Discussion:
The Shit Standard In Journalism - Part 2 - America's Elections Could Be Hacked - The New York Times
(too old to reply)
AlleyCat
2021-12-04 04:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Rudy owned, again.

Rudy said that no one said that The Elections or Voting Booths could be
hacked... NO ONE.

=====

America's Elections Could Be Hacked... - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/opinion/midterm-elections-hacking.html

Oct 19, 2018

Currently, five states - Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey and South
Carolina - run their elections entirely on paperless touch-screen machines. But
all five states are considering a...

The System's Vulnerabilities Are Real

Oct. 19, 2018

Credit... Matt Chase

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the
publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

Will November's election be hacked? A quick sampling of news stories over the
past couple of years offers little comfort.

In the months before the 2016 presidential election, Russian hackers tried to
infiltrate voting systems in dozens of states. They succeeded in at least one,
gaining access to tens of thousands of voter-registration records in Illinois.

In April, the nation's top voting machine manufacturer told Senator Ron Wyden
of Oregon that it had installed remote-access software on election-management
systems that it sold from 2000 to 2006. Senator Wyden called it "the worst
decision for security short of leaving ballot boxes on a Moscow street corner."

At a hacking convention last summer, an 11-year-old boy who had been coached on
finding the vulnerabilities in a mock-up of Florida's state election website
broke into the fake site and altered the vote totals recorded there. It took
him less than 10 minutes.

All along, the nation's top intelligence and law enforcement officials have
been sounding the alarm, warning that Russia is engaged in a "24/7, 365-days-a-
year" effort to disrupt the upcoming midterm elections and imploring Congress
and the White House to take more decisive action.

President Trump may not believe that the risk is real, but the American people
do. An overwhelming majority say they are concerned about election security,
and more than 60 percent say the Trump administration should be doing more to
protect the vote from foreign interference.

Numbers like these suggest that whether or not hackers manage to gain access to
voting systems, they have already achieved their main goal, which is to sow
pervasive doubt over the integrity of American elections. Whoever wins, this
lack of confidence is as damaging to the nation's democracy as it is to its
national security. And it drives down turnout at the polls, as voters who are
already skeptical of the political process begin to believe not just that their
vote won't count, but that it literally won't be counted.

Meanwhile, the Russians show no signs of slowing their efforts to disrupt
American elections through disinformation campaigns. On Friday, the Justice
Department charged a Russian woman working for a close ally of President
Vladimir Putin with participating in a plot "to spread distrust toward
candidates for U.S. political office and the U.S. political system."

What to make of it all?

First, the bad news. America's voting systems, like all large and complex
computerized systems, are highly vulnerable to cyberattack - whether by
altering or deleting voter-registration data, or even by changing vote counts.
"The vast majority of technical infrastructure for our voting is absolutely,
without doubt, woefully insecure," said Matt Blaze, a University of
Pennsylvania computer-science professor who studies voting machine security.
Both of the primary methods by which Americans cast their ballots - optical-
scan machines and touch-screen monitors - can be tampered with fairly easily.

The handful of companies that design and make nearly all of America's voting
machines insist that their equipment is cordoned off from bad actors on the
internet, but in fact there are multiple ways in for anyone who is motivated,
persistent and willing to commit a federal crime.

These manufacturers could choose to share information in order to help
researchers and experts identify security weaknesses, but instead they have
zealously guarded it as proprietary, even when the outcome of a presidential
election has been at stake - as John Kerry found out when his 2004 presidential
campaign attempted to look into voting irregularities in Ohio.

Our reliance on these newer voting technologies is largely a result of the
failures of older ones. In the weeks after the 2000 presidential election, the
entire country sat on edge as Florida poll workers painstakingly examined
butterfly ballots and hanging chads. Following that disaster, Congress passed
the Help America Vote Act, which established a federal agency, the Election
Assistance Commission, to serve as a resource and clearinghouse for state
election officials. But the commission, which has been a political football
since its creation, is perennially understaffed and underfunded. Most of the
nearly $4 billion that it initially got from Congress was spent on new
electronic machines that were designed without anticipation of the sort of
coordinated cyberattacks America now faces. And these machines are now
approaching the end of their useful life.

Now for some good news. Elections officials have become acutely aware of these
risks to America's electoral security, especially after the wake-up call they
got in 2016. In a rare example of bipartisanship, Republicans and Democrats are
communicating with one another and with their counterparts around the country,
sharing information and shoring up defenses where needed.

Most encouraging, the key fixes are relatively simple, and everyone agrees on
what they are.

One, provide a paper trail for every vote. Hackers work most effectively in the
dark, so they love voting machines that produce no paper verification.
Currently, five states - Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey and South
Carolina - run their elections entirely on paperless touch-screen machines. But
all five states are considering a switch back to paper ballots in time for
2020. In this year's midterms, 19 states and Washington, D.C., will use only
paper ballots.

Two, audit the vote. The best way to do this is known as a risk-limiting audit,
which means comparing the digital tally to a manual count of a randomized
sample of paper ballots. This type of audit can identify voting tabulation
errors resulting from either malicious attacks or software failures.

Three, give states more resources. After dragging its feet for years, Congress
in March approved $380 million in grants to states for election security. A
little more than a third of the money will be spent on enhancing cybersecurity.
A little more than a quarter will go toward buying new voting equipment. The
rest will be spent on improving voter-registration systems, running vote audits
and communicating better with voters around election time.

That money is good, but it's far from enough. And while the states are spending
it in the right ways, Congress could help even more by passing the Secure
Elections Act, a bipartisan bill that appeared headed toward passage until it
got hung up over the summer.

What can voters do? For starters, take advantage of early voting if your state
offers it. The sooner votes are in, the more time officials have to detect
irregularities. "Every time someone votes early, they're part of the fight
against foreign interference," said David Becker, who runs the Center for
Election Innovation and Research.

Most important, don't stay home because you believe that cyberattacks will rig
the results of the election. "It's true that these systems are vulnerable,"
said Mr. Blaze, the voting-security expert. "It's also true that you should
vote on Election Day. The worst outcome would be if people conclude that
there's no point in voting."

============================================================================

Rudy's split personality refers to dissociative identity disorder (DID), a
mental disorder where a person has two or more distinct personalities (nym-
shifting).

The thoughts, actions, and behaviors of each personality may not be completely
different.

Trauma often causes this condition, particularly during childhood. (Mommy
spanked him hard) While there is no defined cure for DID, long-term treatment
(posting on Usenet) may help people combine their personalities into one.

[giggle]

People with DID have two or more distinct personalities. They do not present as
simple changes in traits or moods. A person with DID may or may not express
differences between these alternate identities, which can also be referred to
as alters.

Often, these personalities are completely different from each other. These
fragmented personalities take control of the person's identity for some time.

A person also maintains their primary or host identity, which is their original
personality, and will answer to their given name. Their primary identity is
generally more passive, and they may be unaware of the other personalities.

When a personality change happens, the new personality will have a distinct
history, a new identity, and different behaviors.

These split personalities, or alters, often have their own distinct:

name (Rudy, Bill Flett, 100s of others)
age
gender
moods
memories
vocabulary (grammar Nazi fucks up too)

A new personality will see themselves differently. For instance, someone
assigned male at birth may have an alternate identity as a woman. They may
experience themselves with female biological sex characteristics.

The shift between these personalities tends to occur when a person faces a
certain stressor or trigger.
Causes

The exact cause of DID is not fully understood. However, there is a strong link
between the condition and trauma. This may be particularly true for trauma or
abuse during childhood. In Europe, the United States, and Canada, 90% of people
who experience DID are victims of severe trauma in childhood.

The condition represents someone who struggles to integrate and assimilate
certain aspects of their own identity, which become disjointed over time.
Signs and symptoms

The signs of DID may vary, but they include a change between two or more
separate personalities.

Symptoms include:

Experiencing two or more separate personalities, each with their own self-
identity and perceptions.

A notable change in a person's sense of self.

Frequent gaps in memory and personal history, which are not due to normal
forgetfulness, including loss of memories, and forgetting everyday events.

When these other personalities take over, they often talk with a different
vocabulary, and gesture differently. In some cases, one personality may also
pick up certain habits that the other does not, such as smoking, or becoming
violent.

In the shift from one personality to another, a person may experience other
symptoms. Some people can have anxiety, as they may be afraid of the
personality change. Some may become very angry or violent. Others may not
notice or remember these transitions at all, although another person may notice
them.

Specific personalities may appear in response to certain situations. These
symptoms can cause a person significant distress, and disrupt their ability to
live their life normally.

Other symptoms may include:

amnesia (forgets how to spell or speak right)
losing sense of time
going into a trance-like state
out-of-body experiences, or depersonalization
engaging in behaviors that are unusual for the person
sleep disturbances

A person with DID may also experience symptoms of other conditions, such as
self-harm. One study notes that more than 70% of people with DID have attempted
suicide.
Rudy Canoza
2021-12-04 04:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Rudy kicked my ass, again.
Correct.

Loading...