How to Hack an Election
March 31, 2016 1:27 PM Subscribe
The "qr code" tattoo on his head is missing two finder patterns and one alignment pattern and is much too small to be a qr code encoding of a typical encryption key. It looks cool, but I bet its only function is to sort the credulous from the knowledgeable.
posted by closetphilosopher at 1:47 PM on March 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by closetphilosopher at 1:47 PM on March 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
Is the Juan José Rendón mentioned in the article related to the Rendon Group? Their interests and line of work seem to have a lot in common:
Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power."posted by cynical pinnacle at 1:49 PM on March 31, 2016 [3 favorites]
"It may not have been wise to work so doggedly and publicly against a party in power."
A bit of an understatement there, given what happened.
posted by Wretch729 at 1:58 PM on March 31, 2016
A bit of an understatement there, given what happened.
posted by Wretch729 at 1:58 PM on March 31, 2016
Why hack the machines if you can hack the voters and the candidates?
posted by Wretch729 at 2:06 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Wretch729 at 2:06 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
What? No mention of voting machines?
Has there been any indirect (let alone direct) evidence that the voting machines themselves have been hacked? This article talks about disabling candidates' websites, spying on their communications, bribing voters, but wouldn't changing votes after the fact be too obvious? (It should at least show up as a discrepancy in exit polls.) Yes, I'm aware of semi-conspiracies to make voting inconvenient or impossible for certain people, but that's less "secret hacking" and more "open but undiscussed bias".
posted by Rangi at 2:18 PM on March 31, 2016
Has there been any indirect (let alone direct) evidence that the voting machines themselves have been hacked? This article talks about disabling candidates' websites, spying on their communications, bribing voters, but wouldn't changing votes after the fact be too obvious? (It should at least show up as a discrepancy in exit polls.) Yes, I'm aware of semi-conspiracies to make voting inconvenient or impossible for certain people, but that's less "secret hacking" and more "open but undiscussed bias".
posted by Rangi at 2:18 PM on March 31, 2016
This guy is a GenX/Boomer political nightmare. He can take direct technical actions they can't to swing elections in ways that are resistant to best-practices auditing of the election process. He prizes ideological victory over money (notably, this article glosses over what his actual principles are), so he can't be bought in the end. He's unafraid to destabilize administrations or regimes in failure or retaliation.
All of these characteristics are the direct result of demographic trends put into play decades ago, not just in South America, but in North America too. There are nations full of people who grew up like him, think like him, and will one day act like him. We only know about Sepúlveda because he got caught and hung out to dry. Even stripped of his tools and know-how, he's a force of nature, the leading edge of a tidal wave of millions of souls who treat the political process like a MMORPG.
Unless there is real change for these people—real growth in the standard of living, real opportunities, freedom of political expression—they will arm themselves.
posted by infinitewindow at 2:25 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
All of these characteristics are the direct result of demographic trends put into play decades ago, not just in South America, but in North America too. There are nations full of people who grew up like him, think like him, and will one day act like him. We only know about Sepúlveda because he got caught and hung out to dry. Even stripped of his tools and know-how, he's a force of nature, the leading edge of a tidal wave of millions of souls who treat the political process like a MMORPG.
Unless there is real change for these people—real growth in the standard of living, real opportunities, freedom of political expression—they will arm themselves.
posted by infinitewindow at 2:25 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
notably, this article glosses over what his actual principles are
"But more than anything, their right-wing politics aligned."
"I did it with full conviction and under a clear objective, to end dictatorship and socialist governments in Latin America"
posted by rustcrumb at 3:01 PM on March 31, 2016
"But more than anything, their right-wing politics aligned."
"I did it with full conviction and under a clear objective, to end dictatorship and socialist governments in Latin America"
posted by rustcrumb at 3:01 PM on March 31, 2016
This guy is a GenX/Boomer political nightmare. He can take direct technical actions they can't to swing elections in ways that are resistant to best-practices auditing of the election process.
The article discusses things that are both illegal already (hacking into private communications) and things that fall into the grey area of conventional dirty tricks and astroturfing (making thousands of Twitter bots to change the conversation). Stuff that’s illegal already fits into a much broader social issue of bad security practice (says I, typing away on unsecured public WiFi). Watergate, yeah? This kind of criminality is a big deal, but it isn’t novel in and of itself.
Twitter-based Astroturfing raises some interesting legal questions, because while it’s probably illegal to pay people to incite violence I’m not sure how that will play out for web-based protest campaigns. I mean, I don’t think catfishing is illegal.
I’m also quite interested in this bit, particularly the beginning of the paragraph and what Sepúlveda has to say:
Many of Sepúlveda’s efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century. “My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors—the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see,” he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia’s attorney general’s office.
This perhaps speaks to my naiveté, but I’m curious how many “psychological operations” they tried vs. how many succeeded. I’m also curious how many of these manipulations depended on their insider knowledge vs. standard knowledge of how the campaign is perceived. Sepúlveda is hyping himself here by calling it “black propaganda” and “dirty war”, but this is old-school thuggery. “Rat-Fucking Alive and Well in South American in the Digital Age” is a more blah headline, but I think captures the truth and concern of what’s going on. Sepulvéda is waaaaaaay less interesting to me than Rendón and the other, unidentified employers. The one is a tool, the others are the users.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:14 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
The article discusses things that are both illegal already (hacking into private communications) and things that fall into the grey area of conventional dirty tricks and astroturfing (making thousands of Twitter bots to change the conversation). Stuff that’s illegal already fits into a much broader social issue of bad security practice (says I, typing away on unsecured public WiFi). Watergate, yeah? This kind of criminality is a big deal, but it isn’t novel in and of itself.
Twitter-based Astroturfing raises some interesting legal questions, because while it’s probably illegal to pay people to incite violence I’m not sure how that will play out for web-based protest campaigns. I mean, I don’t think catfishing is illegal.
I’m also quite interested in this bit, particularly the beginning of the paragraph and what Sepúlveda has to say:
Many of Sepúlveda’s efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century. “My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors—the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see,” he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia’s attorney general’s office.
This perhaps speaks to my naiveté, but I’m curious how many “psychological operations” they tried vs. how many succeeded. I’m also curious how many of these manipulations depended on their insider knowledge vs. standard knowledge of how the campaign is perceived. Sepúlveda is hyping himself here by calling it “black propaganda” and “dirty war”, but this is old-school thuggery. “Rat-Fucking Alive and Well in South American in the Digital Age” is a more blah headline, but I think captures the truth and concern of what’s going on. Sepulvéda is waaaaaaay less interesting to me than Rendón and the other, unidentified employers. The one is a tool, the others are the users.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:14 PM on March 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
All of these characteristics are the direct result of demographic trends put into play decades ago
Not to mention the loving devotion of the United States national security apparatus to the careful nurturing and maintenance of anti-democratic proxy forces throughout the hemisphere dating to at least the 1950s. Can it really be called blowback if it's an intended effect?
posted by mwhybark at 5:19 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not to mention the loving devotion of the United States national security apparatus to the careful nurturing and maintenance of anti-democratic proxy forces throughout the hemisphere dating to at least the 1950s. Can it really be called blowback if it's an intended effect?
posted by mwhybark at 5:19 PM on March 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also: in my opinion, this article and his accessibility to the press outlet (Bloomberg!) are intended as a message to non-Bernie capital-D democrats, donor class.
This in no way impugns the journalistic accuracy of the piece, which I am not qualified to analyze. I do have a lifelong interest in Latin American politics and would be inclined to believe that at a minimum guys like this have participated in a growth industry since the dawn on the internet. So I am inclined to credit it.
The message: if Hillary loses the nomination, we flip the election to either one of our loathsome toads.
posted by mwhybark at 5:31 PM on March 31, 2016
This in no way impugns the journalistic accuracy of the piece, which I am not qualified to analyze. I do have a lifelong interest in Latin American politics and would be inclined to believe that at a minimum guys like this have participated in a growth industry since the dawn on the internet. So I am inclined to credit it.
The message: if Hillary loses the nomination, we flip the election to either one of our loathsome toads.
posted by mwhybark at 5:31 PM on March 31, 2016
Good to remember the next time upper-class right wing college students in South America try to take down elected governments that they assure observers in the US are in fact "totalitarian dictatorships."
"But everyone down there on twitter agrees!"
posted by blankdawn at 9:58 PM on March 31, 2016
"But everyone down there on twitter agrees!"
posted by blankdawn at 9:58 PM on March 31, 2016
Good quotes:
"In addition to the theft of data and identities, his key insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply...
On the question of whether the U.S. presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. 'I’m 100 percent sure it is.' "
posted by blankdawn at 9:59 PM on March 31, 2016
"In addition to the theft of data and identities, his key insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply...
On the question of whether the U.S. presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. 'I’m 100 percent sure it is.' "
posted by blankdawn at 9:59 PM on March 31, 2016
On the question of whether the U.S. presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. 'I’m 100 percent sure it is.' "
See, I want to know if by this he means that campaigns are engaging in theft and hacking. (HEY! Remember that scandal earlier this year when the Sanders people accessed the VAN data?) If he means that people are engaging in astroturfing with fake issues, well -we’ve had swiftboating, we’ve had phone rumors about John McCain’s black baby, to say nothing of other stuff. And are you really going to talk about astroturfing in the US elections when Donald Trump is literally blowing up a party by exposing years of divisions and is using overtly racist and misogynist messaging without a second thought?
posted by Going To Maine at 10:51 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
See, I want to know if by this he means that campaigns are engaging in theft and hacking. (HEY! Remember that scandal earlier this year when the Sanders people accessed the VAN data?) If he means that people are engaging in astroturfing with fake issues, well -we’ve had swiftboating, we’ve had phone rumors about John McCain’s black baby, to say nothing of other stuff. And are you really going to talk about astroturfing in the US elections when Donald Trump is literally blowing up a party by exposing years of divisions and is using overtly racist and misogynist messaging without a second thought?
posted by Going To Maine at 10:51 PM on March 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am seeing empty Facebook accounts making outrageous stuff to "share." When I run into this stuff I call it out. Some insidious stuff going around. Regular sane people are taken in and then take a second look if someone mentions it. The latest was two African American young women making a power salute, standing on the flag. First of all, the picture could have been Photoshopped to begin with. Then the caption was, "Should people on welfare have their benefits taken away if they desecrate the flag?" Hell yes, please share this!
There is all kinds of this angling on the web. I can't even venture over to the right to look at the flow of it, it is too terrifying. This is just what lands in my private, friends only, Facebook account. The spillover of the awful, is only a drop in an ocean of the stuff.
posted by Oyéah at 7:17 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is all kinds of this angling on the web. I can't even venture over to the right to look at the flow of it, it is too terrifying. This is just what lands in my private, friends only, Facebook account. The spillover of the awful, is only a drop in an ocean of the stuff.
posted by Oyéah at 7:17 PM on April 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Spreadsheets In Space Prepare for Battle | what makes a villain great? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by lefty lucky cat at 1:32 PM on March 31, 2016