• chilicheeselies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    5 days ago

    Thats how they are gonna do it. The next election is going to be a sham one. They are going to rig it in their favor. Every fucking state shouls be going back to paper ballots

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 days ago

      Of course the next election will be a sham. I keep asking people who think there will be legitimate elections in the U.S. from now on why the Republicans would ever give up controlling the entire federal government, “They just would” seems to be the answer.

      • But just legitimate-looking enough that Americans cannot seek political asylum abroad because you show up in the EU and the border agents be like “tHE uSa iS a dEMocRACy”, and you get deported back to the US, and then the US border agents will refuse to recognize your citizenship, and you end up in guantanamo.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 days ago

          Really? This sham got both Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump in the Oval Office?

          I guess the Illuminati don’t have much of a plan.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      The states run the elections. There is nothing stopping the states from hiring cyber security professionals to make sure their elections are secure. Most state elections are still run by very competent people who are motivated to provide a free and fair election.

      • irish_link@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Uhh, no they do not.

        I have no option in Georgia for a paper ballot. I do it on a touchscreen computer each time. Yes that gets printed after i Digitally do it but not in an easy to read way. Then i put it into a bin that scans it and shreds it. No paper trail.

        • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          The bin does not shred it.

          But yeah the qr code being what’s scanned but the text being what you can read seriously compromises voter verifiability. So close, but not voter verifiable. Close enough to fool people.

          • irish_link@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            5 days ago

            A digital that is printed and then shredded is not a paper ballot.

            A paper ballot is a paper I vote on. That stays intact for historical accuracy.

            From your stance I am invincible. I have not died in the last five minutes therefore i am invincible.

            • Kairos@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              5 days ago

              no that is very much a paper ballot. The historical record part isn’t important.

              • DrFistington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 days ago

                But it is. Otherwise if the voting machine has an error, the paper it prints out has the wrong info, at that point there is no validation that can occur via recount or any other means.

                • Reyali@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Or heaven forbid something in the software allows it to print the right vote but record the wrong vote. I’m with you: no paper trail = not a paper ballot.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Man I really hate these website where you have to have a subscription to read the article.

    Every fucking conservative piece of shit toiletpaper rag is free, but anything to the left of these whether it’s liberal or even socialist is all pay to read.

    Here’s the archive.org version: https://web.archive.org/web/20250215031214/https://www.wired.com/story/cisa-election-security-freeze-memo/

    EDIT:

    FUUUUUUU even the archive.org version has this javascript shit that hides the article. wtf!!!

    EDIT2:

    I added an extension to disable javascript for specific websites and I can now read it.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Every fucking conservative piece of shit toiletpaper rag is free, but anything to the left of these whether it’s liberal or even socialist is all pay to read.

      Did you consider that it might be because one is actual journalism and thus requires a lot of time and effort to perform, while the other one is petulant, bigoted crying in a way that a high schooler could write with zero or minimal fact-checking in 20 minutes?

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yes of course. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have access to that information.

        Where I live, (Québec) we have LaPresse, LeDevoir, LaTribune/LeSoleil/LeQuotidien/etc which are an information coop, which are all free but have the option to have a paid subscription or rather to support the paper. There’s also tons of special federal and provincial measures to financially support journalism in Canada.

        But I forget this is the US.

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        And, obviously, the parasitic “elites” are now than happy to sink whatever costs are necessary to spread their fear based propaganda.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 days ago

      That’s because their interests align with the mega-rich. They can afford to give away content and hire interns to sexually harass. Honest orgs have little funding by comparison.

    • forrgott@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      FYI, uBlock with Annoyances: EasyList - Annoyances enabled did the trick for me.

      I was generally happy with uBlock before, but then I found the dashboard and checked all the boxes for Annoyances and oh man! So much better!

      Edit: Oh, bit thank you for the warning! You know, when I was younger I honestly thought the <flash> HTML tag was the worst…I kinda miss it now, isn’t that fucked up?! But, I mean, in comparison…

      • Azal@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I was generally happy with uBlock before, but then I found the dashboard and checked all the boxes for Annoyances and oh man! So much better!

        So… can you hook a guy up with info on this?

  • DrFistington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 days ago

    Ahh, typical MAGAt logic. Our elections are corrupt… So of course that means we have to remove the departments that ensure integrity in our elections.

    • Gerudo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      They probably locked him out of computer systems and stopped paying him. That’s pretty forceful.

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      I didn’t read anything about putting anyone in jail or being arrested. Where did you see this?

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    5 days ago

    The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has frozen all of its election security work and is reviewing everything it has done to help state and local officials secure their elections for the past eight years, WIRED has learned. The move represents the first major example of the country’s cyberdefense agency accommodating President Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud and online censorship.

    In a memo sent Friday to all CISA employees and obtained by WIRED, CISA’s acting director, Bridget Bean, said she was ordering “a review and assessment” of every position at the agency related to election security and countering mis- and disinformation, “as well as every election security and [mis-, dis-, and malinformation] product, activity, service, and program that has been carried out” since the federal government designated election systems as critical infrastructure in 2017.

    “CISA will pause all elections security activities until the completion of this review,” Bean added. The agency is also cutting off funding for these activities at the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing & Analysis Center, a group funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that has served as a coordinating body for the elections community.

    In her memo, Bean confirmed that CISA had, as first reported by Politico, placed employees “initially identified to be associated with the elections security activities and the MDM program” on administrative leave on February 7.

    “It is necessary to rescope the agency’s election security activities to ensure CISA is focused exclusively on executing its cyber and physical security mission,” she told employees in the memo.

    While Bean is temporarily leading CISA, she is officially the agency’s executive director, its top career position. CISA’s first director created the executive-director role to provide continuity during political transitions. Previously, Bean was a Trump appointee at the Federal Emergency Management Agency during his first term.

    In justifying CISA’s internal review, which will conclude on March 6, Bean pointed to Trump’s January 20 executive order on “ending federal censorship.” Conservatives have argued that CISA censored their speech by coordinating with tech companies to identify online misinformation in 2020, during the final year of Trump’s first term. CISA has denied conducting any censorship, and the US Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit over the government’s work. But in the wake of the backlash, CISA halted most conversations with tech platforms about online mis- and disinformation.

    CISA and DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Since 2017, state and local election officials have relied on CISA’s expertise and resources—as well as its partnerships with other agencies—to improve their physical and digital security. Through on-site consultations and online guidance, CISA has helped election administrators secure voting infrastructure against hackers, harden polling places against active shooters, and create polling-place backup plans to deal with ballot shortages or power outages.

    Election supervisors have always struggled to overcome serious funding challenges, but in recent years, their jobs have become even more stressful as intense voter scrutiny has given way to harassment and even death threats. Election officials of both parties have repeatedly praised CISA for its apolitical support of their work, saying the agency’s recommendations and free security services have been critical in boosting their own efforts.

    But that bipartisan accord began fraying after the 2020 election, as some conservative election officials started criticizing the agency for its focus on mis- and disinformation. Congressional Republicans joined the fray as well, calling CISA “the nerve center of the federal government’s domestic surveillance and censorship operations on social media.” Their rhetoric echoed Trump’s own history of election denialism, which involved false claims of rigged voting machines and mass voter fraud and culminated in Trump supporters’ January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    With conservatives pushing to axe CISA’s election security mission, Trump’s election last November virtually guaranteed an end to that program, and employees have been bracing for retaliation against the people who participated in that work.

    Bean’s memo indicates that CISA’s internal review will cover every agency position related to election security, as well as performance plans for employees involved in that work; all support services provided to the election community; and all election security guidance and publications. Bean wrote that CISA will describe any steps necessary to “correct any activities identified as past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech,” including eliminating programs or roles.

    After CISA completes its review, the agency will submit a report to the White House addressing how it plans to “deliver a more focused provision of services for elections security activities,” Bean told employees. The report will focus on three goals: streamlining the election security services that CISA offers to state and local governments, ensuring that its activities align with its new “mandate to refocus” on its core mission, and removing “all personnel, contracts, grants, programs, products, services, and activities” that conflict with Trump’s anti-censorship directive or exceed CISA’s authorities.

    It is unclear if White House officials or DHS secretary Kristi Noem directly ordered Bean to launch the election security investigation or if she independently determined that Trump’s executive order necessitated it. The January 20 directive does instruct the attorney general to work with other agency leaders to investigate Biden-administration activities that are “inconsistent” with Trump’s vow to end online censorship, but it makes no mention of activities prior to Biden’s term, including CISA’s 2020 election work.