SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian has a story detailing the firing of Christopher Krebs, who served as the director of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa)
President Trump made the announcement on Twitter on Tuesday, saying Krebs "has been terminated" and that his recent statement defending the security of the election was "highly inaccurate".
CISA last week released a statement refuting claims of widespread voter fraud. "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history," the statement read. "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."
Krebs, is a former Microsoft executive, and was appointed by President Trump after allegations of Russian interference with the 2016 election.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @09:29AM (2 children)
Claiming that there is no fraud is a positive. You claim that there was no fraud. Prove it. Give me an end-to-end auditable voting system. Give me a proof based voting system. Not the faith based on we currently have.
If I apply for a job an employer may want positive proof that I am not a criminal. So they do a background check.
If I apply for a credit card the CC company may want positive proof that I have good credit. Or a mortgage lender may want positive proof that I have a good credit score or they may want positive proof of my income. I have to provide for it.
Landlords may want positive proof of a potential tenant's history.
I'm asking for positive proof. An end-to-end auditable voting system can provide for it. I am entitled to positive proof. I explained why. Deliver.
What we currently have is a faith based system that provides zero proof. I want a proof based system. Systems that provide proof are possible. Deliver. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @09:45AM (1 child)
Imagine if I tried to take a tax deduction for an expense and I didn't keep the receipt and the IRS asked for receipts and I didn't provide for one and said prove that I didn't buy this item?
The IRS wants to see the receipt on my end and they want to see the receipt on the end of the entity I bought the item from.
When I work I submit my taxes to the government. The government also collects information about my taxes from my employer. They match the two. They audit what I tell them.
Likewise when I submit my state taxes I also have to submit to the state information about my federal income. The federal government also submits this information to the state and the state audits the two and compares.
The argument that the government shouldn't be able to audit me because that would be requiring them to prove a negative doesn't hold up.
The problem with our current voting system is that it's not auditable. It's faith based. This isn't rocket science. Accountants understand this. They don't blindly trust us. Tax collectors (ie: the IRS) understand this. They understand what auditable means. Why can't you? Are you just being dense and stupid. Again, this isn't that difficult. I want an auditable system. Why is that so hard to understand? Why should I just blindly trust the system? I shouldn't. I don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @09:51AM
and when I say it needs to be auditable I mean that it needs to be auditable by ME. Not just by some stranger on T.V. or some useless 'journalist'. But by everyone which includes me.
Just in case someone tried to come up with some smart aleck response.