Peer reviewed cyber security journal publishes paper uncovering 4 algorithms in the NY State voter database.
A āTotal Loss of Controlā data breach, the most severe recognized by the federal government.
The designation indicates ārecovery from such an incident is not possible.ā https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/05/information_warfare_in_new_york.html
šš£š January 6th was worse than 9/11 most secure election of all time democracy is under attack trust the science https://www.uncoverdc.com/2023/05/25/catastrophic-loss-of-control-data-breach-in-ny-elections/
#foss fixes this
lol did you actually read the piece the report author wrote? Itās numerological gibberish. If thereās anything there the author certainly doesnāt know about it.
Which article are you referencing?
Thatās apparently by the person who wrote the paperā¦. Itāsā¦. Nonsense?
Youāre a better judge than me obviously but presumably the journal thought it was legit enough to publish?
Never heard of the journal so canāt comment on it specifically, but there are many journals that will publish literally anything (several good studies publishing AI-generated gibberish and getting past peer review even before LLMs were good).
While my instinct is to just accept your superiority of opinion over mine in situations like thisā¦
Gotta say though you havenāt like demonstrated your conclusion - just ad hominemād the claim as ānumerological gibberishā and ānonsenseā without convincing me or logically explaining why I should admit I was wrong in giving this credence š¤·āāļø
Happy to obviously if shown why, but without that I consider your retort mid and tepid.
Minor point, no ad hominem here, I donāt know nor bother to look up the author and didnāt make any claims relating to the author at all :).
But, indeed, I didnāt back it to because I donāt understand it at all - my point is that the writing here doesnāt make a cohesive argument, I canāt understand what this āalgorithmā is nor what it does, and the author doesnāt actually seem to have any conclusion in that respect either (and algorithm isnāt really the right word here anyway). More importantly even if thereās an āalgorithmā (aka pattern), thereās plenty of reasons why ID numbers would follow a pattern which are process based rather than nefarious. They talk about skipped numbers in the statewide database but donāt argue what that implies (and it could mean any number of things - partitioning by area, updates causing fresh ids to be issued, etc).
If theres something here, the author is pretty bad at communicating it, and absent an argument I can understand Iām not really motivated to go try to replicate their resultsā¦I donāt have time.
Journals are trash, free markets are signal. If ya figure something out, put it to use.
