Focused Read in 3 minutes
"Election hackers are ‘waiting for the bigger prize in 2020’ (Q&A)
(By Seth Rosenblatt)
... “On the whole, 2018 was, well, eerily quiet,” Halderman said. But he also noted that the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on the 2016 election hacking by Russia found that the Russian hackers were in a position in several states to alter or destroy voter registration data—and didn’t.
The hackers could have caused “massive chaos” during the past two U.S. elections, Halderman said, but chose not to act.
“It was quiet, not because we had adequately protected our election systems, but because our adversaries chose not to pull the trigger,” he said. “They’re waiting for the bigger prize in 2020, when we’re likely to once again have a close and divisive presidential contest.”
(Emphasis is mine.)
Halderman’s concerns have been echoed by many others...But with the federal government partly shut down over funding for a southern border wall, as Democrats prepare to gain power in the House of Representatives, signs aren’t good that the nation’s political leaders will be able to quickly come together on election security.
After Halderman’s presentation to several hundred of the hackers here, he sat down with The Parallax to discuss what he thinks needs to be done—and what could actually be accomplished in today’s political climate. What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.
...Is Colorado’s vote-by-mail system a model the rest of the United States, and even other countries, should emulate?
Colorado is a model for a strongly protected voting process because it was the pioneering state to implement risk-limiting audits statewide. Adapting risk-limiting audits to other states is the next hurdle. Some states have very different equipment or requirements than Colorado does. But there is a diverse set of methods of carrying out a risk-limiting audit that can be implemented in states with differing requirements.
What are the different risk-limiting audit models?
They’re all designed to achieve the same result, in terms of integrity. The process is a bit different. The main styles of risk-limiting audits are called polling and comparison.
In a comparison risk-limiting audit, you have to start with a set of ballots, and a set of computer records with what is allegedly on each individual ballot. ...
Do you have a preference as to which risk-limiting audit states adopt?
If states are able to, they should adopt comparison audits because they’re going to be more efficient to carry out.
If their equipment doesn’t allow them to, or their style of voting doesn’t allow for comparison audits, then polling audits also can reach a very high risk limit, with very high confidence. But polling audits may require more work in close elections.
When the elections aren’t close, both audit types are both super-efficient. When they are close—like with a fraction of a percent margin—you’re going to have to do more work, in either case.
But it’s quickly going to get to the point where you might as well do a full hand recount, if you’re relying on polling audits.
What lessons can the rest of the world learn from the electronic voting machine struggles in the United States?
One lesson is that use of technology in elections creates new risks.
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t use technology anywhere [in elections], but we’ve got to be smart about where we’re using it, and careful about how it’s designed.
Around the world, there’s a diversity of different systems of voting, of course.
Different countries may have some of the kinds of safety features we’re looking for in the United States, in particular making sure that every vote is on paper.
But for countries that already have a paper-based system, now the American experience in 2016 is an important reminder of why that system is valuable.
There may have been pressure in the past to try to modernize and adopt something fully electronic. A lot of European countries in the last decade started using electronic systems, and some of them got rid of them.
In Germany, there’s the constitutional prohibition on electronic voting, which is a helpful protection against any incentive to move too quickly ahead.
Another big lesson is about voting online. There are many countries doing experiments with online voting: Estonia, Switzerland, Australia, to name a few.
What happened in 2016, and the continued cybersecurity concerns in the United States, just underscores why it would be a horrible idea to place greater reliance on Internet-attached voting systems in the current threat environment.
We just do not know how to build Internet-voting systems that are going to be secure against nation-state adversaries.
What’s being done to secure voter registration systems from attack?
The $380 million Congress appropriated in the spring of this year was a big help for that. Many states had taken some of that money to bring in security experts to audit their online voter registration systems, or replace their voter registration systems as Michigan is doing. The Department of Homeland Security also offers some security assessment and security-scanning services that are for registration systems, and a large number of states have taken advantage of that assistance.
In registration systems, we’ve probably made the most significant progress since 2016, beyond just increasing the security posture and training and awareness of state election authorities.
But again, one of the major lessons of my talk was that we risk fighting the last war by focusing too much on registration systems when the actual polling place infrastructure in both casting and counting remains in much of the country badly outdated and vulnerable.
That is the next major target that we have to get moving more quickly in order to secure.
We’ve got 22 months before the next presidential election. What are you hopeful will actually change before then?
I’m particularly hopeful that many of the states that don’t have paper trails yet are going to.
The problem is that it will be many but not all.
Whether they buy new equipment is a further question.
But I do have some level of optimism because the message is getting through to election officials that without a paper trail, you’re badly at risk.
I’m less optimistic about widespread adoption of any meaningful audits of that paper.
While I think we will see a handful of other states implement risk-limiting audits by 2020, it’s going to be far from universal.
That would be a place where Congressional action would be a huge benefit in order to have a strong incentive requirement that states do the necessary work to figure out how to implement risk-limiting audits themselves.
The experience almost everywhere risk-limiting audits have been piloted is that election officials love them,
that they end up being much easier than people believe before they’ve become more familiar with the techniques,
and that they align very well with election officials’ desire to instill voter confidence.
But the obstacle continues to be that there are many voting jurisdictions—more than 13,000 local jurisdictions running elections—so without national leadership, or many more states tooling up to design and implement risk-limiting audits, it could be a very long time before that protection is in place.
Hackers and cybersecurity researchers have played an important role in sounding the alarm about the risks of electronic voting machines, at least as early as 2007, and it seems like they’re finally being heard.
Is there a role for them to step in once again and raise awareness about risk-limiting audits, even though there may not be a direct, technical, or technological risk?
I should hope so, yes. It’s because of not only computer science research, but also many years of advocacy and public engagement that has taken place in the broader security and hacking community that we see such broad public recognition now that electronic voting is risky. Auditing is the next battle.
Explaining to election officials, to voters, why ideas like statistical sampling as a quality control measure can go a long way.
But the people should demand evidence that election results are right.
They should demand that accuracy is a function of the system.
Helping people understand that it’s something they even can demand presents an opportunity for the hacking community to become more civically engaged. ... "
You can read more here
Focused Thought in 15 seconds
"When I first came to Washington, there were just 23 women in the House of Representatives. 100 years after America recognized women’s right to vote, the 116th Congress will have more than 100 women in the House for the first time – including our 91 Democratic women! We still have a long way to go, but these incredible women give us all hope, and remind us of just how important it is that Congress shares the experiences of the Americans we represent." ( Courtesy of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Facebook page here )
Focused Action in 30 seconds
You can share the Speaker's tweet here
( If you missed the Speaker's last post:
"Madam Speaker: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the U.S. Speaker of the House (January 3–4, 2019" you can see it here )
Focused Point of Interest in 3 minutes
"Tracking the Russia investigations
Special counsel Robert Mueller and multiple committees on Capitol Hill are investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether anyone from President Donald Trump’s campaign was involved. Investigators have interviewed witnesses, secured search warrants, issued subpoenas, and requested documents from dozens of people and entities. Mueller’s investigation has already brought dozens of criminal charges against more than 30 defendants, including four Trump associates.
The investigations are conducted in secret, so many details are not publicly available. This interactive tracks the publicly known developments of the sprawling investigations into Trump and Russia – and probably represents a slice of what has actually taken place. ... "
Focused Monthly Inspiration
( #itsNovember2020Now )
.
.
.
*** My updated ebook is coming soon ... :
"How to Influence Media in Real Time!"
What's in the book?:
( My updated ebook, "How to Influence Media in Real Time," will be ready soon. It will include updated examples of the conversations I have with some of my “media friends” and some updated indications that media can hear us! Any donor who leaves a name and an email on my GoFundMe Page will get one as soon as it is ready to go! Thanking you in advance for your interest. I hope you will join me in helping media be the best they can be -- in being a media influencer. )
→ Direct sources & resources for Democrats:
* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are also shared here, below, with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify -- even if it's me. I am using a "star" rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )
Democratic Party Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
There is no better way to get your information than to #Go2TheSource
The Democratic Party Website
Also, NOT exactly a Democratic Party specific source under a GOP majority but a good place for to hear and to watch speeches & hearings directly C-SPAN
+
A new podcast introducing you to the staffers and strategists that silently shape our politics from behind the scenes" here
You can email your two Senators and your Representative in Congress in one email here
"Postcards to Voters are friendly, handwritten reminders from volunteers to targeted voters giving Democrats a winning edge in close, key races coast to coast.
What started on March 11, 2017 with sharing 5 addresses apiece to 5 volunteers on Facebook...
Now, we consist of over 20,000+ volunteers in every state (including Alaska and Hawaii) who have written close to 3 million postcards to voters in over 100+ key, close elections."
You can find Postcards to Voters here
→ Some of my favorite, most active organizations -- some existing & some developing to elect Democrats:
"Born from conversations between Governor Howard Dean and Secretary Hillary Clinton in the aftermath of the 2016 election, Onward Together was established to lend support to leaders — particularly young leaders — kicking off projects and founding new organizations to fight for our shared progressive values." here
" Since #StandOnEveryCorner has grown, it’s become a stand by all of us to protect our democracy from corruption and treason...A stand not at your State Capitol, but in your own backyard. Not once every few months, but as often as you can here "
→ Fact checking organizations courtesy of the Society of Professional Journalists
in alphabetical order...
→ Some of my favorite, most informative
follows on Twitter include:
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC
⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author
⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones
→ Some of my favorite, highly credible media -- at the moment:
📰📰📰 Mother Jones
📰📰📰📰 The Washington Post
→ Some of my favorite Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
→ Some of my favorite media/panelists -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:
✅✅✅✅ Joan Walsh national affairs correspondent for The Nation; CNN political contributor
✅✅✅ Heidi Przybyla USA TODAY Senior Political Reporter
✅✅✅✅ Jennifer Rubin Conservative blogger at @ WashingtonPost's Right Turn,MSNBC contributor
✅✅✅ Natasha Bertrand Staff writer @ The Atlantic covering national security & the
Intel community. @ NBCNews/@ MSNBC contributor
→ Some of my favorite Democrat Party Leaders to follow on Twitter, not in elected office but proving knowledge & experience are positives & not negatives are:
Former First Lady Michelle Obama
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Former Labor Secretary/Today's DNC Chair Tom Perez
Note: I rarely get involved in primary races -- outside of those in my own area and unless there is a glaring reason that can not be ignored, I support Democratic Party nominees in general elections. I don't support bashing Democrats.
→ Informational
To Whom It May Concern:
By authority of the Democratic National Committee, the National Convention of the Democratic Party is hereby
scheduled to convene on July 13-16, 2020 in TBD at an hour to be announced, to select nominees for the offices of
President and Vice President of the United States of America, to adopt and promulgate a platform and to take such
other actions with respect to such other matters as the Convention may deem advisable. ...
You can read more here
What is the CPD? The Commission on Presidential Debates (the “CPD”) is a private, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization. As a 501(c)(3) organization, it is eligible under federal law so serve as a debate sponsor. The CPD's primary mission is to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held every four years between and among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United State. The CPD is an independent organization. It is not controlled by any political party or outside organization and it does not endorse, support, or oppose political candidates for parties. It receives no funding from the government or any political party, political actions committee or candidate. The CPD has sponsored general election presidential debates in every election since 1988. Although its plans for 2020 are in the developmental stage, it looks forward to bringing high quality, educational debates to the electorate in 2020 ...
You can read more here
.
.
.
(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.
It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together."
Owned, Created and Curated by Gail Mountain, this blog is often gently edited and/or excerpted for quick reading, with occasional personal commentary in the form of the written word and/or in the form of emphasis noted. Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also take action on its behalf as it is provided!
( You can find me on Twitter
( You can also find me on Facebook
*
See the League of Women Voters website:
Vote411 here
*
...for Networking for Democrats today!
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
g. (Unapologetic Democrat)
✊ Resisting "Fake News"
No comments:
Post a Comment