reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There are concerns about the security of electronic voting machines, as they can potentially be hacked without detection. While there is no evidence of this happening, it cannot be proven that it hasn't or won't happen in the future. Instances of machine errors have been reported, such as recording extra votes for a candidate or subtracting votes instead of adding them. It is unknown how many instances went unnoticed and what impact they had on elections. Legislation is being proposed to require a paper trail for every electronic machine, similar to ATM receipts, to ensure transparency and allow for verification. An investigation is also being requested to assess the effectiveness of voting machines and improve election systems.

Concerns about election integrity are valid. Historically, Democrats have questioned election outcomes, such as in 2001 and 2004, without facing accusations of unpatriotism. It's essential to focus on the safeguards in place to prevent election tampering rather than getting angry at those who raise concerns. We have the technology to ensure accuracy, as seen with ATM machines and other systems that function reliably. To enhance election security, we should implement measures like paper ballots for verification. The conversation should center on improving the electoral process rather than debating whether specific elections were hacked.

At the Capitol, we witnessed the hacking of outdated election machines, which are used in many states. This raises concerns as only three companies control these machines, making them vulnerable to hacking. Researchers have discovered serious security flaws, including backdoors, in voting machines used by 43% of American voters. These companies refuse to answer questions about their cybersecurity practices, and the larger companies avoid answering any questions altogether. Additionally, five states lack a paper trail, making it impossible to verify the legitimacy of the voting machine results. This undermines the notion of cybersecurity in our elections.

After the 2016 election, Democrats claimed there was a problem with vote machines, but after the 2020 election, they said there was no problem. In previous elections, Democrats challenged results too. In 2001, Maxine Waters challenged George W. Bush's victory, and in 2005, Barbara Boxer challenged Ohio's electoral vote. In 2017, after Trump's win, Sheila Jackson Lee mentioned voting machine malfunctions. These objections were seen as naive or shameless, as they could disenfranchise Americans. Stacey Abrams, a Democrat who ran for governor of Georgia, claimed the game was rigged against voters. The claims of fraudulent votes, malfunctioning machines, and rigged elections are similar to what is being claimed now. Some defend the Dominion voting machines, while others acknowledge vulnerabilities to foreign interference.

The speaker states they are investigating dangerous and negative consequences with the "best of the best." They claim electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and open to exploitation, allowing manipulation of vote results. This vulnerability purportedly reinforces the need for paper ballots nationwide, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

We demonstrated how easily election machines can be hacked, raising concerns about the limited number of companies controlling voting technology. 43% of American voters use machines with security flaws, and some states lack a paper trail to verify results. The lack of transparency in cybersecurity practices is alarming.

Voting machines in the U.S. are highly vulnerable to hacking, with researchers demonstrating that even those with limited skills can breach them quickly. Many machines are outdated, using unsupported software, and some states lack adequate paper trails for verification. Remote access software on machines increases risks, and several states have been hacked without detection. The use of cellular modems for transmitting results further exposes systems to cyber threats. Election management systems, often connected to the internet, can be compromised, allowing attackers to manipulate vote tallies. Despite assurances from vendors, the reality is that many machines can be hacked, raising serious concerns about election integrity in close contests. The lack of forensic evidence makes it difficult to confirm whether votes have been altered, leaving the electoral process at risk.

Voting machines have been proven to be vulnerable to tampering and hacking. In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleted or switched votes. The biggest seller of voting machines even violated cybersecurity principles by installing remote access software, making them attractive to fraudsters and hackers. Three companies control the majority of voting machines in the US. Antiquated machines in many states are particularly vulnerable. Demonstrations have shown how easily these machines can be hacked, with workers switching votes. Approximately 43% of American voters use machines with serious security flaws. Aging systems rely on unsupported software, making them even more susceptible to cyberattacks. A hack in just one swing state or a few counties could significantly impact a close presidential election.

Virginia stopped using touchscreen voting machines due to vulnerabilities. Voting machines across the US are at risk of being hacked. In Georgia and Texas, votes were deleted or switched in 2018. The biggest voting machine seller violated cybersecurity practices. Many states have outdated, vulnerable machines. Hackers can easily breach voting machines, potentially altering election results. The lack of paper trails in some states raises concerns about election legitimacy. Aging systems rely on unsupported software, making them susceptible to cyber attacks. The vulnerability of voting machines poses a threat to the integrity of elections. Stalin emphasized the importance of who counts votes. It is crucial to secure the future of elections and upgrade outdated systems to prevent interference.

Voting machines in the United States are vulnerable to hacking and tampering, according to experts. These machines, including touchscreen and ballot recording machines, have been found to have serious security flaws that can be exploited by hackers. In some cases, electronic voting machines have deleted or switched votes. The use of remote access software on voting machines also poses a significant cybersecurity risk. Outdated software and unsupported systems further increase the vulnerability of these machines. Modems in voting machines, which are used to transmit results, can also be hacked. The lack of proper audit trails and forensic evidence makes it difficult to detect and prove hacking incidents. Overall, the current state of voting machine security in the US is a cause for concern and poses a threat to the integrity of elections.

The speakers discuss allegations of election interference and illegitimacy in past elections, particularly focusing on the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. They mention Russian interference, voter suppression, and issues with electronic voting machines. The overall sentiment is that elections have been stolen, leading to concerns about the integrity of the democratic process. The speakers express doubts about the legitimacy of certain election results, such as in Georgia and Ohio, and emphasize the need for fair and transparent elections.

There are concerns about fraud with Dominion Voting Machines due to security vulnerabilities. In Georgia, people are fighting to remove them from elections. A computer scientist showed how easy it is to manipulate the machines in court. There are worries about internet connectivity and foreign access to the machines. Dominion is suing those who accused them of cheating in the 2020 election, but facing challenges in court. Emails suggest foreign nationals accessed US voting machines. Questions remain about the security and integrity of Dominion Voting Machines.

The transcript presents a broad, multi-voiced warning about the vulnerability of U.S. voting systems and the ease with which they can be hacked, hacked-stopping demonstrations, and the security gaps that remain even as elections continue. Key points and claims: - Virginia stopped using touch screen voting because it is “so vulnerable,” and multiple speakers argue that all voting machines must be examined to prevent hacking and attacks. Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and others emphasize systemic vulnerability across states. - Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that ballot recording machines and other voting systems are susceptible to tampering, with examples that even hackers with limited knowledge can breach machines in minutes (Speaker 2, Speaker 3). - In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas allegedly deleted votes for certain candidates or switched votes from one candidate to another (Speaker 4). - The largest voting machine vendors are accused of cybersecurity violations, including directing that remote access software be installed, which would make machines attractive to fraudsters and hackers (Speaker 5). - Across the country, voting machines are described as easily hackable, with contention that three companies control many systems and that individual machines pose significant risk (Speaker 2, Speaker 6). - Many states use antiquated machines vulnerable to hacking, with demonstrations showing how easily workers could hack electronic voting machines (Speakers 7, 2). - A substantial portion of American voters use machines researchers say have serious security flaws, including backdoors (Speaker 5). Some states reportedly have no paper trail or only partial paper records (Speaker 5, various). - Aging systems are noted as failing due to use of unsupported software such as Windows XP/2000, increasing vulnerability to cyber attacks (Speaker 9). An observed concern is that 40 states use machines at least a decade old (Speaker 9). - Specific past intrusions are cited: Illinois and Arizona in 2016 had election websites hacked, with malware installed and sensitive voter information downloaded (Speaker 4). - There is debate about whether votes were changed in the 2016 election; one speaker notes that experts say you cannot claim—without forensic analysis—that votes were not changed (Speaker 17, 18). - The existence of paper records is contested: some jurisdictions lack verifiable paper trails, undermining the ability to prove results are legitimate (Speaker 5, 9). - Some devices rely on cellular modems to transmit results after elections, creating additional avenues for interception and manipulation; vendors acknowledge modems but vary in how they frame Internet connectivity (Speakers 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21). The debate covers whether cellular transmissions truly isolate from the Internet or provide a backdoor, with demonstrations showing that modems can be connected to Internet networks and could be exploited. - The “programming” phase of elections—where memory cards are prepared with candidates and contests—can be a vector for spread of rogue software if an attacker compromises the election management system (Speaker 11, Speaker 10). - A scenario is outlined in which an attacker identifies weak swing states, probes them, hacks the election management system or outside vendors, spreads malicious code to machines, and alters a portion of votes; the assumption is that many jurisdictions will not rigorously use paper records to verify computer results (Speaker 10). - A Virginia governor’s anecdote is shared: after a hack demonstrated off-site by experts, all machines were decertified and replaced with paper ballots (Speaker 16). Overall impression: the discussion paints a picture of pervasive vulnerability, aging and diverse systems, reliance on modems and networked components, potential for targeted manipulation in close elections, and the need for upgrades and robust forensic capabilities, while noting contested claims about the extent of past interference.

The majority of election jurisdictions in the US use outdated software that is vulnerable to hacking. States like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Arizona, North Carolina, and even Georgia (despite recent legislation) are at risk. If a small percentage determines the election outcome and people perceive it as unfair, it could seriously damage our democratic system. Experts argue that without a thorough forensic analysis, it is impossible to confirm that no votes were altered in the 2016 election. Additionally, 43% of American voters use machines with security flaws, and some companies refuse to disclose their cybersecurity practices. Five states lack a paper trail, making it impossible to verify the accuracy of voting machine results.

Speaker 0 asks for reassurance that the upcoming election won't be rigged or stolen. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that having Democrats in charge of the voting machines in Ohio is helpful. However, they also acknowledge that both Republicans and Democrats have manipulated elections in the past. Speaker 1 explains that those in power tend to try to tilt things in their favor.

Voting machines have been proven to be vulnerable to tampering and hacking. Even with limited knowledge and resources, hackers can breach these machines within minutes. In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleted or switched votes. The biggest seller of voting machines violates basic cybersecurity principles by installing remote access software, making them attractive to fraudsters and hackers. Three companies control the majority of voting machines, posing significant risks. Many states still use outdated and hackable machines. Researchers have found serious security flaws in 43% of American voting machines. Aging systems rely on unsupported software, making them more vulnerable to cyber attacks. A hack in just one swing state or a few counties could impact a close presidential election. Concerns about the possibility of a successful hack are high.

Voting machines in the US are vulnerable to hacking and manipulation, according to researchers. These machines, which come in various models, have been found to have security vulnerabilities that allow attackers to inject malicious software and change election data. The machines can be hacked through the machine used to program them, and many of them have wireless modems that can connect to the internet, despite claims that they are not connected. The vulnerabilities in the voting machines, along with the lack of secure systems for voter registration and result reporting, pose a significant risk to the integrity of elections. It is crucial to address these vulnerabilities to ensure the trustworthiness of election results.

The speaker states that the best investigators are pursuing election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and can be exploited to manipulate vote results. This vulnerability allegedly drives the mandate to implement paper ballots across the country, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

The speakers discuss concerns about election legitimacy, mentioning Russian interference, Al Gore's loss in 2000, and issues with electronic voting machines. They express doubts about the fairness of various elections, including Stacey Abrams' loss in Georgia. The overall sentiment is that elections have been stolen through voter suppression and flawed processes.

Voting machines in the US are vulnerable to hacking and manipulation, according to security researchers. These machines, which come in various models, have been found to have security vulnerabilities that allow attackers to inject malicious software and change election data. The most efficient way to hack the machines is through the machine used to program them, as it can pass rogue software to the voting machines. Contrary to popular belief, many voting machines are connected to the internet, either through wireless modems or other means, making them susceptible to cyber attacks. The lack of proper security measures and outdated systems make it only a matter of time before election results are compromised.

Contrary to the current political narrative, the speaker emphasizes that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, making them secure. However, in 2018, there were instances of electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleting or switching votes. The speaker mentions that even hackers with limited knowledge and resources were able to breach these machines easily. They also highlight concerns about remote access software making the machines vulnerable to fraudsters and hackers. The speaker clarifies that Dominion, the company in question, has no involvement in switched or deleted votes, and has no ties to communism or China. However, there are indications that some machines may be connected to the Internet, despite being designed as closed systems.

Contrary to the current political narrative, the speaker emphasizes that voting machines are not connected to the internet and the Department of Homeland Security claims the 2020 election was secure. However, in 2018, there were instances of electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleting or switching votes. The speaker mentions that hackers were able to breach these machines easily, even with limited knowledge and resources. They also mention the concern of remote access software making the machines vulnerable to fraudsters and hackers. The speaker then addresses the controversy surrounding Dominion, stating that there were no switched or deleted votes involving their machines and that the company has no ties to communism or China. However, there are concerns that some machines may be connected to the internet despite being designed as closed systems.

Multiple speakers express concerns about the legitimacy of elections, focusing on the 2016, 2000, 2004, and 2018 elections. Several speakers claim that Russian interference affected the outcome of the 2016 election, leading them to view Trump as an illegitimate president. Some believe Trump is aware of this illegitimacy. The 2000 Bush v. Gore election is cited as an example of a court-appointed president, with claims that Al Gore won Florida but the Supreme Court halted the vote count. The 2004 election in Ohio is described as riddled with problems, including malfunctioning machines and allegations of voting rights violations. Some believe John Kerry privately thought the election was stolen. The 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election is also disputed, with accusations that Brian Kemp, then Secretary of State, suppressed votes and disenfranchised voters, leading to Stacey Abrams' loss. Speakers assert the election was not fair and that Abrams likely won. Concerns are raised about the integrity of electronic voting machines and the lack of paper trails.

Speaker 0 presents a video focused on data and evidence of alleged irregularities in the 2020 election, asserting that there has been no comprehensive place to see widespread fraud until now. He states the video is “pure data” and invites viewers to consider the statistical anomalies in three states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia) in the early hours of 11/04/2020, when Biden received major vote spikes after trailing Trump. - He analyzes 8,954 individual vote updates and identifies a clear statistical pattern across nearly all updates, with four notably aberrant updates: two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Georgia, all occurring in the same five-hour window in the middle of the night when counting reportedly stopped in some places. - In Michigan, a 06:30AM update shows Biden at 141,258 votes to Trump’s 5,968, described as the most extreme update in all datasets across all states, followed by a noticeable ratio change in nearby updates. In Wisconsin, a single update allegedly moved Biden from trailing by over 100,000 votes into the lead. In Georgia, a 01:34AM Eastern Time update shows Biden at 136,155 to Trump’s 29,115. They claim these four spikes exceed the states’ margins of victory, making the spikes not only abnormal by percentage but also by magnitude. They conclude that if these four unlikely updates had not happened, the presidency could have been different. - Detractors are cited as arguing human error, but the video questions where evidence of corrections is, and notes that California shows only one anomalous update in percentage, not enough magnitude to shift outcomes. - A “consistently identical ratio of Biden to Trump votes across time” is highlighted as allegedly impossible, with a Florida example showing 100 identical ratios over several days. The video asserts a computer algorithm is involved, termed a weighted race distribution, associated with Diebold voting machines (known as early as 2001), implying values rather than simple counts. - In California, a single update is shown with Biden receiving about 65% and Trump 32% for one vote, raising questions about how one vote could go to more than one candidate. Speaker 0 then links these patterns to alleged connections between Diebold and Dominion Voting Systems, claiming Dominion acquired ESNS in 2010, which had previously acquired Diebold, and that Dominion’s software is licensed from Smartmatic. They also note that forensic audits show errors and that the mainstream narrative claims these issues are misinformation. They reference NBC News and PBS findings on how easy it is to hack voting machines or cast fake votes. Next, Speaker 0 notes eyewitness and video evidence from Georgia: poll worker Ruby allegedly was filmed in the backroom with absentee ballots, and at 10:30PM on November 3, media and poll watchers were told to leave, yet Ruby and others remained, pulling ballots from under a table and distributing them to counting stations. They describe Ruby running the same stack of ballots to the machine three times, observing a large Biden surge after 01:34AM Georgia time, and question whether a ballot can be counted more than once, citing Coffey County, Georgia as an example of someone claiming to scan the same batches repeatedly. Speaker 0 references Raquel Rodriguez, arrested for election fraud in Texas over video evidence of ballot harvesting, and asserts that cybersecurity evidence indicates Dominion and Edison Research used an unencrypted VPN with easily accessible credentials allowing foreign access, asserting that China, Iran, and other countries accessed the servers, contradicting claims that Dominion machines were not connected to the Internet. They mention Dominion’s association with a Chinese-registered domain, and board members with Chinese nationality, alleging conflicts of interest through corporate ownership and licensing from Smartmatic. Speaker 0 highlights that Antrim County, Michigan audits found high error and adjudication rates in Dominion, with an 68 o 5% error rate far above federal guidelines, missing logs for 2020, and reprogramming of election event designer cards during the safe harbor period. They point to subpoenas and the lack of access to logs, and to affidavits from poll workers claiming illegal activities, non-equal treatment of observers, counting without proper oversight, shredding ballots, and other irregularities. Speaker 7 concludes with a claim that many Americans distrust the 2020 election and urges viewers to download and share the video, demand election reform, and notes that the video’s credits will continue with data readers, while warning of erasure or fact checks by tech platforms.

Voting machines have been proven to be vulnerable to tampering and hacking. Even with limited knowledge and resources, hackers can breach these machines in minutes. In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleted or switched votes. The biggest seller of voting machines violates cybersecurity principles by installing remote access software, making them attractive to fraudsters. Three companies control the majority of voting machines in different states, posing significant risks. Many states still use outdated and hackable machines. Researchers have found serious security flaws in 43% of voting machines used by American voters. Aging systems rely on unsupported software, making them more vulnerable to cyber attacks. A hack in just one swing state or a few counties could impact a close election.