I Won $5M from the MyPillow Guy and Saved Democracy
politico.com
politico.com
>After all, I invented the field of software forensics, the science of analyzing software source code for intellectual property infringement or theft.
he invented the field, like Mark Twain, he is modest, not everywhere, but in spots.
Though, to be fair, this sentence in the actual report is great:
If it were me I would have pursued the proprietary software for the machines which should not be proprietary. It's counting votes. Nothing special about that software. It should be available for anyone to look at. It's impossible to claim there was no voter fraud without seeing that software. I believed Bill Clinton as a kid right up until the point the blue dress was made public. After that nobody believed Bill.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_collection
This lead to a fraud conviction and a subsequent special election in North Carolina https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictm...
Here is a list of real convictions:
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/108824/documents/...
You must realize that a criminal conviction through the slow cogs of justice likely means the problem is 100x larger.
But all that said, Trump still lost and there isn’t a widespread coverup. I’m merely pointing out that election fraud does happen and we could do better as a society to make that less possible if we really tried.
Stopped there
I have a hard time believing that the 40-50 other software forensics experts didn't recognise ASCII in hex, or bother converting these files even if they didn't.
If I understand correctly, he only analysed a tiny proportion of the data. Junk or not, it doesn't disprove that the remaining majority held key evidence.
He "determined that nothing in the file was related to the 2020 presidential election". What is "determined" here?
It sounds like this was more of a gaming of the system than it was a forensic investigation. There must be an awful lot missing here.
Edit:
Having read the full report now, I am of the opinion that this was a(n attempted) fraudulent competition by a wealthy moron, exploited by an unscrupulous parasite with the good fortune of misleading arbitrators into a skewed perception of the competition terms that guaranteed his success. Both of them acted disgracefully; this should have been a criminal matter dealing with the fraud, and the other hack shouldn't have a dime to show for it.
The idea that someone would set up some kind of hacker convention and offer a reward for hundreds of experts to parse through gigabytes of random fake data that they intentionally created sounds beyond insane. What is the motive for that? I didn't even hear about this convention, so it can't be a PR stunt...
It's just not believable. If that's where we're at, we might as well believe the majority of conspiracy theories which are less far-fetched than this.
Isn't that obvious? Create enough smoke to make people believe there's a fire.
The author thought that Lindell was sending everyone on a wild goose chase with irrelevant data, and Lindell couldn’t defend against that claim in arbitration.
That’s not how proof works. The burden of proof is on Lindell to prove his claims true, not Zeidman or the public to disprove some unsubstantiated claims like this.
Lindell produces files from somewhere (unspecified) of some (unspecified) nature and without explanation makes a claim that they show evidence of crime X.
The goal in this situation cannot be to prove that there is no data here related to crime X. That would be equivalent to proving that a seemingly random string of bits cannot possibly encode a secret message.
The goal is to show that it is implausible that the files could represent evidence of crime X, given the circumstances in which the data was encountered. Not only did the author accomplish this, but the real telling point is that, with five million dollars at stake, Lindell could produce no substantial rebuttal from any of those 50 other hackers, nor any other expert who could say words to the effect that “this is PCAP data even though it is in a format never before associated with PCAPs” or “the reason the data appears to be recently created is [plausible explanation X]”