Quote of the day—Petr Svab

An elections supervisor in Coffee County, Georgia, demonstrated in recent videos posted online how Dominion Voting Systems voting software allows votes to be changed through an “adjudication” process. The process allows the operator to add vote marks to a scanned ballot as well as invalidate vote marks already on the ballot.

Adjudication should only serve to resolve issues of voters marking ballots incorrectly, such as filling the bubbles in a way that doesn’t clearly show who he or she voted for. Yet it appears a substantial number of ballots went through that process, at least in some Georgia counties. As the Coffee County supervisor, Misty Martin, showed, the system can be set to allow adjudication of all scanned ballots, even blank ones, and effectively allow the operator to vote those ballots.

Petr Svab
December 10, 2020
How Dominion Software Allows Changing, Adding Votes

The article makes it sounds like tampering with the vote is fairly easy and perhaps undetectable.

After thinking about this problem for all of 30 seconds… If I were writing the software for this feature it would print out a copy of the original ballot with the adjudicated vote indicated, a GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) and a hash of votes and the GUID. The GUID and hash would be stored in the database with the other vote results. This would make an audit relatively easy and resistant to tampering.

Perhaps they did that or even something far better. But the article doesn’t indicate that. Concerns such as this need to be investigated.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Petr Svab

  1. I’m really surprised at your comments. It is well known by now that all of these systems are a joke from a security standpoint. It’s not just Dominion machines. The manuals are available online and for someone with your expertise, I’m certain they would be found to be shocking. A lot of the investigatory work being done on this would seem to be right in your wheelhouse.

  2. They were designed from the ground up to implement fraud, not make an honest count.
    A video of a person demonstrating it a little bit is here on a Gab post
    The entire goal of these systems is to hide the truth, not make an accurate count of the will of the people.

    • I have to say that video makes my statement that there were “10s of thousands of Donna Brazile’s just doing their duty” more plausible. If not directly, then by squeezing out ever possible vote for Biden.

      It seems to me that if voters don’t care enough to follow the rules in marking their ballot, then it should not be counted.

  3. “This would make an audit relatively easy and resistant to tampering.”

    There are, no doubt, many ways to frustrate and curtail fraud, but that would render the software useless and therefore worthless, Dummy.

    The basic theory is very simple, and you’re apparently not understanding it– If you were able to design a system totally impervious to fraud or mistakes, it would never be implemented. There would simply be no point. All manner of excuses and accusation would be made, so as to make it far too controversial for public use. By contrast, Dominion resulted in The Most Secure and Trustworthy Election Ever in the History of Elections.

    Get it?

    You shouldn’t need to be reminded. You already know. Need we go through the decades of evidence that Democrats are vehemently opposed to fair elections? And if you think about it for just a second or two, it’s obvious why they cannot possibly tolerate fairness.

  4. And as always, the Republican Party will make a few whimpering noises, act angry but confused for a bit, dumbly go along for a short while pretending to care, and then fail to do anything to truly alter the trajectory we’re on (which is downhill).

    • Yep, and about the only thing Trump and the republicans accomplished in the last four years was to be a small thorn in the side of the democrats.

      A watershed moment has arrived leaving us as a group of individuals without a seat at the table. I can hope that a Phoenix can rise out the ashes, but hopium is in short supply.

      On the consolation side of the equation at least the media will have to write about something other than Trump and his deplorables. Unfortantally, I expect the new topic to be the deplorables.

      • The only “Phoenix rising out the ashes” will be the return of the predominance of the whore of Rome. It’s rising as we speak.

        Don’t look to earthly sources, or to Mankind, for your redemption. There is none righteous, no, not one.

        “The kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them, and they that exercise authority are called benefactors, but it will not be so with you.” — Christ, speaking to His disciples

        In other words; come out and be a separate, peculiar people. Come out of her (the aforementioned whore) my people, lest ye partake of her plagues.

        There are hundreds of those in the Scriptures, now all but forgotten.

        If anything “rising out of the ashes” could help, it’s would be a renewed Protestant Reformation, but the Protestants of today don’t even know what that means;

  5. Watch the video — which batch of ballots that went through the adjudication process are highlighted, but who did the adjudication isn’t noted nor which specific ballots were problematic.

    The system is not just designed to implement fraud, but to hide who did it and what exactly was done.

  6. Digital signatures and the like are all well and good, but the core issue is that we don’t know what the software is.
    A secure system requires open software. That’s a direct consequence of Kerchhoff’s Principle, and standard rule in judging critical software. It’s been called the “thousand eyeball rule”. More precisely, the sources have to be open to anyone for inspection, and the procedures used to build executable code must also be open so they can be replicated. Finally, it must then be possible to take the program store (e.g., USB stick) out of any machine you care to challenge and compare its contents with a verified copy built according to the open procedures.

    Even then you have to be careful not to get caught by someone who is as clever as Ken Thompson (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf) though fortunately nowadays that’s harder to do given that the compilers are open as well.

    Note that in any of this I absolutely rule out any closed source OS or tools, partly because of the inability to verify what they do and partly because the best known closed OS is also the best known security sieve.

Comments are closed.