> Cybersecurity expert J. Kirk Wiebe, a former senior National Security Agency analyst and whistleblower, also said Mr. Lindell did not have the actual data sets.<p>> He said the scrolling text was likely meant to resemble what the packet captures would look like in the data set but were not actual packet captures, which are vital to prove the claims.<p>You gotta love these non-technical people who think that any code on a screen is basically the Matrix. It reminds me when I was building webpages in HTML in a coffee shop and a guy saw it and accused me of hacking.
Maybe if they had released the data sooner instead of waiting for a conference bombshell, the expert who provided the data would still be in a pre stroke condition and able to explain it. Amazing how the deadline needs to get pushed back right at the very latest moment.
What's the point of linking every instance of his name as well as his pronouns to "<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mike-lindell/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mike-lindell/</a>", is that some kind of SEO trick?
They should release hashed and signed files and disk images as torrents. It's that easy.<p>I had hoped to see the captures and disk images online somewhere to see what kind of analysis they did, as I've done reverse engineering of protocols, devices, software, and large systems throughout my career. While I'm not an elite reverse engineer who presents new methods of obfuscated malware reversing at conferences, it has fallen to me to do it professionally on and off for the last 20 years and there are certainly some thousands of people with at least my level of skill who could weigh in on it.<p>Demonstrating technical uncertainty to present and frame risks is a lower standard than reproducing an exploit chain. As they say, POC||GTFO. I don't know that their conference (symposium) has met that standard yet. There was a link to their conference being broadcast on rumble, and I watched some of it. What I saw wasn't as good as a defcon presentation, let alone with the technical clarity and polished execution of a good blackhat presentation, which their concerns would need to be at to get serious popular consideration.<p>My impression right now is that the 'cyber' aspect of this is really a vehicle for promoting the more serious and rigorous statistical case from a perhaps too colorful character named Dr. Douglas Frank (?), which if real, would be much more damning than technical voting machine vulnerabilities. Everyone knew a decade ago electronic voting was vulnerable. I commented multiple times here and to acquaintences involved in politics that electronic voting risks social unrest because it can be so easily discredited in a highly contested situation, and there is nothing surprising, unanticipated, or unforseeable about the consequences of using these machines. Elections that use them now have a foul smell about them. I don't think any technology evidence these people present will change any minds, mostly because minds are not generally changed by evidence, but I do think they will set a new bar for elections scrutiny that will require the integrity of elections to withstand forensic analysis.<p>Until we have signed and hashed disk images that can be compared to sealed hardware that has a verifiable chain of custody, the Chinese hacking narrative will be bluster. Whether the "election fortification," methods used in it were legal or will be tolerated in future ones, however, I think they may have made their point.
From TFA: "Several cyber experts at the symposium became frustrated late into the first day with not being provided with packet captures."<p>I'm not sure they're experts if they were expecting Mike Lindell to actually deliver on something.
This article is a soup of crisscrossing claims and motives, but after thinking that, I realize that's what the news is actually like, and whenever it appears otherwise, it's because of narrative-building.
This is for those here that think 'fact checkers' are a bad idea. You don't want a fact checker to deliver your opinion of hard questions, like 'is there life after death', but we need fact checkers because some people are on the fence over whether the earth is flat. this is cut and dried. you can argue fine points, but for people who aren't sure, a fact check report that condenses everything that is known and summarizes as 'scam' would be helpful to alot of people. I'd love to see a argdown platform for this stuff
This is the biggest thing that came out of the conference.<p>Apparently a Bios password was leaked and one of the voting machine was possibly imaged in a county in Colorado, before and after dominion post election update.<p>Press Conference
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro00TQuTUcc&t=37s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro00TQuTUcc&t=37s</a>
These claims don't need to be credible. They're propaganda and theater to fire up the base, not something intended to stand up in court or convince anyone who knows what they're talking about.<p>Very few people know what actual cyber forensic data would look like, and any packet capture would be meaningless without a lot of context information about when, where, and how it was captured.<p>My favorite bit of propaganda leading up to the "pot dispensary putsch" of January 6th was the comical Qanon military LARPing in some of the Q drops. Shit like "testing alternate satellite route code (let cat walk on keyboard) trust the plan, Q". Meanwhile this junk is being posted on a shitty chan board with no cryptographic signature, because that's exactly how a real "Q-level" intelligence expert would communicate.<p>A real spy would never ever even use a PGP signature to authenticate their literally world saving information. They would also pre-announce their intent to take down a super-powerful global criminal cabal to make sure their adversaries knew ahead of time.<p>Absolutely hilarious nonsense for people who know nothing about computers, telecom, encryption, the military, or intelligence.<p>Con artists often deliberately make their con stupid and ridiculous to select for gullible marks. A con artist <i>wants</i> fools.
These are the same people who create elaborate PizzaGate, QAnon, Wayfair, McAfee, etc conspiracies. They are in the business of creating conspiracies not cause they can ever prove them in court, at least not without a truly inept and likely corrupt judge, but because they attract certain types of people into their cult so they will hopefully have more mentally unwell seditionist show up next time.
Is there a conversation that needs to be had around the security of voting machines? Yes. Is America's electoral system fundamentally flawed? Yes. Should election machines be audited and held to the highest possible standard of information security? Yes.<p>Does this achieve any of that? No.<p>A lot of people had open minds about this whole situation, and I commend them. But it was obvious from the beginning this was going to go nowhere. It's the same with every conspiracy theory, someone claims to have proof but won't or can't show it for some reason. Whatever reason that is changes with the wind. The claim that the elections were hacked to give Biden the victory has now boiled down to con men conning other con men.
I watched most of the event over the past few days. Mostly fluff. However, there were some actual interesting things uncovered, like decades old iis software runnning and logs that clearly showed some sort of network activity on and around election day.<p>I find it hard to believe there's nothing when politicians are trying so hard to stop any audit and sites like Twitter are banning any discussion of election fraud. You dont censor when you are correct. You censor when you have something to hide.<p>I also find it hilarious that the left laughs at this when the majority of leftist activists sites run on shitty outdated wordpress installations cobbled together with random scripts.
> He has been behind several other high-profile conspiracy theories, including allegations that U.S. security agencies wiretapped Trump Tower while Mr. Trump was running for president in 2016.<p>I mean, that was proven. There's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to it [1].<p>I don't trust this Lindell guy, but I trust the press even less.<p>1: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_inves...</a>
This article is a factoid filled hit piece. Not defending Lindell, but I would encourage people to find better coverage of this event. Finding unbiased coverage is likely impossible, but try to find at least a few you regard highly and read through the mess.