How To Hack an Election (bloomberg.com) 60
"For eight years, Andres Sepulveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns..." writes Bloomberg, citing elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Sepulveda says he was bankrolled by a political consultant in Miami, and his services involved everything from phone tapping and cracking donor databases to managing thousands of fake Twitter profiles. While Sepulveda wasn't always successful, in 2012, "He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Pena Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory." Now serving 10 years in prison in Colombia, Sepulveda is telling his story in hopes of a reduced sentence - and to warn the public that hackers are affecting modern elections, and that specialized skills will be need to stop them.
"On the question of whether the U.S. presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. 'I'm 100 percent sure it is'."
"On the question of whether the U.S. presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. 'I'm 100 percent sure it is'."
Re:Bloomberg fail (Score:5, Insightful)
You're citing journalism, which is basically the American version of Russia Today. Propaganda machine.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. In fact the same thing is often said about Conservatives in congress. They are nice, likeable people when you get to know them. And yet the policies they support are still abhorrent and completely fitting the hateful racist redneck dogmatic intolerant violence loving hillbillies stereotype.
That's not hacking an election. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just regular spying, not actually changing the vote counts.
Hacking the mind (Score:2)
That's just regular spying, not actually changing the vote counts.
Regular spying on opposition machines is not something you should be saying "just" about.
Mass manipulation of social media to change the political narrative at a given time is an incredibly powerful and insidious tool, and a window into what is going to happen with AI in elections a few decades away.
Re: (Score:1)
That's just regular spying, not actually changing the vote counts.
Regular spying on opposition machines is not something you should be saying "just" about.
Mass manipulation of social media to change the political narrative at a given time is an incredibly powerful and insidious tool, and a window into what is going to happen with AI in elections a few decades away.
And the media does this every day. Be it Fox News or BuzzFeed, mass manipulation will always occur as long as we have free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Never forget Arizona, straight up corruption of the electoral process to favour insiders and not even pretending to be otherwise and straight up lying in the electorates face when caught out and not even caring that the lies are exposed. Pretty much "We stole your election, so fucking what, it's your fault?, piss off". The US administration, the current group of insiders, not saying a word because if favours them and they support it. They got away with it in Arizona, so how many more states are going to fol
Re: (Score:2)
What? The republican state administration is not happy about a trump win (or a hillary win if you think they are conspiring with the democrats). They are not going "we stole your election". Their favored candidate lost. Seriously what the hell is this about?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even spying, that's just normal attempted media manipulation. I am shocked, shocked that there are bots on social media!
Here's the thing: regular voters aren't swayed by social media or advertisements, and it's regular, reliable voters who get the job done because they show up at the polls on time and properly documented.
Trump springs to mind (Score:5, Insightful)
"manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision"
Trump hired people to cheer at his rallies. Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to assume he does the same thing online too.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
while the dem campaigns have relied on actual people
Who come out to events and protests because they are paid with money from George Soros, Tom Steyer, or the Sandlers.
Re:Trump springs to mind (Score:4, Interesting)
So clever of you to repeat the oft Fox-cited list of exactly 3 Democratic rich donors. It's a matter of degree, dontcha think? There are hundreds of Republican rich folks doing a lot more than paying for busses to get people to vote. The Koch's alone have pledged 900 million. And that's not to mention the various billionaires who have brought out their individual Republican candidates practically bearing their logos. And of course your 3 aren't angling for any direct personal benefits, either. Sure, they have pet causes that the Democrats they support favor - but those causes aren't their bottom lines.
And don't start with Hillary's super-PAC. The Bernie bots may think it's equivalent to what the Republicans have, but it's nothing like it. Sure, it's good old fashioned influence peddling, no doubt. But it's not out and out candidate purchase like you see on the Republican side.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So clever of you to repeat the oft Fox-cited list of exactly 3 Democratic rich donors. It's a matter of degree, dontcha think? There are hundreds of Republican rich folks doing a lot more than paying for busses to get people to vote. The Koch's alone have pledged 900 million.
The irony here is that you only named the rich Republican donor that always gets repeated by liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because I figured everybody knows the rest. Adleson, Schiafe. Murdoch. There are lots of them. Every Republican hopeful in the 2012 primary season had their very own billionaire benefactor. This time it hasn't gotten as much attention, because the Media is coming in it's pants over the Trump circus. But they're pulling the strings now too. And these guys not only fund candidates, they fund the think tanks that figure out how to put a middle-class friendly face on policies that, if anything, fo
Re: (Score:2)
That's because I figured everybody knows the rest.
Maybe that's why you said it. But it sure looks like you are merely parroting patterns that you learned from the media you consume.
Because.., (Score:1)
He's running against a Clinton. There are no rules.
Re: Because.., (Score:1)
The answer to this (Score:1)
While nothing can be done about manipulation of the masses, except education.
Vote rigging and tampering is a problem that can be solved.
What it would require is a global standard for secure electronic voting.
https://www.democracycounts.org is trying to do just that.
The proposed standard covers everything from the development and verification of software (all opensource of course), to how machines are to be setup and configured as well as how to prevent tampering and hacking.
It provides an irrefutable recor
Re: The answer to this (Score:1)
Or, you know, paper. Alongside secure chains of custody with multiple independent witnesses.
WRT the U.S., the scandal isn't what's a crime.... (Score:5, Insightful)
and the sky is blue..... (Score:3)
I voted in Arizona, didn't need a hacker to tell me that.
Closer to Home (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the article, it was very informative. However, it did not convince me that gerrymandering benefits the Republicans more than the Democrats.
Prior to 2010, the Democrats out-gerrymandered the Republicans 172 districts to 5. After the Republicans started sweeping the state elections, they out-gerrymandered the Democrats 193 districts to 44.
Seems like the Democrats had the better of it when they were in the majority. The problem is that Democrats are losing their majority, not that the Republicans ar
Biggest quote from the whole article... (Score:2)
Pena Nieto Right-of-Center? (Score:1)
Drone The Bohemian Grove 2016! (Score:1)