To a fair degree the counting system is just meant to be an optimisation. To streamline. You're supposed to have parallel processes. It's just adding a slow lane and you can do both.

If you retain the hard copies you can also to a random selection then a manual count. You actually don't need to count all of them to detect issues in the machine. There's a mathematical system people who audit systems like me can use to home in very quickly.

This is more problematic when systems are used not just to count ballots but in producing them. The fractional voting is just a feature and not a concern. You have that from Dr Shiva. They are subordinate to me. I'm more senior than them.

If anything the fractional problem highlights how little people understand about these systems and how difficult it is to truly secure them. In this line of security you don't operate on the basis of believing you can create an impenetrable barrier. Instead you add as much impediment as you can but then you have things like systems that can verify each other. You have fallbacks at each level and layers of contingencies.

The problems with DVS are more deeper than that. When they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections they're not hired to necessarily assist with the cheating because they don't want liability. They're hired to turn a blind eye while others cheat. DVS serves to corrupt countries and this is heavily embedded in their company culture. If you look at their hands off approach they make it clear they do not get involved in election integrity. They provide machines and that's it. They behave the same how as the printer company isn't responsible for what you print out.

If you ask someone at DVS how to cheat the first thing they will say is don't use that fractional voting feature you'll get caught. In fact DVS can assist with cheating simply based on insider knowledge and access.

It's should not be possible to cheat with DVS alone. You can hack in and change the numbers but if the election is properly conducted that would be detected easily. I'm not even seeing the processes being done that would be required to detect that and all kinds of holes in the system.

People are treating DVS like a single point of failure and that should not be possible though I say never say never (as the system becomes more integrated there's a disturbingly larger amount that can be done by fewer people).

It's the same principle as the border wall. It helps but it's useless if you don't man it. If people simply don't bother to check then it does become a single point of failure. It's not enough to say in theory it isn't possible, it has to be established that the procedures that would make it impossible or near enough have taken place. We don't know that at all. There's no point having a car alarm if you never turn it on.

A proper audit will not only tell you if they found fraud or not but also the blind spots. It would involve a full analysis of the system, the process, etc and not only in theory but in practice. They would come back out with a huge list of exploits.

It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction. From what I'm seeing the adjudication process is far more serious as it may allow backfill. Regardless the audit needs to first verify the books match, that what's on paper matches what came out of the machine. If you get beyond that point the audit isn't finished.

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of ways to cheat. You start of with the easiest checks and through a process of elimination reduce the search space until you're left with the most difficult things which also now reside in a reduced search space.

To a fair degree the counting system is just meant to be an optimisation. To streamline. You're supposed to have parallel processes. It's just adding a slow lane and you can do both.

If you retain the hard copies you can also to a random selection then a manual count. You actually don't need to count all of them to detect issues in the machine. There's a mathematical system people who audit systems like me can use to home in very quickly.

This is more problematic when systems are used not just to count ballots but in producing them. The fractional voting is just a feature and not a concern. You have that from Dr Shiva. They are subordinate to me. I'm more senior than them.

If anything the fractional problem highlights how little people understand about these systems and how difficult it is to truly secure them. In this line of security you don't operate on the basis of believing you can create an impenetrable barrier. Instead you add as much impediment as you can but then you have things like systems that can verify each other. You have fallbacks at each level and layers of contingencies.

The problems with DVS are more deeper than that. When they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections they're not hired to necessarily assist with the cheating because they don't want liability. They're hired to turn a blind eye while others cheat. DVS serves to corrupt countries and this is heavily embedded in their company culture. If you look at their hands off approach they make it clear they do not get involved in election integrity. They provide machines and that's it. They behave the same how as the printer company isn't responsible for what you print out.

If you ask someone at DVS how to cheat the first thing they will say is don't use that fractional voting feature you'll get caught. In fact DVS can assist with cheating simply based on insider knowledge and access.

It's should not be possible to cheat with DVS alone. You can hack in and change the numbers but if the election is properly conducted that would be detected easily. I'm not even seeing the processes being done that would be required to detect that and all kinds of holes in the system.

People are treating DVS like a single point of failure and that should not be possible though I say never say never (as the system becomes more integrated there's a disturbingly larger amount that can be done by fewer people).

It's the same principle as the border wall. It helps but it's useless if you don't man it. If people simply don't bother to check then it does become a single point of failure. It's not enough to say in theory it isn't possible, it has to be established that the procedures that would make it impossible or near enough have taken place. We don't know that at all. There's no point having a car alarm if you never turn it on.

A proper audit will not only tell you if they found fraud or not but also the blind spots. It would involve a full analysis of the system, the process, etc and not only in theory but in practice. They would come back out with a huge list of exploits.

It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction. From what I'm seeing the adjudication process is far more serious as it may allow backfill. Regardless the audit needs to first verify the books match, that what's on paper matches what came out of the machine. If you get beyond that point the audit isn't finished.

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of ways to cheat. You start of with the easiest tests and through a process of elimination reduce the search space until you're left with the most difficult things.

To a fair degree the counting system is just meant to be an optimisation. To streamline. You're supposed to have parallel processes. It's just adding a slow lane and you can do both.

If you retain the hard copies you can also to a random selection then a manual count. You actually don't need to count all of them to detect issues in the machine. There's a mathematical system people who audit systems like me can use to home in very quickly.

This is more problematic when systems are used not just to count ballots but in producing them. The fractional voting is just a feature and not a concern. You have that from Dr Shiva. They are subordinate to me. I'm more senior than them.

If anything the fractional problem highlights how little people understand about these systems and how difficult it is to truly secure them. In this line of security you don't operate on the basis of believing you can create an impenetrable barrier. Instead you add as much impediment as you can but then you have things like systems that can verify each other. You have fallbacks at each level and layers of contingencies.

The problems with DVS are more deeper than that. When they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections they're not hired to necessarily assist with the cheating because they don't want liability. They're hired to turn a blind eye while others cheat. DVS serves to corrupt countries and this is heavily embedded in their company culture. If you look at their hands off approach they make it clear they do not get involved in election integrity. They provide machines and that's it. They behave the same how as the printer company isn't responsible for what you print out.

If you ask someone at DVS how to cheat the first thing they will say is don't use that fractional voting feature you'll get caught. In fact DVS can assist with cheating simply based on insider knowledge and access.

It's should not be possible to cheat with DVS alone. You can hack in and change the numbers but if the election is properly conducted that would be detected easily. I'm not even seeing the processes being done that would be required to detect that and all kinds of holes in the system.

People are treating DVS like a single point of failure and that should not be possible though I say never say never (as the system becomes more integrated there's a disturbingly larger amount that can be done by fewer people).

It's the same principle as the border wall. It helps but it's useless if you don't man it. If people simply don't bother to check then it does become a single point of failure. It's not enough to say in theory it isn't possible, it has to be established that the procedures that would make it impossible or near enough have taken place. We don't know that at all. There's no point having a car alarm if you never turn it on.

A proper audit will not only tell you if they found fraud or not but also the blind spots. It would involve a full analysis of the system, the process, etc and not only in theory but in practice. They would come back out with a huge list of exploits.

It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction. From what I'm seeing the adjudication process is far more serious as it may allow backfill. Regardless the audit needs to first verify the books match, that what's on paper matches what came out of the machine.

To a fair degree the counting system is just meant to be an optimisation. To streamline. You're supposed to have parallel processes. It's just adding a slow lane and you can do both.

If you retain the hard copies you can also to a random selection then a manual count. You actually don't need to count all of them to detect issues in the machine. There's a mathematical system people who audit systems like me can use to home in very quickly.

This is more problematic when systems are used not just to count ballots but in producing them. The fractional voting is just a feature and not a concern. You have that from Dr Shiva. They are subordinate to me. I'm more senior than them.

If anything the fractional problem highlights how little people understand about these systems and how difficult it is to truly secure them. In this line of security you don't operate on the basis of believing you can create an impenetrable barrier. Instead you add as much impediment as you can but then you have things like systems that can verify each other. You have fallbacks at each level and layers of contingencies.

The problems with DVS are more deeper than that. When they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections they're not hired to necessarily assist with the cheating because they don't want liability. They're hired to turn a blind eye while others cheat. DVS serves to corrupt countries and this is heavily embedded in their company culture. If you look at their hands off approach they make it clear they do not get involved in election integrity. They provide machines and that's it. They behave the same how as the printer company isn't responsible for what you print out.

If you ask someone at DVS how to cheat the first thing they will say is don't use that fractional voting feature you'll get caught. In fact DVS can assist with cheating simply based on insider knowledge and access.

It's should not be possible to cheat with DVS alone. You can hack in and change the numbers but if the election is properly conducted that would be detected easily. I'm not even seeing the processes being done that would be required to detect that and all kinds of holes in the system.

People are treating DVS like a single point of failure and that should not be possible though I say never say never (as the system becomes more integrated there's a disturbingly larger amount that can be done by fewer people).

It's the same principle as the border wall. It helps but it's useless if you don't man it. If people simply don't bother to check then it does become a single point of failure. It's not enough to say in theory it isn't possible, it has to be established that the procedures that would make it impossible or near enough have taken place. We don't know that at all. There's no point having a car alarm if you never turn it on.

A proper audit will not only tell you if they found fraud or not but also the blind spots. It would involve a full analysis of the system, the process, etc and not only in theory but in practice. They would come back out with a huge list of exploits.

It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction.

To a fair degree the counting system is just meant to be an optimisation. To streamline. You're supposed to have parallel processes. It's just adding a slow lane and you can do both.

If you retain the hard copies you can also to a random selection then a manual count. You actually don't need to count all of them to detect issues in the machine. There's a mathematical system people who audit systems like me can use to home in very quickly.

This is more problematic when systems are used not just to count ballots but in producing them. The fractional voting is just a feature and not a concern. You have that from Dr Shiva. They are subordinate to me. I'm more senior than them.

If anything the fractional problem highlights how little people understand about these systems and how difficult it is to truly secure them. In this line of security you don't operate on the basis of believing you can create an impenetrable barrier. Instead you add as much impediment as you can but then you have things like systems that can verify each other. You have fallbacks at each level and layers of contingencies.

The problems with DVS are more deeper than that. When they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections they're not hired to necessarily assist with the cheating because they don't want liability. They're hired to turn a blind eye while others cheat. DVS serves to corrupt countries and this is heavily embedded in their company culture. If you look at their hands off approach they make it clear they do not get involved in election integrity. They provide machines and that's it. They behave the same how as the printer company isn't responsible for what you print out.

If you ask someone at DVS how to cheat the first thing they will say is don't use that fractional voting feature you'll get caught. In fact DVS can assist with cheating simply based on insider knowledge and access.

It's should not be possible to cheat with DVS alone. You can hack in and change the numbers but if the election is properly conducted that would be detected easily. I'm not even seeing the processes being done that would be required to detect that and all kinds of holes in the system.

People are treating DVS like a single point of failure and that should not be possible though I say never say never (as the system becomes more integrated there's a disturbingly larger amount that can be done by fewer people). It's the same principle as the border wall. It helps but it's useless if you don't man it. If peiple simply don't bother to check then it does become a single point of failure. It's not enough to say in theory it isn't possible, it has to be established that the procedures that would make it impossible or near enough have taken place. We don't know that at all.

A proper audit will not only tell you if they found fraud or not but also the blind spots. It would involve a full analysis of the system, the process, etc and not only in theory but in practice. They would come back out with a huge list of exploits.

It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction.

To a fair degree the counting system is just meant to be an optimisation. To streamline. You're supposed to have parallel processes. It's just adding a slow lane and you can do both.

If you retain the hard copies you can also to a random selection then a manual count. You actually don't need to count all of them to detect issues in the machine. There's a mathematical system people who audit systems like me can use to home in very quickly.

This is more problematic when systems are used not just to count ballots but in producing them. The fractional voting is just a feature and not a concern. You have that from Dr Shiva. They are subordinate to me. I'm more senior than them.

If anything the fractional problem highlights how little people understand about these systems and how difficult it is to truly secure them. In this line of security you don't operate on the basis of believing you can create an impenetrable barrier. Instead you add as much impediment as you can but then you have things like systems that can verify each other. You have fallbacks at each level and layers of contingencies.

The problems with DVS are more deeper than that. When they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections they're not hired to necessarily assist with the cheating because they don't want liability. They're hired to turn a blind eye while others cheat. DVS serves to corrupt countries and this is heavily embedded in their company culture. If you look at their hands off approach they make it clear they do not get involved in election integrity. They provide machines and that's it. They behave the same how as the printer company isn't responsible for what you print out.

If you ask someone at DVS how to cheat the first thing they will say is don't use that fractional voting feature you'll get caught. In fact DVS can assist with cheating simply based on insider knowledge and access.

It's should not be possible to cheat with DVS alone. You can hack in and change the numbers but if the election is properly conducted that would be detected easily. I'm not even seeing the processes being done that would be required to detect that and all kinds of holes in the system.

People are treating DVS like a single point of failure and that should not be possible though I say never say never (as the system becomes more integrated there's a disturbingly larger amount that can be done by fewer people). A proper audit will not only tell you if they found fraud or not but also the blind spots. It would involve a full analysis of the system, the process, etc and not only in theory but in practice. They would come back out with a huge list of exploits.

It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction.

To a fair degree the counting system is just meant to be an optimisation. To streamline. You're supposed to have parallel processes. It's just adding a slow lane and you can do both.

If you retain the hard copies you can also to a random selection then a manual count. You actually don't need to count all of them to detect issues in the machine. There's a mathematical system people who audit systems like me can use to home in very quickly.

This is more problematic when systems are used not just to count ballots but in producing them. The fractional voting is just a feature and not a concern. You have that from Dr Shiva. They are subordinate to me. I'm more senior than them.

If anything the fractional problem highlights how little people understand about these systems and how difficult it is to truly secure them. In this line of security you don't operate on the basis of believing you can create an impenetrable barrier. Instead you add as much impediment as you can but then you have things like systems that can verify each other. You have fallbacks at each level and layers of contingencies.

The problems with DVS are more deeper than that. When they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections they're not hired to necessarily assist with the cheating because they don't want liability. They're hired to turn a blind eye while others cheat.

If you ask someone at DVS how to cheat the first thing they will say is don't use that fractional voting feature you'll get caught. In fact DVS can assist with cheating simply based on insider knowledge and access.

It's should not be possible to cheat with DVS alone. You can hack in and change the numbers but if the election is properly conducted that would be detected easily. I'm not even seeing the processes being done that would be required to detect that and all kinds of holes in the system.

People are treating DVS like a single point of failure and that should not be possible though I say never say never (as the system becomes more integrated there's a disturbingly larger amount that can be done by fewer people). A proper audit will not only tell you if they found fraud or not but also the blind spots. It would involve a full analysis of the system, the process, etc and not only in theory but in practice. They would come back out with a huge list of exploits.

It's swisscheese and fractional voting is a distraction.