete itself and not leave a trace. This member says that is impossible, unless you follow it up with some kind of program like Bleachbit. Is he correct or can you please tell me how this malware is able to do this. Also some members were curious how a hacker would know about how the machines are assembled, and what kind of programming it runs to be able to write malware that would work on it. Is this public knowledge? I really appreciate your time, as I know you have to be swamped with this issue and dealing with your own students!"

Surprisingly, if that is what you wrote, you were almost on the point. Give or take.

I have no doubt that professor Halderman teaches computer system security. The stuff I saw from his homework assignment and online project are introduction to computer security, pretty basic stuff that many of todays kids with some spare time does for fun and to impress the chicks on 4chan. To be fair, what I saw is introduction that takes one semester (a ripoff) and I don't know how deep does it go past that. I really hope it does, but can't say more until I see it.

Now if you wanted to know more on the subject, you could have ask, instead of insulting and lying. I would have explain to you, but you chose to be a prick. Fine by me.

 

[Ame®icano]

Leftist, you've been conned.

 

[PredFan]

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - CNNPolitics.com

This isn't a crackpot story, multiple sources and the basis is science...

Considering the numerous hacking going on before hand this should be investigated.. Considering Comey practically tried to gift wrap the Election to Trump for Emails which Trump now admits aren't even worth investigating any more...

The current rules are what they are. We should have changed them while we had the chance, after having survived the disaster that was the Bush administration, but we didn't.

Now we need to play our cards right over the next 4 years, and abolish the electoral college when we get the chance. The overwhelming majority of the country is on our side. We mustn't forget that.

That's because the majority of Americans are idiots (the election of Obama twice is exhibit A). Using a majority popular vote to determine the POTUS is the worst thing we could do. Anyone who stayed awake in an Elementary government or politics class knows that.

It would have spared us the Dubya disaster and would have spared us the next 4 years and possibly the end of the republic

Thanks for volunteering yourself as an example of the stupidity I was talking about.

You think voting to save the nation is stupid? Well, you did vote to end it, so I guess there's no point in asking.

Lol! It's ok, you don't have to show your ignorance again. We got it in your previous post.

 

[Pop23]

Looks like I struck a nerve. You claim to know more about malware than a professor at Michigan and two professors at Princeton. You use your opinion as your "proof." You graduated from Michigan so you have an "in" to send the professor an email to get his explanation to something you say he can't do. Instead you get mad and threaten to hack me. Good job.

There you go, you're lying again. That's only think that bothers me. In just one post, you did what typical leftist does on normal bases. Lies.

Lie one: I haven't say I know more about malware, or in fact about anything than those guys. I don't even know what they know, except that professor is teaching about system security.
Lie two: I don't use opinion as a proof. I was being polite when I said he's wrong, I should have said he is lying to the public, since everything that is written to the hard drives always leave the trace. No exception.
Lie three: Did not threatened to hack you. I asked you for IP, it's completely up to you if you're going to do it or not.

1. He posted an article stating how they successfully hacked a voting machine, and how it can be done remotely even though the voting machines are not connected to the internet. So you do know what he is saying.

2. You are saying that you know he is wrong, despite the fact he says it can be done. Thus, you are saying you know something he doesn't.

3. You don't ask for someone's IP unless you plan to hack them. Why don't you ask for my Skype ID to make a call? Then you can scan my computer and get the IP for yourself and then hack me? Seriously. I reported you for threatening to hack me. You don't like what I have to say, you could either not answer, or you could put me on ignore. threatening to hack me? Yeah that makes you worse than anything you can say about a Liberal.

Then you check the machine for evidence of the hack. You don't recount.

You're recounting what? Votes? How? If it's hacked it can't be trusted in the first place.

That's not how the hack works. It prints out the votes as they are cast correctly, and only adjust the vote totals at the end. The article says that the malware that performs this deletes itself and doesn't leave a trace. Americano says that is impossible. That's one of the questions I asked in the email, along with how hackers could know how a machine works and what programs run on the machine to know beforehand how to write the malware to work with it.

Ohhhhhh, so no proof of the existence in the first place. Got it.

Now, we need more than a recount. We need a re vote because if the malware is that sophisticated (the one that disappears), there's zero confidence that it couldn't change votes as cast.

And if it happened in Wisconsin, we can't be confident it didn't happen everywhere.

You folks like living the paranoid life.

 

[Pop23]

Didn't a Soros controlled company make these machines?

Curious

 

[Hum Dinger]

Can we all agree on one thing?

A recount can't hurt anything!

If Donald Trump won fairly, it will only confirm it.

If not, then the electoral votes will go to the person that did win it (i.e. Clinton).

If it's found that the machines were hacked, it's still likely that the Donald will still be the winner.

So what's the harm?

Unless of course you suspect that there was extensive fraud and that the election results will be overturned, but simply want the Donald to win even if the election results are fraudulent.

 

[Norman]

Seems like this is a better result for Stein than her being elected. She is laughing all the way to the bank.

No wonder she supported Trump, and perhaps still does... as it's possibly revealed that Hillary scammed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Can we all agree on one thing?

A recount can't hurt anything!

If Donald Trump won fairly, it will only confirm it.

If not, then the electoral votes will go to the person that did win it (i.e. Clinton).

If it's found that the machines were hacked, it's still likely that the Donald will still be the winner.

So what's the harm?

Unless of course you suspect that there was extensive fraud and that the election results will be overturned, but simply want the Donald to win even if the election results are fraudulent.

The harm is we all agreed to the way we elect a President, and when one side loses, they want to change the rules of the game.

If this would ever happen and the election is overturned, then it sets a precedent for every election thereafter. That means the loser will always want recounts until they find enough votes to win.

It's not so much worried about the machines being hacked; that's virtually impossible. But these machines do have a 3% tolerance meaning you can find votes that were inaccurate either way. If the recount doesn't work for Hillary, the next step is to consider all the "intended" votes just like we went through in Florida. You know, those hanging chads and dimpled cards where it was determined that the intent to vote for Gore was there? But instead of that, they will be asking that we count ballots where two boxes for the President were colored in, or perhaps a slight mark where Hillary's circle was that was not filled in all the way.

The Democrats want to make a circus out of this because they are babies, and babies can't stand to lose a fair game by the rules everybody else lives by.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Can we all agree on one thing?

A recount can't hurt anything!

If Donald Trump won fairly, it will only confirm it.

If not, then the electoral votes will go to the person that did win it (i.e. Clinton).

If it's found that the machines were hacked, it's still likely that the Donald will still be the winner.

So what's the harm?

Unless of course you suspect that there was extensive fraud and that the election results will be overturned, but simply want the Donald to win even if the election results are fraudulent.

The harm is we all agreed to the way we elect a President, and when one side loses, they want to change the rules of the game.

If this would ever happen and the election is overturned, then it sets a precedent for every election thereafter. That means the loser will always want recounts until they find enough votes to win.

It's not so much worried about the machines being hacked; that's virtually impossible. But these machines do have a 3% tolerance meaning you can find votes that were inaccurate either way. If the recount doesn't work for Hillary, the next step is to consider all the "intended" votes just like we went through in Florida. You know, those hanging chads and dimpled cards where it was determined that the intent to vote for Gore was there? But instead of that, they will be asking that we count ballots where two boxes for the President were colored in, or perhaps a slight mark where Hillary's circle was that was not filled in all the way.

The Democrats want to make a circus out of this because they are babies, and babies can't stand to lose a fair game by the rules everybody else lives by.

Your lack of logic is amazing! No one is changing any rules. A recount is guaranteed to be accurate, while it's suspected that the machine totals are not. It was well known before the election that these types of machines are hackable. A recount should be done where ever these machines are used.

If it turns out that the recounts show that Clinton won, then nothing is being overturned - it only indicates that the original results were false.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Can we all agree on one thing?

A recount can't hurt anything!

If Donald Trump won fairly, it will only confirm it.

If not, then the electoral votes will go to the person that did win it (i.e. Clinton).

If it's found that the machines were hacked, it's still likely that the Donald will still be the winner.

So what's the harm?

Unless of course you suspect that there was extensive fraud and that the election results will be overturned, but simply want the Donald to win even if the election results are fraudulent.

The harm is we all agreed to the way we elect a President, and when one side loses, they want to change the rules of the game.

If this would ever happen and the election is overturned, then it sets a precedent for every election thereafter. That means the loser will always want recounts until they find enough votes to win.

It's not so much worried about the machines being hacked; that's virtually impossible. But these machines do have a 3% tolerance meaning you can find votes that were inaccurate either way. If the recount doesn't work for Hillary, the next step is to consider all the "intended" votes just like we went through in Florida. You know, those hanging chads and dimpled cards where it was determined that the intent to vote for Gore was there? But instead of that, they will be asking that we count ballots where two boxes for the President were colored in, or perhaps a slight mark where Hillary's circle was that was not filled in all the way.

The Democrats want to make a circus out of this because they are babies, and babies can't stand to lose a fair game by the rules everybody else lives by.

Your lack of logic is amazing! No one is changing any rules. A recount is guaranteed to be accurate, while it's suspected that the machine totals are not. It was well known before the election that these types of machines are hackable. A recount should be done where ever these machines are used.

If it turns out that the recounts show that Clinton won, then nothing is being overturned - it only indicates that the original results were false.

And so we're going to have to go through this every MF election when the liberal loses?

This is why I think it's time to divide this country in half. Liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. Each run their own side of the country and be done with it. I'm sick of these sniveling babies already. This is the third loss in a row we have to pander to these leftists and it's getting old and sickening. Every damn time they lose we have to spend tens of millions of dollars to make them happy (which as we see, they never are) and then listening to the whining how the elections were stolen.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Can we all agree on one thing?

A recount can't hurt anything!

If Donald Trump won fairly, it will only confirm it.

If not, then the electoral votes will go to the person that did win it (i.e. Clinton).

If it's found that the machines were hacked, it's still likely that the Donald will still be the winner.

So what's the harm?

Unless of course you suspect that there was extensive fraud and that the election results will be overturned, but simply want the Donald to win even if the election results are fraudulent.

The harm is we all agreed to the way we elect a President, and when one side loses, they want to change the rules of the game.

If this would ever happen and the election is overturned, then it sets a precedent for every election thereafter. That means the loser will always want recounts until they find enough votes to win.

It's not so much worried about the machines being hacked; that's virtually impossible. But these machines do have a 3% tolerance meaning you can find votes that were inaccurate either way. If the recount doesn't work for Hillary, the next step is to consider all the "intended" votes just like we went through in Florida. You know, those hanging chads and dimpled cards where it was determined that the intent to vote for Gore was there? But instead of that, they will be asking that we count ballots where two boxes for the President were colored in, or perhaps a slight mark where Hillary's circle was that was not filled in all the way.

The Democrats want to make a circus out of this because they are babies, and babies can't stand to lose a fair game by the rules everybody else lives by.

Your lack of logic is amazing! No one is changing any rules. A recount is guaranteed to be accurate, while it's suspected that the machine totals are not. It was well known before the election that these types of machines are hackable. A recount should be done where ever these machines are used.

If it turns out that the recounts show that Clinton won, then nothing is being overturned - it only indicates that the original results were false.

And so we're going to have to go through this every MF election when the liberal loses?

This is why I think it's time to divide this country in half. Liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. Each run their own side of the country and be done with it. I'm sick of these sniveling babies already. This is the third loss in a row we have to pander to these leftists and it's getting old and sickening. Every damn time they lose we have to spend tens of millions of dollars to make them happy (which as we see, they never are) and then listening to the whining how the elections were stolen.

First, there is nothing unusual about a recount. They happen often and are called for by Republicans as much as Democrats.

Second, until there is a recount no one is sure who won...which is why there is a recount.

Third, the Green Party is paying for this recount, so you're not paying anything.

Fourth, if your so confident that Trump won then you wouldn't feel so threatened by a recount and you wouldn't be acting like a whining little baby.

Finally, we should have a recount after every election. If you respect democracy you'd want to make certain of every election.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First, there is nothing unusual about a recount. They happen often and are called for by Republicans as much as Democrats.

Second, until there is a recount no one is sure who won...which is why there is a recount.

Third, the Green Party is paying for this recount, so you're not paying anything.

Fourth, if your so confident that Trump won then you wouldn't feel so threatened by a recount and you wouldn't be acting like a whining little baby.

Finally, we should have a recount after every election. If you respect democracy you'd want to make certain of every election.

Then why have machines at all if Democrats are going to complain about them every time they lose? Just hand count the entire country. We may not be able to find out who the winner is for several weeks; it may cost us tens of millions of dollars each election. But who cares, right? As long as the Democrats are satisfied. That's what counts.

 

[Hum Dinger]

First, there is nothing unusual about a recount. They happen often and are called for by Republicans as much as Democrats.

Second, until there is a recount no one is sure who won...which is why there is a recount.

Third, the Green Party is paying for this recount, so you're not paying anything.

Fourth, if your so confident that Trump won then you wouldn't feel so threatened by a recount and you wouldn't be acting like a whining little baby.

Finally, we should have a recount after every election. If you respect democracy you'd want to make certain of every election.

Then why have machines at all if Democrats are going to complain about them every time they lose? Just hand count the entire country. We may not be able to find out who the winner is for several weeks; it may cost us tens of millions of dollars each election. But who cares, right? As long as the Democrats are satisfied. That's what counts.

You apparently do not think Democracy is important enough to spend money on.

Votes were hand counted for many years - no reason why we can't do it that way now. If we have to wait for a few weeks...so be it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You apparently do not think Democracy is important enough to spend money on.

Votes were hand counted for many years - no reason why we can't do it that way now. If we have to wait for a few weeks...so be i

Fine with me, just set the rules up before the game, not after when you find out you lost.

 

[Ame®icano]

The con continues, Hillary join in because...

Oops - Jill Stein Cannot File Direct Request For Recount In Pennsylvania, Must Take It To Court

Trump won Pennsylvania by 70k votes.
Michigan is already recounted..
The only recount that could happen is in Wisconsin, and for Pennsylvania Stein has to prove in court that "fraud was probable".

 

[kaz]

Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - CNNPolitics.com

This isn't a crackpot story, multiple sources and the basis is science...

Considering the numerous hacking going on before hand this should be investigated.. Considering Comey practically tried to gift wrap the Election to Trump for Emails which Trump now admits aren't even worth investigating any more...

Never too late for a Democrat to try to steal an election, is it cowwood?

 

[Ame®icano]

Ohhhhhh, so no proof of the existence in the first place. Got it.

Now, we need more than a recount. We need a re vote because if the malware is that sophisticated (the one that disappears), there's zero confidence that it couldn't change votes as cast.

And if it happened in Wisconsin, we can't be confident it didn't happen everywhere.

You folks like living the paranoid life.

Malware is in their heads. It deleted all common sense, then deleted itself. It was there, just can prove it.

 

[Fueri]

The con continues, Hillary join in because...

Oops - Jill Stein Cannot File Direct Request For Recount In Pennsylvania, Must Take It To Court

Trump won Pennsylvania by 70k votes.
Michigan is already recounted..
The only recount that could happen is in Wisconsin, and for Pennsylvania Stein has to prove in court that "fraud was probable".

Let's see what the weasels invent as 'evidence'. this should be a good one.

Of course, if I'm arguing it, I go with the logic that we will not have the evidence without the recount and forensic analysis, kind of the same circular bullshit the left is using now.

 

[Hum Dinger]

You apparently do not think Democracy is important enough to spend money on.

Votes were hand counted for many years - no reason why we can't do it that way now. If we have to wait for a few weeks...so be i

Fine with me, just set the rules up before the game, not after when you find out you lost.

The rules have always allowed for a recount. Nothing new at all.