Cyber intruders could pick the next US president

From:,  by Dina Gusovsky,  on Sep 4, 2016,  see the article HERE.


Recent attempts to hack voter registration systems, including a successful attack in Illinois this week, point to a glaring cybersecurity deficiency across the nation: State-readiness to defend against potential cyberattacks is inadequate, according to experts, and voter registration systems are among the most susceptible entry points for hackers to gain access to sensitive information of Americans — and possibly even manipulate elections.

“Both campaign and state voter registration databases are weak targets and the low-hanging fruit,” said Francesca Spidalieri, senior fellow for cyber leadership at the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy. “A lot of the systems used to store health-care records, pension information and voter registrations are old, intermittently used and handled by staff with little to no training in cybersecurity,” she said.

“To be blunt, a kid could have done this. That’s how bad it is,” said internet security expert Joseph Steinberg.

These findings are particularly alarming in light of reports that Russian hackers were behind two recent attempts to breach voter registration databases in Illinois and Arizona.

“They all hold valuable information, whether internal party policies that can shape the elections or the personal information of the electorate. The value of targeting those databases is not only to steal information (voters’ names, birthdays, SSNs, etc.) but also to conduct an information operation and manipulate election results directly or indirectly by affecting turnout, disrupting election sites and ultimately sow doubt in the legitimacy of the election itself,” Spidalieri said.

“If it was a foreign government, could someone be adding or removing people from the database in order to impact elections?” Steinberg said. “Could someone be assembling lists of contacts in order to contact them with election-related propaganda? Could someone want to mess up the database the day of the election or right before in order to cause election issues?” He added, “We don’t need to know who or why to know that we have a serious problem.”

The recent attacks should be seen as inevitable rather than surprising. A Pell Center report on state cybersecurity programs published before the recent election hacks concluded that “no state is ready” to prevent a cyberattack.

There are more than 2,000 different jurisdictions around the United States, and all have different types of voting machines and limited resources to update them. Hired staff or those who volunteer on Election Day have limited to no training in cybersecurity, said Spidalieri.

“States are advocating for bigger IT budgets, but they are slow to implement some of their new programs, and the voting systems have so far been a lower priority.” she said. “It’s a pretty grim picture all over the United States,” she added.

In August, Department of Homeland Security Chief Jeh Johnson warned state election officials about potential cyberattacks that could interfere with the elections and said he would consider designating certain electoral systems as “critical infrastructure.”

Currently, voting systems are not considered critical infrastructure under federal regulations, so those in charge of these systems are on their own in terms of deciding on the best approaches in dealing with cybersecurity threats.

Taking into consideration preparedness plans, such as regular threat assessments, incident response and information sharing, the Pell Center report found the most cyber-ready U.S. state was California, followed by Maryland and Michigan.

Since the Pell Center data was published a little less than a year ago, some states — Indiana, for example — have launched cybersecurity commissions and passed cyber-related legislation.

In Pennsylvania, another key presidential election state, Secretary of State Pedro A. Cortés said it is working to ensure the security and integrity of the November election. “In recent weeks, there has been talk about vulnerabilities in the nation’s election infrastructure,” Cortés said in a release. “Our election staff is working closely with federal and state experts to implement all available strategies to strengthen security.”

A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of State stressed the distinction between voter registration databases and actual voting systems. In Pennsylvania, precinct voting systems are never connected to the internet. And while Pennsylvania’s online voter registration application is on the web, applicants’ personal information is stored in a statewide Uniform Registry of Electors voter registration database that is not connected to the internet and is only accessible internally.

A spokeswoman for the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness said it is working with federal and state partners and continuously reviewing the effectiveness of the security controls for all state systems and monitoring them for any suspicious activity. She said one major difference between New Jersey’s voter registration system and that of Arizona and Illinois — states hit by recent attacks — is that New Jersey does not allow online voter registration.

Commission recommendations and conversations, though, are not the same as implementation, and states don’t have much to show for existing efforts. “It’s a good effort to bring experts together to talk about issues in states, but it’s still not a solution,” Spidalieri said. “No state has yet devised a comprehensive plan that aligns the state economic vision with their security priorities when it comes to this issue.”

Mauricio Paez, a partner at Jones Day who manages the firm’s privacy and cybersecurity practice, said the problem is not only that many voter registration systems in the United States are antiquated from a security perspective but that “there’s a decentralized approach in terms of dealing with these breaches, because there is no uniform standard for states to address these risks.”


What are the odds that this coming election will be pristine with no mischief of any sort? Damn near zero, in my opinion.

The stakes are high – the highest ever, and the miscreants who thirst for power will be tempted to do whatever they can to seize control of the presidency. Contrary to what some democrats publicly state (they are the most guilty), we’ve had numerous cases of voter mischief in recent elections ranging from voter registration fraud (remember ACORN and registering millions of new voters like Donald Duck, Lassie, and Marco Polo?) through voters voting multiple times and people voting using dead people’s names. When more votes are cast than the number of people who are live in a precinct, suspicion of foul play is well-founded. And we’d better watch the military vote – it’s ripe for under-counting.

The only kind of voting irregularity that hasn’t been proven to have happened already is hacking, and according to experts, we’re ripe for that one. Given the lengthy history of democrats manipulating our election system, my money would be on them to introduce new creative methods (like hacking) of influencing the election results to favor democrat candidates. We all know that Hillary has no qualms about lying and cheating to game our systems for her benefit and this election will be no exception.

Money will be no object to hacking to yield desired results. When other governments are known to have probed our networks and election systems and globalists like George Soros have made it plain that he will spend millions to influence governments to his liking (including influencing the election of Secretaries of State who control elections in the states), we shouldn’t be surprised if some results in November just don’t seem to be “Kosher.”

We’d best be vigilant or have the presidency stolen right out from under our noses.





Categories: General


6 replies

  1. Of course people are going to mess with our elections. The chances of experiencing negative consequences for it are remote, and that makes it worth the risk. Even if there is no significant tampering, the damage has already been done. Regardless of who wins, their supporters will suspect and/or claim that the election was stolen. We’ll never know who’s right but it will taint the winner either way.


  2. Were I in charge of a voting system, and it was designated critical infrastructure, I would not take financial assistance from Jeh Johnson. Much like taking money from the mafia, it comes with strings attached.

    Like our electrical grid, it’s a sad state of affairs that our election system is so vulnerable to hacking. Two of our most vital elements are open to manipulation and attacks, while our government offers the states a federal Band-Aid instead of placing utmost importance on both systems.


    • You’re right Kathy and that is a new and proper perspective. Our Constitutional Republic is based on citizens voting for their chosen representatives and if there is no confidence that our votes count, the system will begin to break down. We do need to place a higher priority and a higher level of importance on our voting systems and they need to be as foolproof as humanly possible.

      I believe that the federal government needs to be in charge of defining the requirements for voting systems to meet. I don’t want the feds to have anything to do with actual voting – that’s up to the states, but there should be some unanimity of requirements that vendors must meet to be players in the competition for the state’s purchases – and the feds can’t be allowed to influence any vendor choices.

      A brief plug for a system that I’ve been briefly exposed to – Absio – (developed by Dan and David Kruger) that handles encryption differently than other current techniques – that’s just an example that perhaps, just maybe, an Internet voting system (or something similar) could work. I know that the Internet (as it currently exists) is woefully inadequate from a security standpoint But, sooner or later, we’ll be voting electronically, online – we just need to advance the infrastructure in order to do it.


  3. But aren’t they just counting the votes not yet counted? or the ones that haven’t been cast yet? You know, the ones they (whichever party needs to win most) needs to win the ticket.
    “At this point, What Difference Does It Make.”
    Just keep in mind, In The End – JESUS Wins!


    • Right WT, we know that He’ll win in the end, it’s the interim that I’m worried about. As awful as both candidates are, I still would rather take my chances that Trump will accidentally do something good for the country – while it is impossible for Hillary to consider anything that doesn’t enrich her and Billy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: