Linked the Verge because a redacted report would probably require some context, and it does confirm the Russian Government would have had the ability to alter or change voter data, so this gets a...
Linked the Verge because a redacted report would probably require some context, and it does confirm the Russian Government would have had the ability to alter or change voter data, so this gets a whole lot more complicated.
One of the scariest thoughts about it to me is: if they did find proof of altered voting, would the government even be willing to admit it? It would destroy people's trust in basically everything...
One of the scariest thoughts about it to me is: if they did find proof of altered voting, would the government even be willing to admit it? It would destroy people's trust in basically everything if they were told that the whole foundation of the government was fraudulent, potentially even in ways where they can't tell which results were legitimate or not, or how long it's been happening for.
They very well might decide that something of that magnitude needs to be kept secret because it could destabilize the whole country.
Even if the government can't publicly admit that votes had been altered, they could still take steps to prevent it happening again. For example, they might say something like: "Due to the possible...
Even if the government can't publicly admit that votes had been altered, they could still take steps to prevent it happening again. For example, they might say something like: "Due to the possible risk of hacking, as indicated by this investigation, we've decided to take steps to protect our democracy. We're going back to paper voting as of now. We simply can't afford the risk that some malicious actor might, at some future time, possibly hack into our votes."
They don't have to admit to being hacked, but they can stop it happening again.
Then again, this is the USA, where political parties manipulate voting districts, and even access to voting is a partisan issue. They'll never do the sensible thing.
i mean, while the first part might be true we can take a relatively educated guess at the second part even with only public information: the recent uptick in russian electoral interference was...
It would destroy people's trust in basically everything if they were told that the whole foundation of the government was fraudulent, potentially even in ways where they can't tell which results were legitimate or not, or how long it's been happening for.
i mean, while the first part might be true we can take a relatively educated guess at the second part even with only public information:
the recent uptick in russian electoral interference was first noted with the 2014 ukranian elections and was ferreted out pretty quickly in 2016 and 2018 in the US, as well as in european elections during that timeframe and since where it was less comprehensive and influential. this suggests that they have not been at this for that long.
additionally, since we know what sides they pick in certain elections, that adds another criteria to refine good candidates for potential interference against, since there are only so many elections that could be in theoretical question.
we can also add other criteria that'd also be important, like which races might be important to the balance of power in legislative chambers (and therefore, integral to potential policy changes). russians for example would probably target swing state senate seats in the US specifically for electoral interference, since those seats generally determine which party holds the senate chamber or not in a given election cycle.
even based just on those three above criteria, in the US it's probably reasonable to conclude that there are no more than a handful of races of the thousands that occur in election years where electoral interference would even make sense, much less make sense to pursue given the potential consequences if discovered or genuinely change the outcome. it's of course not that simple nor that easy, but even if it happened, i just don't think it's something that can really be--or would be--taken as an institutional poisoning of the well like that.
as far as 'would the government be willing to admit that', maybe not depending on which country, but for the trump administration it probably wouldn't matter because it'd be very likely to get out if there was such proof to present. the administration is a fucking sieve, and there'd also probably be some shuffling of how elections are conducted and a broader switch to paper ballots.
also, while i'd like to think that people would actually respond to something like that, the public is also kinda ambivalent to a lot of this, frankly? russian issues rank very low on voter concerns, and while that might uptick if definitive evidence was found of vote changing by russians in some election, i get the sense that the broader public is kinda dull to it all and it wouldn't move the margins very much either in trust for institutions--which is already pretty low--or in trump's approval/disapproval rating.
According to the report (via the New York Times): It's fascinating how we have such well-defined rules of engagement for physical warfare but when it comes to cyberwarfare everything is incredibly...
It concluded that while there is no evidence that any votes were changed in actual voting machines, “Russian cyberactors were in a position to delete or change voter data” in the Illinois voter database. The committee found no evidence that they did so.
It's fascinating how we have such well-defined rules of engagement for physical warfare but when it comes to cyberwarfare everything is incredibly vague. Deploying malware that destroys uranium enrichment facilities or cripples a power grid would absolutely be acts of war if they were conducted by clandestine or special forces operations.
Ya, it's a whole new ballgame. Though the idea of there being "rules" of war is relatively new in the span of human history. The Geneva convention was only about 150yrs ago:...
Ya, it's a whole new ballgame. Though the idea of there being "rules" of war is relatively new in the span of human history. The Geneva convention was only about 150yrs ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
It took most of human history before war got "bad enough" that we as a planet (or most of it) decided we needed rules. Cyber warfare is only just getting started. We're beyond clubs and spears, maybe at steel swords. But as we know it's evolving rapidly. There are already theoretical cyber attacks that could dispense mass chaos by hitting power grids or sections of the internet infrastructure. But even that is just like the difference between a sword and an AR15. I have no idea what the cyber equivelant of a nuclear weapon would be, it will likely be something unique and different from the current malware attacks, but I'm sure I don't want to find out.
I love The Verge, but it's probably not the best source for stuff like this. Here are a few other articles (non-paywalled and from reliable sources):...
I love The Verge, but it's probably not the best source for stuff like this. Here are a few other articles (non-paywalled and from reliable sources):
Thanks, I updated the main link to the NPR one since it seems like a much better article. (It's also in the topic log in the sidebar, but this was the original link:...
Thanks, I updated the main link to the NPR one since it seems like a much better article.
Linked the Verge because a redacted report would probably require some context, and it does confirm the Russian Government would have had the ability to alter or change voter data, so this gets a whole lot more complicated.
Somehow I hadn't actually considered that an option. Could they have altered votes without us knowing by now?
One of the scariest thoughts about it to me is: if they did find proof of altered voting, would the government even be willing to admit it? It would destroy people's trust in basically everything if they were told that the whole foundation of the government was fraudulent, potentially even in ways where they can't tell which results were legitimate or not, or how long it's been happening for.
They very well might decide that something of that magnitude needs to be kept secret because it could destabilize the whole country.
Even if the government can't publicly admit that votes had been altered, they could still take steps to prevent it happening again. For example, they might say something like: "Due to the possible risk of hacking, as indicated by this investigation, we've decided to take steps to protect our democracy. We're going back to paper voting as of now. We simply can't afford the risk that some malicious actor might, at some future time, possibly hack into our votes."
They don't have to admit to being hacked, but they can stop it happening again.
Then again, this is the USA, where political parties manipulate voting districts, and even access to voting is a partisan issue. They'll never do the sensible thing.
i mean, while the first part might be true we can take a relatively educated guess at the second part even with only public information:
even based just on those three above criteria, in the US it's probably reasonable to conclude that there are no more than a handful of races of the thousands that occur in election years where electoral interference would even make sense, much less make sense to pursue given the potential consequences if discovered or genuinely change the outcome. it's of course not that simple nor that easy, but even if it happened, i just don't think it's something that can really be--or would be--taken as an institutional poisoning of the well like that.
as far as 'would the government be willing to admit that', maybe not depending on which country, but for the trump administration it probably wouldn't matter because it'd be very likely to get out if there was such proof to present. the administration is a fucking sieve, and there'd also probably be some shuffling of how elections are conducted and a broader switch to paper ballots.
also, while i'd like to think that people would actually respond to something like that, the public is also kinda ambivalent to a lot of this, frankly? russian issues rank very low on voter concerns, and while that might uptick if definitive evidence was found of vote changing by russians in some election, i get the sense that the broader public is kinda dull to it all and it wouldn't move the margins very much either in trust for institutions--which is already pretty low--or in trump's approval/disapproval rating.
According to the report (via the New York Times):
It's fascinating how we have such well-defined rules of engagement for physical warfare but when it comes to cyberwarfare everything is incredibly vague. Deploying malware that destroys uranium enrichment facilities or cripples a power grid would absolutely be acts of war if they were conducted by clandestine or special forces operations.
Ya, it's a whole new ballgame. Though the idea of there being "rules" of war is relatively new in the span of human history. The Geneva convention was only about 150yrs ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
It took most of human history before war got "bad enough" that we as a planet (or most of it) decided we needed rules. Cyber warfare is only just getting started. We're beyond clubs and spears, maybe at steel swords. But as we know it's evolving rapidly. There are already theoretical cyber attacks that could dispense mass chaos by hitting power grids or sections of the internet infrastructure. But even that is just like the difference between a sword and an AR15. I have no idea what the cyber equivelant of a nuclear weapon would be, it will likely be something unique and different from the current malware attacks, but I'm sure I don't want to find out.
I love The Verge, but it's probably not the best source for stuff like this. Here are a few other articles (non-paywalled and from reliable sources):
Thanks, I updated the main link to the NPR one since it seems like a much better article.
(It's also in the topic log in the sidebar, but this was the original link: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8930985/russia-targeted-election-systems-in-all-50-states-senate-concludes)