Election hacking

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
A multinational team of investigative journalists have managed to crack open an Israeli outfit that interferes in elections with a sophisticated series of social media tools. Interesting stuff.


Of course, how effective it has been - how many votes it has shifted - is another matter.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Was reading about this this morning. Never had any doubt that this sort of thing went on, but it's great for it to finally get some exposure. Fucking scumbags.

And of course they've worked alongside Cambridge Analytica in the past.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,459
2,746
118
Eurgh, software as a service!

Seriously though, I guess this is bad but I also kind of assume it happens all the time.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
Eurgh, software as a service!

Seriously though, I guess this is bad but I also kind of assume it happens all the time.
Yes.

However, I'm a great believer in transparency and informed consent as principles of elections. It's bad enough when political parties are using dodgy tactics, but the prospect of murky third parties fiddling with elections who may be backed by foreign powers or other malign and undemocratic entities is something I think we deserve to know about. We don't necessarily need to stop it depending on circumstance (there can be flexibility here), but absolutely I think it should be exposed.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,045
5,346
118
Australia
I mean its reprehensible but is it strictly hacking? To me that would involve a direct and targeted attempt at altering the results by changing them in the machines. This is more blasting voters with bullshit that's plausible enough that they'll believe it without checking, and alter their decision accordingly. Like I said, reprehensible and arguably even slimier than just outright cheating, but it ain't hacking.

Maybe this is that social engineering thing the Right are always complaining about when the Left want to do things like teach kids not to be little bastards to minorities in school.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Yeah, this looks like another and more sophisticated version of what we'd call Fake News if Trump hadn't co-opted that phrase.

Unless they mean social hacking, I guess.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
I mean its reprehensible but is it strictly hacking?
It's not necessarily hacking an election in the narrow sense of directly, electronically manipulating the votes of an election.

However, they appear to be using that form of hacking (of people's personal accounts). And these days, "hacking" is also used to represent ingenious schemes or short-cuts to achieve something (e.g. "life hacking", much as I hate that wanky term), although I appreciate that unlike that latter term I am very much implying underhandedness.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
I was about to laugh the hacking claim out until the article mentioned that they legit hack into social media and email accounts, so fair enough. But as for the efficacy of bot armies pushing fake news, I'm not convinced. Fake news of course is a problem, but it's amplified by billionaires, I've yet to see reason to believe bot armies matter at all to an election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,069
1,206
118
Country
United States
I was about to laugh the hacking claim out until the article mentioned that they legit hack into social media and email accounts, so fair enough. But as for the efficacy of bot armies pushing fake news, I'm not convinced. Fake news of course is a problem, but it's amplified by billionaires, I've yet to see reason to believe bot armies matter at all to an election.
So wait, do you disagree with any of the following?

  • Bot "armies" of millions of entities push fake news media
  • News media shapes people's perceptions and opinions
  • People's voting (or lack thereof) is decided based on their perceptions and opinions
Or is it more of you don't believe that the fakes news media specifically pushed by bots make a significant impact in the process?
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
So wait, do you disagree with any of the following?

  • Bot "armies" of millions of entities push fake news media
  • News media shapes people's perceptions and opinions
  • People's voting (or lack thereof) is decided based on their perceptions and opinions
Or is it more of you don't believe that the fakes news media specifically pushed by bots make a significant impact in the process?
It's the very last point you didn't bullet point.


Right wing misinformation campaigns by billionaire backed chuds put people in partisan zones where they'll believe shitty bots, but by that point the bots aren't doing anything to actually sway an election.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,210
4,482
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
So wait, do you disagree with any of the following?

  • Bot "armies" of millions of entities push fake news media
  • News media shapes people's perceptions and opinions
  • People's voting (or lack thereof) is decided based on their perceptions and opinions
Or is it more of you don't believe that the fakes news media specifically pushed by bots make a significant impact in the process?
I'm of the purely subjective opinion that "fake news," pushed by bots or otherwise, only affects the opinions of those whose opinions the election process would be better off without. That said, we live in a day and age where everyone from brilliant billionaires to the poverty-stricken ignorant think they know better than everyone else, and since voting is a right, well, we'll never be greater than the sum of our parts, and last I saw, there's a lot more ignorance than brilliance roaming the streets these days.

How to fix the process? Remove the innate right to vote and replace it with an application process. Prove that you know what they hell you're voting on and what the hell you're talking about for your ballot to be counted. Granted, the voting pool will be reduced to about 13 people nationwide, but at least we'll be confident, for better or worse, the qualified voters were actually informed and not misled by bots telling them Democrats eat children for breakfast.

I'd also support a Royal Rumble-type election process. I don't watch the debates, but if you tell me a bunch of 70-year-olds are wrestling to get elected? Pssh, let me go grab my popcorn!
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's the very last point you didn't bullet point.


Right wing misinformation campaigns by billionaire backed chuds put people in partisan zones where they'll believe shitty bots, but by that point the bots aren't doing anything to actually sway an election.
Hang about though, that first step-- the non-bot misinformation campaigns-- are part of the very same process. The expose shows the same company was involved in planting stories, after which point the bots signal-boost them. Its the same game, not a separate phenomenon that discredits the other.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
Hang about though, that first step-- the non-bot misinformation campaigns-- are part of the very same process. The expose shows the same company was involved in planting stories, after which point the bots signal-boost them. Its the same game, not a separate phenomenon that discredits the other.
Does it say where those stories are planted? I get the feeling it's more likely to be the Columbia Bugle than Fox News. I've seen these bots, they aren't subtle. It's always links to a website you've never heard of.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Does it say where those stories are planted? I get the feeling it's more likely to be the Columbia Bugle than Fox News. I've seen these bots, they aren't subtle. It's always links to a website you've never heard of.
It only states that they're "mainstream outlets".

Still, though, that's a bit beside the point, which is that the human-run misinformation campaigns go hand-in-glove with the bot farm stuff. And judging by the fees this place was commanding, and working alongside Cambridge Analytica, its got clients in pretty wealthy circles.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
Right wing misinformation campaigns by billionaire backed chuds put people in partisan zones where they'll believe shitty bots, but by that point the bots aren't doing anything to actually sway an election.
In many times and places, around 2% could be enough to significantly sway an election. And that's 2% of people who vote, so maybe 1 - 1.6% of the electorate when turnout is factored in. Successfully targetting relatively small demographic groups and boosting their involvement or apathy, or altering their allegiance, could be a lot more effective than you might assume.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
It only states that they're "mainstream outlets".

Still, though, that's a bit beside the point, which is that the human-run misinformation campaigns go hand-in-glove with the bot farm stuff. And judging by the fees this place was commanding, and working alongside Cambridge Analytica, its got clients in pretty wealthy circles.
That's nice, but the ultimate aim of the bot farms themselves isn't achieved.

In many times and places, around 2% could be enough to significantly sway an election. And that's 2% of people who vote, so maybe 1 - 1.6% of the electorate when turnout is factored in. Successfully targetting relatively small demographic groups and boosting their involvement or apathy, or altering their allegiance, could be a lot more effective than you might assume.
It could, but I don't think it even achieves 1%. You could maybe blame bots, maybe, in those elections that are separated by 100 votes or such similar situations. Realistically it's the rest of what this company does that's more interesting, like the actual hacking.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
By bot farms, no it isn't.
I think the issue here is that you've read the bit about "bots" and you're imagining those shittily-coded throwaways that link to crappy sites in broken English and repetitive phrases. That's really not what this is exposing-- it details smaller numbers of bots, 30,000 or so, but with detailed (falsified) histories and direction. It's not the same.

If you don't think you've seen that kind of bot around, that's not because they're not doing their job. It's because they are.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
I think the issue here is that you've read the bit about "bots" and you're imagining those shittily-coded throwaways that link to crappy sites in broken English and repetitive phrases. That's really not what this is exposing-- it details smaller numbers of bots, 30,000 or so, but with detailed (falsified) histories and direction. It's not the same.

Frankly, if you don't think you've seen that kind of bot around, that's not because they're not doing their job. It's because they are.
No I'm perfectly aware. There's been no serious evidence that bot farms of any kind, from cheapo shell companies to state sponsored programs, have had any significant sway on an election. Of the three broad services this company offers (hacking, media outreach, and the bot farms), the bots are the least interesting. The media outreach I'm skeptical of, but the article breezes over that and could be interesting. Hacking private accounts to set up scandals is easily the most interesting and impactful aspect of what this company offers.

As for how "good and different" these bots are, remember that all of that spinup is by the head of the company itself, this whole report was made by going in as potential buyers, they got the sales pitch. Not to say it's not damning, but the efficacy of the service is being embellished by definition, and the article itself is somewhat light on details.