Georgia election server wiped after lawsuit was filed

Started by Hydra009, October 26, 2017, 08:28:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hydra009

And yeah, the Colorado Coalition for Good Governance appears to consist entirely of three elections activists.  Good for them.  Doesn't necessarily discount what they're doing (and what others are doing alongside them), it just highlights that their billing as a "coalition" is overstated - in actuality, it's an extremely small group.

Cavebear

#16
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 27, 2017, 01:06:42 PM
You could, but just calling something an astroturf doesn't necessarily mean it actually is an astroturf.  The plantiffs are identified as Georgia voters, so unless you have evidence otherwise, I'm inclined to take that at face value.

OOPs, you are right.  I don't have the facts of that particular situation at hand.  I spoke in general.    My apologies.

I suppose I could ask who "the Georgia voters" were. but I accept you at your word.

Enlighten me.

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Shiranu

It could be Daffy Duck or Adolf Hitler bringing up the case for all I care, the plaintiff is irrelevant... what is relevant is did the accused (and at this point, guilty) party intentionally destroy evidence? Yes. Yes they did.

If they hadn't have done that, I might be a smidggin' sympathetic towards them, but when they start destroying evidence to hide their tracks, and the court allows it, then the entire case is a farce anyways and might as well feature Daffy Duck as the plaintiff, Frank the Tank as judge and a jury composed of Oompa Lumpas.

The only valuable thing that come out of it in that situation is that we can take what reliable information we can get, such as the evidence being destroyed, and form our own opinions on it. Although if you live outside Georgia, you don't really have much say in it anyways. It's a lose/lose/lose situation no matter what.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

SGOS

Quote from: Shiranu on October 27, 2017, 07:29:42 PM
It could be Daffy Duck or Adolf Hitler bringing up the case for all I care, the plaintiff is irrelevant... what is relevant is did the accused (and at this point, guilty) party intentionally destroy evidence?
Yes, I would hope the courts focus on the issue.

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on October 28, 2017, 04:31:22 AM
Yes, I would hope the courts focus on the issue.

I equally hope fair courts resolve this issue.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 01:16:52 AM
I equally hope fair courts resolve this issue.

Don't worry, Justice Scalia has been moved to a higher court.  He will rule on this from there ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 07:17:29 AM
Don't worry, Justice Scalia has been moved to a higher court.  He will rule on this from there ;-)
Unfortunately, there are Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.  Two of whom shouldn't even be judges on Fox.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

trdsf

Quote from: Hydra009 on October 26, 2017, 10:46:43 PM
"J.Tom Morgan, a former Georgia prosecutor, said destruction of the drive would not be a criminal act unless it was in violation of a protective court order (It appears no such order was requested). But it could seriously damage the defendants’ case, he said."

Strange that you have to specifically ask the court to protect the server data as evidence.  You'd think that'd be assumed.  Apparently not.
This is the reason I don't believe in electronic voting.  A ballot needs to be a physical, countable, non-remotely-hackable thing.  Paper ballots don't make election fraud impossible, but they do make it impossible to do from a PC in a Moscow office block, and they make it considerably more difficult to do with large masses of ballots.  And they're protected by a chain of custody.  Box of ballots went missing?  You grab the last person who signed off on them.

To this day, I am not convinced that my vote in 2004 was properly counted.  We know that the head of Dubya's campaign in Ohio was the elected official responsible for ensuring fair elections statewide, and that the distribution of machines was skewed so that Republican areas had more than they needed and Democratic areas fewer, and that the manufacturer of the machines promised not that he would provide the securest and safest machines he could, but that he would "deliver" Ohio for Bush.

The difference between the exit polls and the "official" result would have taken flipping only one out of every 37 Kerry votes to Bush.

Food for thought.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Hydra009

Quote from: trdsf on November 02, 2017, 12:47:46 PMThis is the reason I don't believe in electronic voting.  A ballot needs to be a physical, countable, non-remotely-hackable thing.
It's possible to do electronic voting in a relatively secure way (part of the problem with Georgia's voting is that its system is archaic), but the voting network should absolutely not be connected to the internet, it should be auditable (which means no mysterious server wipes), and should be protected from physical tampering, etc.

When instituted correctly, electronic voting should be no more unreliable than paper voting.

SGOS

Everyone seems to think that since the counting is done by a computer, it has to be more accurate, and of course computers are better equipped to process data accurately than any living human.  The problem is that computers can be programmed to miscount.  This is not a computer error.  There will always be a human, often one with an agenda, to teach the computer how to do it to achieve a desired result rather than a true result.  From what I can tell, people tend to believe computers are tamper proof because of some mysterious property inherent in electronics.

Electronic voting could be made more tamper proof, but you would be hard pressed to find enough politicians who want to close down a system that allows for Third World political tactics and lends itself so well to fraudulent use.  I think that is obvious when a state like Georgia claims everything is hunky dory and it doesn't need to leave a paper trail that can be checked for authenticity.

Baruch

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 02, 2017, 02:13:39 PM
It's possible to do electronic voting in a relatively secure way (part of the problem with Georgia's voting is that its system is archaic), but the voting network should absolutely not be connected to the internet, it should be auditable (which means no mysterious server wipes), and should be protected from physical tampering, etc.

When instituted correctly, electronic voting should be no more unreliable than paper voting.

Will never happen.  There are no honest humans.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

Quote from: SGOS on November 02, 2017, 02:41:09 PMFrom what I can tell, people tend to believe computers are tamper proof because of some mysterious property inherent in electronics.
Garbage in, gospel out?  (overtrust of computerized data)

Computers are just very complex calculators. Of course it can't correct for a crappy process or crappy input.

People, on the other hand, are reliably unreliable.  Undervote, overvote, maybe they illegally purge voter rolls...

Just because you're holding a piece of paper in your hand doesn't mean it's a good process.  I personally filled out a bubble sheet where it wasn't entirely clear whose bubble was whose.  I very nearly messed up.  And the less said about hanging chads and butterfly ballots, the better.

The best of both worlds is ethical, competent people overseeing a good process implemented on tamper-resistant equipment.  Good leaders could implement such a system, but how would they get elected in the first place?

Baruch

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 02, 2017, 09:28:20 PM
Garbage in, gospel out?  (overtrust of computerized data)

Computers are just very complex calculators. Of course it can't correct for a crappy process or crappy input.

People, on the other hand, are reliably unreliable.  Undervote, overvote, maybe they illegally purge voter rolls...

Just because you're holding a piece of paper in your hand doesn't mean it's a good process.  I personally filled out a bubble sheet where it wasn't entirely clear whose bubble was whose.  I very nearly messed up.  And the less said about hanging chads and butterfly ballots, the better.

The best of both worlds is ethical, competent people overseeing a good process implemented on tamper-resistant equipment.  Good leaders could implement such a system, but how would they get elected in the first place?

That is why, as a B&W SJW ... we either have utopia now, or destroy the world.  The way things are going, I would ban voting entirely.  I don't care how the damn voters do it, they need to be stopped.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2017, 03:18:35 AM
That is why, as a B&W SJW ... we either have utopia now, or destroy the world.  The way things are going, I would ban voting entirely.  I don't care how the damn voters do it, they need to be stopped.
Yes, just have politicians appointed by corporations.

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2017, 07:53:39 AM
Yes, just have politicians appointed by corporations.

They already are, by NWO.  You cooperate by giving them plausible deniability.  They own both candidates of both parties.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.