Head of election worker management company arrested for theft of personal data
da.lacounty.gov
da.lacounty.gov
I'm so very tired of proprietary software made by tiny little outfits being critical to elections.
Yup, this exact talking point has been made so many times in so many ways on so many forums that somebody made a site just to rebut it.
In this case, the index appears to be a mash of conspiracy Twitter accounts, fringe blogs, and links to itself. Ho hum.
Domain not found.
YC23 anyone?
In this case, every source that has told you there was no fraud in the 2020 election appears to be a mash of conspiracy Twitter accounts, fringe blogs, or links to itself. Ho hum.
(For what it’s worth, I don’t get my news from them.)
Another poster in this discussion posted some links including this one https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence but I didn't find it very satisfying because while it does mention a lot of problems with that site, it doesn't really address the specific evidence itself. I was hoping to see somebody break down the evidence found on hereistheevidence and explain what was so wrong with it. I mean, even heavily biased sources that have been caught spreading lies in the past can still post some truths right? A biased source is a reason for caution, not a reason to outright dismiss something!
So, not having that readily available, I thought I'd check some of the evidence myself. I started with "143,835 votes in Georgia were in violation to state laws". That sure sounds pretty serious! That claim consists of nothing more than a link to https://thepostmillennial.com/trump-lawyer-lists-exhaustive-.... No evidence, but I guess they linked to it so I ignored the nagging voice saying "WTF is thepostmillennial.com?" and clicked that link so that I could take in all the glorious evidence I was promised! I'll save you a click though. There is no evidence there. It's just a blog post about how somebody else made a bunch of claims and a video of those claims being made. Not once in the text of that site does the number "143,835" even come up and nowhere is there any evidence available to review.
Okay, so there's zero evidence at that link, maybe it was just a bad example...
I next checked the entry for "300,000 Fake People Voted In Arizona Election" - Wow! So many fake people! How did I not hear about this?! The entry for that claim is also nothing more than another link. Okay, so no evidence of fake people, but surely that link must take me straight to it! The link goes to https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/12/01/data_expe... and once again, I'll save you the click, it's still just a post about someone else's claims. There's zero evidence there.
Links to stories about people making claims without evidence is not evidence. If there's any evidence at all to be found on hereistheevidence.com, I didn't find it. I guess we need someone to create "hereistheevidenceonhereistheevidence.com"
I can't blame people for not taking the time to go over all of the evidence at hereistheevidence.com and verify it, because there is no evidence, which I guess we all should have known by now.
I am so frustrated that the discussion space is so often forced around this topic.
The claim is not that there was “widespread systemic” wrongdoing, the claim is that it would only take a very tiny amount of weight to push an election in direction that benefits the one doing the pushing.
This obsession with the phrase “widespread systemic” is a distraction that prevents people from actually talking to one another.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-website-fund... https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guid...
All that stuff is just junk, you realize. And you can tell because none of it makes sense! It's got a bunch of numbers and a long list of links to click on that makes you feel like there must be evience (which is the whole point), but when you actually drill down... there's nothing there. It's all argumentation of the form "Why would X be true if we know Y?", leading you to suspect that the "real" reason must be "Z" without saying it. That's not argument, it's a gish gallop. And it's fooled you.
I mean, just to make a point using the same logic[1]: if elections were this easy to cheat, then why aren't the cheaters winning all the time? Why do both sides share power at all? How does it not devolve into a single party illuminati running everything? I submit that it doesn't because elections aren't being stolen.
[1] But in favor of bland conservatism about "stuff works normally" and not a particular criminal conspiracy.
there's at least one feature about elections in the US that makes detecting cheating pretty difficult. there's no good way for me to verify that my vote was recorded a specific way subsequent to casting it.
The point about cryptography was me being glib, but the math does exist. The relevant subfield is "homomorphic encryption" and I remember seeing a paper over the last few years (probably linked here on HN if I had to guess) claiming to have an election-relevant algorithm that was supposed to be workable in practice. I can't find it right now though.
What people believe is that, in spite of numerous flaws in voting software, the integrity of the vote is not seriously in question. And there are good reasons for believing this: physical backups, consistency with exit polling and, well, the fact that no party in this godforsaken country has been able to hold onto the presidency for more than 2 terms in nearly 30 years.
No one serious argues that election management systems are bug free or that their operators can't possibly make mistakes. We're just saying that nothing has broken yet.
A good example of this is when the state tells you that you can vote, and then arrests you and charges you with voter fraud, because you actually can't. [1]
Or, alternatively, when the state bars you from voting until you pay all outstanding court fees and fines, but also refuses to tell you whether or not you actually owe any outstanding court fees or fines.
You can't have a free and fair election when you secretly disqualify people from voting, but refuse to tell them that until after they vote.
[1] https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/08/27/2-people-...
I'm confused. How is this voter suppression? You agree the person in question had no right to vote, right? So no one's vote is being suppressed.
The only way the election is unfair in this case is if the vote was counted.
Moreover, I see no difference in this practice than how we prosecute people for tax fraud. Several times I call the IRS and they tell me one rule and then it turns out they adjust my tax later. Luckily mine is so simple they can do that but I imagine if it were more complicated they wouldn't and I would be liable.
Arguably, it could be said that if people who have every reason to think that they are allowed to vote can later be arrested and charged with voter fraud, then every voter unwilling to risk being arrested would be better off not voting to avoid finding out the hard way that despite assurances that they can vote they were guilty of fraud.
It's still a bit of a reach though because the article highlights two cases which seem pretty specific. I don't doubt Washington believed he was eligible to vote, but that belief was based on an assumption about the law and an election worker telling him his voter card was legitimate. I don't think that situation is going to apply to very many people including people with a criminal record.
The second case, where Stribling claims she was just randomly checking boxes on her voter registration form since she can't read or write is even less likely to be a problem for others. I think these cases are unfortunate, but very unlikely to have a chilling effect on other voters.
The article however does give a quote from a Florida senator which says “Some of the individuals did check with (supervisors of elections) and believed they could register,” and that's a bit more disturbing. I think anyone who contacts election officials to make sure they can vote would have every reason to expect that they can if that's what they are told, but it's hard to say what impact that might have without more information.
For sure... this reeks of incompetence by these bureaucrats and they too ought to be reprimanded.
But sure, I agree that it's stupid to have every municipality and polity, down to the five mud farmers living in unincorporated East Mudsville, Nowhere figuring out how to do their elections in their own special way. Perhaps it would be good to look into how Elections Canada[1] does things?
[1] It has the unfortunate side effect of providing federal oversight over elections, which is not something that republicans seem to be interested in this year.
This opens up the election to unnecessary allegations of fraud.
Unnecessary because of how simple this is to manage.
This kind of scheduling is not critical, because it happens early enough that you can actually correct mistakes with it without compromising the election.
That's the whole point of defense in depth. Compromising this layer does not actually break the system. Because any failures from it are both visible and redressable.
Then I think about what might look like a nice halfway point. Voting machine software is still written by companies, but we require that all software running on a voting machine be published and hermetically reproducible. They don't have to take pull requests, they still own it, but we should be able to open one up and be 100% sure that the software running on it is exactly what they've documented.
It turns out that the discrepancies are almost always in districts without paper trails, and always favor one party.
Unsurprisingly, the discrepancies favor the party that keeps blocking federal voting machine standards.
It's closed source and they've fought FOI requests to get access.
All we have been able to find out is that it's written in visual basic 6.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/04/aec-threatens-...
https://konnech.com.au - it appears to not be responding now
That alone should already tell you everything you need to know...
> District Attorney investigators found that in contradiction to the contract, information was stored on servers in the People’s Republic of China.
It's shocking how effective the CCP has been at infiltrating Western governments and institutions.
My favorite turn to date has to be Charles Lieber from Harvard [1]. He's got some fun patents [2] floating around.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/harvard-university-profes...
Is this good? No. But it also isn't CCP infiltration; it's the logical consequence of trying to channel public money into private economies, public money that is meant to fund our most basic civic activity.
Yes, and that logical consequence is being exploited by foreign governments. By "infiltrate" I mean "taking advantage of our shortsightedness," similar to how we ignorantly offshored pharmaceutical sourcing/production to China [1].
There's plenty [2] of loose threads that warrant my "only the paranoid survive" POV on stuff like this.
Hell, there's even a book that goes into detail about the strategy [3]:
> "If one party is at war with another, and the other party does not realize it is at war, the party who knows it is at war almost always has the advantage and usually wins.” And this is the strategy set forth in Unrestricted Warfare: waging a war on an adversary with methods so covert at first and seemingly so benign that the party being attacked does not realize it’s being attacked." - Qiao Liang
---
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/u-s-officials-wor...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/china-houston-consulate-docu...
[3] https://www.amazon.com/Unrestricted-Warfare-Chinas-Destroy-A...
More to the point: there’s no evidence that China actually did anything here, other than provide a service and get some overeager DA to interpret that in the worst possible light. Which, if you’re China, is a win-win: you didn’t have to do anything at all besides provide a quality product to get the Americans to doubt their election!
Americans cannot believe that a foreign government who's fundamental values are counter to theirs would take advantage of their naivety for both financial and geopolitical gain.
I mean they say it overtly: make it subtle so they don't realize it's happening.
I use abductive reasoning to connect different things I see and form a preliminary conclusion/hypothesis based on that. I'm not starting a church or lighting candles.
Because of various implantation details it's inconvenient and expensive to operate servers in China if you don't need to. Even the IoT crap I've bought to disassemble on AliExpress phoned home to us-east-1.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/technology/konnech-electi...
> Update, Oct. 5: After this article was published, the chief executive of Konnech was arrested on suspicion of theft of personal information about poll workers.
> Update, Oct. 5: After this article was published, the chief executive of Konnech was arrested on suspicion of theft of personal information about poll workers. Prosecutors asserted that the chief executive had poll worker information stored on servers in the People's Republic of China, which in our original article we disparaged as an "unfounded conspiracy theory", and the statement in our article, "It said that all the data for its American customers were stored on servers in the United States and that it had no ties to the Chinese government." is likely totally false.
Nothing in the article says these groups are claiming this company participated in fraud. Only that they are stealing american data.
The article lays out exactly what True the Vote claimed:
> Ms. Engelbrecht and Mr. Phillips claimed at the conference and in livestreams that they investigated Konnech in early 2021. Eventually, they said, the group’s team gained access to Konnech’s database by guessing the password, which was “password,” according to the online accounts from people who attended the conference. Once inside, they told attendees, the team downloaded personal information on about 1.8 million poll workers.
Based on the case notes, I think this allegation is merited and not a conspiracy theory at all.
If the NYT had an article on how they overstated how many poll workers data were stored, that may be a fairer critique, but one that wouldn't make such a sensational headline.
Unreal that they published this.
That part is still valid. And really we don't actually know what evidence the DA has or if the scope of the arrest warrant matches the theory. All they've said is that some data was stored in China.
To be clear, "having data stored in China" is exactly equivalent to "had given the Chinese government backdoor access to personal data" - and that's not some "conspiracy", that's the stated law of China.
Furthermore, the reason that's so important is because "having some data stored in China", if true, means that this quote from the article, "Konnech said none of the accusations were true. It said that all the data for its American customers were stored on servers in the United States and that it had no ties to the Chinese government." would be a complete lie.
I wonder how many other instances of this there are in their other reporting, where reasonable accusations or suspicions are "debunked" simply by the accused stating "nu-uh".
This company was exceedingly good at getting money from both the local economic development people as well as the state. Told someone today that I felt like I was in the middle of a spy novel ;<).
It is also the first time to my knowledge the little village of Okemos was ever mentioned in the old grey lady (aka NYT).
Here's how local media covered the story: https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2022/10/05/ea...
I think we'll soon learn that his ties to China run far deeper than simply storing data.
They have much better documentation.
I would love if the government gave me the ability to opt out (or better, opt in) to these practices. They are a huge source of data leaks.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33050320
https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/230000-policing-expan...
This is going to be fun...
District Attorney investigators found that in contradiction to the contract, information was stored on servers in the People’s Republic of China.
Maybe there are additional facts not claimed in the press release, but at face value the two above statements are not mutually exclusive. If the PRC wanted access and the company was willing, it is hardly necessary for the data to reside in any geographic location.
1. County workers leaking a roll of rarely voted voters to an external ballot stuffing operation.
2. Suitcases with rollers being carried into poll counting room.
3. And voters dropping off MANY ballots at early drop-boxes.
Until we have ways to detect those alleged acts, it remains a hard problem.
(Although they admit that it would be easier to do in some states than others.)
Also, probably can do this nationwide if you sell election devices … nationwide.
Oopsie, I accidentally provisioned a server in communist China.
Yeah right.
"District Attorney investigators found that in contradiction to the contract, information was stored on servers in the People’s Republic of China."
Would be curious how they asserted that. A contractor in the last election dumped ballots in garbage in Pennsylvania. Justice department maintained it didn’t alter election integrity.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/temporary-contractor-threw-t...
Given that it was nine ballots, that seems rational.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/technology/konnech-electi...
*Using threadbare evidence, or none at all, the group suggested that a small American election software company, Konnech, had secret ties to the Chinese Communist Party and had given the Chinese government backdoor access to personal data about two million poll workers in the United States, according to online accounts from several people at the conference.*
which is exactly what happened, and thus the arrest - so in this case, the 'theory' was spot on.
Tell us again how this is unrelated?
You’re saying, basically: where are the secret ties? The ties are right there in the open!
(Well now they are at least)
“Hey they got caught. They’re not being so secretive anymore” is not really evidence suggesting that there was nothing nefarious occurring.
It doesn't say the communist party breached those servers, that there were deliberate ties, etc. There could well be. I'm just not seeing it in the article we're discussing, hence my question to you.
The only charge is storing the data on servers in China.
Slow your roll.