[–] 26556554? 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Also, documents scanned multiple times, usb files of fraudulent votes, illegal votes of dead, harvested votes, votes transferred by drag and drop from folder to folder, votes that were blank and modified by the machine, votes bought in bulk from China are all not covered by this. I think the forensics must be done, but also that not finding something can be pronounced as truth no fraud took place and the opposite is true.
[–] 26556703? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You're correct. But you also omit the blatant fact that their own software manual outlines how to set the variables for weighted votes
If (vote(name)=biden)
{
Vote(count) = vote(count) + ( 1 * weightA)
}
else
{
vote(count) = vote(count) + ( 1 * weightB)
}
[–] 26556841? 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
OP please stop talking out of your ass you're obviously a novice
For one, compiled code is harder to read but its still code. A sufficiently knowledgeable person can read it just fine.
For another, the much bigger issue is determining what actual binary was deployed to the machines.
Voting machines are heavily regulated so there are a lot of checks against stuff like this but obviously no system is perfect.
[–] 26556975? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Interpreters like java/python/csharp can be changed on the fly. You don't need to compile shit. Just rerun the run time with new source and it can auto recompile the object runtime.
Besides, you can hack the signatures of c++ binaries, touch them back before/after the fact. We use to do this all the time on banking servers to hide hot fixes to our c++ software.
there are excellent open source compiler frameworks like the excellent llvm/clang stack which, for instance, Apple bases its language compilers off of
so one could get a great deal of leverage by just starting with such an existing compiler and the going to the code generation module (a distinct module in llvm) and work on that to obfuscate - even the higher degrees of optimization alone can tend to make the actual machine instruction sequence rather non-obvious relative to the original source code, but with actual intent, a higher degree of obfuscation could be acheived.
Or one could transform ordinary binary instruction code into an encrypted form that has to be decrypted before it can execute on the target CPU. The decryption could be built into a custom page loader - the decryption key could be provided at program execution time and the key might be kept on something like a removable usb stick or smart card
[–] 26556494? ago (edited ago)
Decompiling the code (or even analyzing the machine code) certainly could produce conclusive evidence, however only so if the actually used code is still available (hasn’t been replaced nor tampered with).
However, even without that, we know the software (or firmware) stores each vote as a decimal value, and the documentation touts that an adjustment ratio (multiplication factor) can be set, which would weight votes for one candidate — which both Rudy and Sidney have already alluded to being used.
There is no legitimate reason for having this “feature” at all, except to rig an election.
[–] 26557771? ago
Except in Muslim countries where a male vote equals one, but a female vote equals a third of that.
In South Africa, it is easy to weight the white vote lower than the black vote. Otherwise it is raycist.
It can all be legitimate.
" I will make it legal"