CNN October - No, the presidential election can't be hacked

[wehateporn]

No, the 2016 presidential election can't be hacked - CNNPolitics.com

Washington (CNN)The Obama administration is accusing Russia of hacking US political organizations. States are reporting attempts -- in one case successful -- to breach voter registration databases. And the final days of the campaign are dominated by talk of whether the race is "rigged."

The public is understandably concerned about the integrity of next month's election.

But election officials and cyber experts say it's virtually impossible for Moscow or some other outside group to influence the election outcome.
Hackers could create mischief -- some say "chaos" -- but the election system is resilient enough to withstand shocks. The key concern, experts feel, is public perception: Sowing distrust is easily achieved even without successful hacks.

Here are five things you should know about the security of the election system.

1. Why is it unlikely the presidential election can be swayed by a hack?

The American election system is decentralized by design, with state, county and local governments all managing voting. Even though many precincts use voting machines, none are connected to the Internet, nor are they connected to each other.
That's not to say voting machines don't have vulnerabilities -- those have been well documented and studied for more than 10 years. But to influence the outcome of a presidential election or statewide race would require physical tampering on a grand scale across in counties across multiple states on Election Day: In other words, it essentially can't be done.

"Nobody is going to be able to change the outcome of the presidential vote by hacking voting machines. The system is too distributed, too decentralized, too many implementations for any individual actor or group to make substantial change," said Nicholas Weaver, a computer scientist and cybersecurity expert at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley.
"Yes, they're horribly insecure, yes, many of them give me nightmares," he continued, "but the attacker's not going to be able to change the outcome of the presidential vote that way."

2. What kind of preparation is there to ward off attacks?

Election officials are on guard for any problems on voting day. Machines go through rigorous pre-election testing every cycle, and many states do post-election audits to verify results as well. About 75% of votes will be cast on machines that generate a paper trail, adding further confidence.
States can also tap federal resources. The Election Assistance Commission creates standards for voting technology and certifies it, and provides officials to help with security preparedness. The Department of Homeland Security says at least 36 states and 11 local election officials have responded to their offer to help with vulnerability scanning, as well.
"I think that elections are as secure as they've ever been, and I think that with the added thought of incidents occurring, election officials are paying extra attention to this," EAC Chairman Thomas Hicks said in an interview with CNN. "Voters should have the confidence that if they got to the polls, their votes will be counted accurately."

3. What can be affected by hackers?

A bigger concern for most experts isn't the actual hacking of ballots or vote totals but registration databases. Many of those are connected to the Internet as a way for voters to register, make changes or check their status.
That was the target in Illinois, where hackers successfully stole roughly 90,000 voters' information, such as their names, drivers license numbers and last four Social Security Number digits. But no data was changed in the system itself, which would indicate an attempt to go beyond mere identity theft to cause electoral disruption.
Nearly two dozen other states have reported attempts to break into their registration databases, with the US government saying the attacks have been traced back to servers in Russia.

But it is unknown if those attempts are related to election fraud and government hackers or run-of-the-mill cyber criminals, who also tend to be based in Russia.
"Whoever did that hack really just wanted the voter data from Illinois in some way," said Joseph Lorenzo Hall of the Center for Democracy & Technology. He explained that voter registration data is some of the most useful for committing identity fraud.
The real threat to the ballot box would be if hackers delete voters from the database entirely, meaning when they arrived at the polls, their names wouldn't appear in the system.

4. What if something goes wrong?

By law, voters who don't show up as registered properly can cast a provisional ballot and then follow up to verify their registration in the days following the election. The process would be tedious, but not prohibitive.
Voters can show their voter registration cards at polling stations, and many states also keep frequently updated back-up copies of their voting rolls offline or in hard copy, and. Those back-ups could be used to rectify any changes made by hackers.
"If you're just trying to disrupt the election, there are easier ways than an attack on a voter registration database that would probably not stop people from voting anyway," according to Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir, a Texas election official who works on election security.

Resilience in response to the unexpected is a primary focus of election officials in general. Any number of things, from natural disasters to poorly designed ballots to long voter lines, can disrupt Election Day. Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler recently testified before Congress that he was making contingency plans for flooding as well as cyber intrusions.
"We don't get a lot of sleep right before early voting starts because we just want to make sure everything's perfect, so we check and check and check," DeBeauvoir said. "Election administrators often play the game of what if: What if this happens, what if that happens? And we play that scenario enough so we know what to do if any circumstances arise."

5. So should voters be worried?

Experts say rather than the hacks, it's the reaction from the public that scares them.
Rumors of hacking -- even if not successful -- could undermine faith in the election and play into a losing politician's claim that the election was "rigged." Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has frequently questioned whether the election results can be trusted.
"That's what worries me, not just the cyberattack impacting the vote, but the cyber fears playing into such a narrative," Weaver said. "The damage is not the computer hack. The damage is the reaction to the computer hack."
RELATED: White House: We will respond to Russia hacks
DeBeauvoir also urged voters to have "patience," saying Election Night results are always a first pass, with officials verifying results and collecting mail-in ballots over the following days.
"In World War II, there used to be a saying: Loose lips sink ships," DeBeauvoir said. "It's the case in this instance, too. It's not real that there's a concern that there's going to be a hack that would affect voters, it's the talk about it that's the real hack."
She added, "It's cheap, easy and effective. It works really well unless we all recognize that's what it is and give voters information."

No, the 2016 presidential election can't be hacked - CNNPolitics.com

[Bladewire]

[just a punk]

So the US are even unable to secure the election process against hackers? So what can I say?.. Congrats on that then...

[bronco67]

Dumbass....the election system can't be hacked.

But the DNC's email stash can be hacked and made public to influence voters.

Again, everything with you is a lie.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Since you've never posted one true thing EVER...I automatically knew this was bullshit...just because it's YOU posting it.

Originally Posted by bronco67

Again, everything with you is a lie.

WeHatePorn is lying? I posted CNN, CNN is your favorite source? Once you realize what's just happened here, your brain will malfunction, I did warn you in advance that I would post CNN to crash your system

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

WeHatePorn is lying? I posted CNN, CNN is your favorite source?

Why do you always lie? Something in your head makes you think you're smart or tricky by lying but you never get away with it Here so here you look like a foolish idiot. CNN is nobodies favorite source here. Lies

[Rochard]

No one is saying the election was hacked.

But it's pretty obvious that the DNC was hacked, and their emails released. This had a massive impact on the election.

This is not a political issue. This is a huge issue for everyone. Someone in a hut with a Internet connection in a country with no law enforcement can hack databases and cause billions of dollars in damages. Wikileaks has leaked classified information about our military that has done decades of damage.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by Rochard

No one is saying the election was hacked.

But it's pretty obvious that the DNC was hacked, and their emails released. This had a massive impact on the election.

This is not a political issue. This is a huge issue for everyone. Someone in a hut with a Internet connection in a country with no law enforcement can hack databases and cause billions of dollars in damages. Wikileaks has leaked classified information about our military that has done decades of damage.

[xKingx]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

[TampaToker]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Dumbass....the election system can't be hacked.

But the DNC's email stash can be hacked and made public to influence voters.

Again, everything with you is a lie.

Fbi warned them months in advance that they dnc was hacked and they didn't act. Make you go hum...

Fbi also warned Hillarys campaign in march of 2015 they were hacked and still did nothing another one that makes you go hum....

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

I am saying the DNC was hacked by someone, so someone clearly had intentions of impacting the election.

No matter how you look at this, this was a crime. When you add in the fact it was intentionally done with the intention of swaying an election in the United States makes it a crime of epic proportions.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Rochard

No one is saying the election was hacked.

But it's pretty obvious that the DNC was hacked, and their emails released. This had a massive impact on the election.

This is not a political issue. This is a huge issue for everyone. Someone in a hut with a Internet connection in a country with no law enforcement can hack databases and cause billions of dollars in damages. Wikileaks has leaked classified information about our military that has done decades of damage.

why did it have an impact on the elections? all that happened was the truth was revealed? how could revealing the truth be considered bad in any way? Isn't it better that people made their voting decision based on truth, rather than lies?

you guys should be more concerned about why there was dirt to be revealed in the first place, not how the dirt leaked out...

[TampaToker]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I am saying the DNC was hacked by someone, so someone clearly had intentions of impacting the election.

No matter how you look at this, this was a crime. When you add in the fact it was intentionally done with the intention of swaying an election in the United States makes it a crime of epic proportions.

RNC was hacked as well. This just goes to show government needs to step up its cyber game.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by TampaToker

RNC was hacked as well. This just goes to show government needs to step up its cyber game.

And the reason the info isn't released is because the RNC cowards are being blackmailed. Treasonous

[TampaToker]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

And the reason the info isn't released is because the RNC cowards are being blackmailed. Treasonous

yeah they were released they were up on dcleaks.com went through them all nothing really any good....

[xKingx]

Originally Posted by woj

why did it have an impact on the elections? all that happened was the truth was revealed? how could revealing the truth be considered bad in any way? Isn't it better that people made their voting decision based on truth, rather than lies?

you guys should be more concerned about why there was dirt to be revealed in the first place, not how the dirt leaked out...

Amen

Don't care who hacked them. Glad the truth came out.

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by Rochard

No matter how you look at this, this was a crime.

Because breaking laws is always unjust, right?


...better not commit a "crime" by drinking off the white's fountain..


...better not commit a "crime" by lying about being a jew..


...better not commit a "crime" by smoking a plant that makes you happy..


...better not commit a "crime" by walking across the street..



?

[galleryseek]

Originally Posted by xKingx

Amen

Don't care who hacked them. Glad the truth came out.

Truth is treason in the empire of lies, brah.

[kane]

Originally Posted by woj

why did it have an impact on the elections? all that happened was the truth was revealed? how could revealing the truth be considered bad in any way? Isn't it better that people made their voting decision based on truth, rather than lies?

you guys should be more concerned about why there was dirt to be revealed in the first place, not how the dirt leaked out...

While it might have been a good thing that the truth came out, we should still be very worried about hacking when it comes to elections.

Who is to say next time these hackers don't plant fake information/evidence in an effort to discredit a candidate or a party? Any outside threat to an election should be investigated to the fullest. If we can't count on elections being secure then why even bother having them?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by woj

why did it have an impact on the elections? all that happened was the truth was revealed? how could revealing the truth be considered bad in any way? Isn't it better that people made their voting decision based on truth, rather than lies?

you guys should be more concerned about why there was dirt to be revealed in the first place, not how the dirt leaked out...

What dirt? Between the email scandal and the hacked emails, we read thousands of emails. Tens of thousands of emails. And not one bit of dirt. I mean, other than pizzagate.

[woj]

Originally Posted by kane

While it might have been a good thing that the truth came out, we should still be very worried about hacking when it comes to elections.

Who is to say next time these hackers don't plant fake information/evidence in an effort to discredit a candidate or a party? Any outside threat to an election should be investigated to the fullest. If we can't count on elections being secure then why even bother having them?

who knows if there even were any "hackers"? what if it was just some "whistleblower" who felt the democratic party was crossing the line? or what if it was a hacker, but from the US who was disgusted with the way media was biased, and wanted to level the playing field? is that an "outside" threat? or just some concerned citizen who did the right thing by revealing the truth?

even if investigation concludes that Russia was involved, exactly what do you think would happen?

[woj]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What dirt? Between the email scandal and the hacked emails, we read thousands of emails. Tens of thousands of emails. And not one bit of dirt. I mean, other than pizzagate.

you said: "But it's pretty obvious that the DNC was hacked, and their emails released. This had a massive impact on the election."

if there was no dirt, in what way did the release of emails have "massive impact on the election"?

[kane]

Originally Posted by woj

who knows if there even were any "hackers"? what if it was just some "whistleblower" who felt the democratic party was crossing the line? or what if it was a hacker, but from the US who was disgusted with the way media was biased, and wanted to level the playing field? is that an "outside" threat? or just some concerned citizen who did the right thing by revealing the truth?

even if investigation concludes that Russia was involved, exactly what do you think would happen?

You offer a couple of situations here so I will answer them separately.

1. If we learn that it was, in fact, the Russians that hacked the DNC I don't know that there is much that can be done to them, unless we find that they were working with people involved with Trump. If that happens it could be very bad for Trump. If that doesn't happen, we will be pissed, but there isn't much we can do other than work on the security of our organizations to prevent this in the future.

2. If it ends up being a concerned citizen/whistleblower, I don't know what will happen to them. If it were up to me, I would want to talk to them about how they did it and why. I wouldn't want them thrown in jail for the same reason I think Snowden shouldn't be prosecuted.

No matter which of them it may end up being, I think it would send a strong signal that we need to work on election security. Take, for example, the second option, but instead of a concerned citizen, let's say it was someone who was very anti-Trump. They hack into Trump's campaign database/servers/emails etc and they find nothing of much use. so, instead, they doctor up some documents and plant them on the server then "leak" them to the press. These documents say that Trump raped a beauty pageant contestant, then paid her to be quiet and not press charges. That would dramatically impact the election. Even if it were eventually proven untrue, it doesn't matter, the damage would already be done. Fake news is hard enough to combat. If the elections have to also combat hackers planting fake information on their servers that makes it chaos.

[kane]

Originally Posted by woj

you said: "But it's pretty obvious that the DNC was hacked, and their emails released. This had a massive impact on the election."

if there was no dirt, in what way did the release of emails have "massive impact on the election"?

The impact came from the impression that there was dirt there. Many people didn't read the emails. Hell, most people didn't read any of the emails, but when someone tells them there was damning information in them they believe it.

I would use the Comey announcement 10 days before the election as evidence of this. I believe his announcement cost her the election. When you look at the polls she was up by around 5 points before the announcement. It dropped to 3 points following the announcement. When you look at how she lost Michigan by .2%, Wisconsin by 1% and Pennsylvania by 1.2% it could be that the last drop after that announcement was the difference. Of course, nobody had read the emails, including the FBI, but the announcement made it look to many as if there was something bad there.

[Jigster715]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by kane

The impact came from the impression that there was dirt there. Many people didn't read the emails. Hell, most people didn't read any of the emails, but when someone tells them there was damning information in them they believe it.

I would use the Comey announcement 10 days before the election as evidence of this. I believe his announcement cost her the election. When you look at the polls she was up by around 5 points before the announcement. It dropped to 3 points following the announcement. When you look at how she lost Michigan by .2%, Wisconsin by 1% and Pennsylvania by 1.2% it could be that the last drop after that announcement was the difference. Of course, nobody had read the emails, including the FBI, but the announcement made it look to many as if there was something bad there.

Comey knew what he was doing and sold out to RNC pressure he's no patriot.

[noshit]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Why do you always lie? Something in your head makes you think you're smart or tricky by lying but you never get away with it Here so here you look like a foolish idiot. CNN is nobodies favorite source here. Lies

Spokesman Nolt for the masses.. Here we have a self-satisfied, in-bred and homogeneous, Stick-Weed view of an establishment loving, Continuity of Government Enabler ...Complete, with the Standard Jezebel smile

.

[SekobA]

You cant trust Cnn news

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

If you look closely you can see the strings


But fortunately we all know the NSA is such a trustworthy organization. They mass-tap their own citizens' private phone and internet conversations. And they still do it to this day. Wow, they really love their own people.

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Dumbass....the election system can't be hacked.

But the DNC's email stash can be hacked and made public to influence voters.

Again, everything with you is a lie.

Wikileaks is now bad? I thought it used to be good? You know, before your insane war queen was exposed

[nico-t]

The key of this thread is the time CNN posted this: Before the elections.

- Before the elections, it was Trump who called it a rigged system.
- Before the elections, everyone in the media had made themselves believe Clinton would win

So the reason for CNN to post this article before the elections, was to start debunking anything Trump said about rigging and would be saying about it being rigged after the elections, after he would have lost.
With this article CNN already had started their post-election campaign of debunking any future claims of Trump, the election loser, that the system was rigged.

Now that Trump won all of a sudden we don't see anything on CNN implying a rigging could never be possible. They did a complete 180, now spreading the constant fake news of Russia this Russia that, ONLY because war monger psycho lost.

It's pretty interesting to see this, and it's pretty sad to see not many people zoom out and think more.

[NKYKev]

As for the Russians, the DHS supposedly secured the networks of 48 states against hacking attacks before the election. If anyone succeeded, Russian or not, then the billions we spend on security must not mean much. One state that has reported a hacking attempt is Georgia, one of the two that did not use the DHS, and they are blaming - the DHS!

As for the DNC, Wikileaks has already said the documents came from an insider pissed off that the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders, and a former British ambassador has said that he knows of the source as well and it was not a Russian, but a DNC whistleblower. Article.