Read on Twitter
1/11 Let's talk data integrity basics. It's not always possible to reconstruct exactly what's been done to any dataset if it's been tampered-with by somebody who knows what they're doing. It should ALWAYS be possible to discover IF something has been done.
2/11 By that, I mean that with sufficient credentials on the device, it is possible to delete records and logs such that it is nearly impossible to precisely quantify everything that's been done to data.
3/11 Nevertheless, THAT is sufficient reason on its face to negate any results/information. Ask a defense attorney worth his/her salt about going after electronic record-keepers. It's an area of law that's going to wreck lots of court cases this year, and every year.
4/11 The basic point is this: If the data, whatever its nature, whatever it's supposed to be or to show, has been tampered with in ANY WAY and there are no logs/audit logs/sql logs to substantiate what was done, by whom, when, how and why, the data is invalid.
5/11 If a db auditing system can't show you who changed a record, created a record, deleted a record, how they changed it, when they did it, and from what connecting terminal they did it, it's worthless auditing. No court on Earth should hold it as valid.
6/11 Therefore, if it can be established that data was changed/deleted/amended/added but all the who/what/why/when/how isn't available, you have bastardized data. PERIOD. That's why witnesses/observers are required in law for ballots.
7/11 For instance, if you're going to manually "adjudicate a ballot," you're making a determination as to the intent of the voter. You're deciding how the voter intended to select options on the ballot.
8/11 If a ballot can be adjudicated by one person, or ballots can be "bulk adjudicated," there's no means by which to say that adjudication is valid if we can't audit the who/what/when/why/how/where/etc and they must all be thrown out.
9/11 The lack of audit logs is prima facie evidence of fraud. The lack of access logs compounds it. The compromise of credentials makes it even worse. Based on what I read in the Antrim County report, I would throw out the whole election as invalidated by probable fraud
10/11 We have a saying about "bad data" at work: "If there's any doubt, there is no doubt." Simply put, anything that introduces any credible doubt into the integrity of the data CERTAINLY invalidates the whole dataset. Missing logs creates a universe full of doubt.
11/11 In point of fact, if it can be shown that something MIGHT have happened to the data, you're already in hot water. If there is sufficient cause to think tampering had been possible, it's ALREADY bad.
And let me just add this. If you were creating Point-of-Sale bar-code scanning systems, for, oh, say Walmart, and your system produced a 68.05% error rate, Walmart would throw you out the door on your ear. Their customers would riot.
Why are you silent while this happens to you?
Why are you silent while this happens to you?
