First of all, election security is dependent on 100% transparency from top-to-bottom, so that chain of custody and chain of trust can be guaranteed. Dominion's machines are closed-source and proprietary. That transparency axiom has been violated.
Now we're dealing with a situation where thousands of precincts were tabulated with closed-source, proprietary black boxes. The only limp-wristed assertion being made is that they all are equivalent in hardware and software versioning.
One black box in thousands comes back from audit catastrophically in error. It is supposed to share hardware and software versions with every other black box. I will state this plainly: THE ONLY SAFE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE ALL CATASTROPHICALLY IN ERROR.
Anyone claiming otherwise has never worked in a domain where information security is important. In my field of computer science, processing of information is representable and provable via math; concepts such as blockchain and election security actually fall under the mathematical umbrella of the field. Anyone claiming black boxes don't violate chain of custody and trust, or that one black box being catastrophically in error says nothing about the rest, is a layperson speaking with the surety only a layperson can have.
First of all, election security is dependent on 100% transparency from top-to-bottom, so that chain of custody and chain of trust can be guaranteed. Dominion's machines are closed-source and proprietary. That transparency axiom has been violated.
Now we're dealing with a situation where thousands of precincts were tabulated with closed-source, proprietary black boxes. The only limp-wristed assertion being made is that they all are equivalent in hardware and software versioning.
One black box in thousands comes back from audit catastrophically in error. It is supposed to share hardware and software versions with every other black box. I will state this plainly: THE ONLY SAFE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE ALL CATASTROPHICALLY IN ERROR.
Anyone claiming otherwise has never worked in a domain where information security is important. In my field of computer science, processing of information is representable and provable via math; concepts such as blockchain and election security actually fall under the mathematical umbrella of the field. Anyone claiming black boxes don't violate chain of custody and trust, or that one black box being catastrophically in error says nothing about the rest, is a layperson speaking with the surety only a layperson can have.
Dude, they had a communal super user account with root access.
We're not talking infosec mistake here. We're talking so dumb it's hard to believe.
I'm not sure how I missed this. But...wow. There are no words.
Posts like this make this site a fantastic resource.