hello my name is harry hurston
and this is talk about uh senate bill
43 new hampshire windham
election forensic election audit we
conducted
in may and published a report
out in mid-july
first of all we were a team
myself a professor philip stark
from uc berkeley and mark lindemann from
verified voting how we were chosen
was that i was appointed by the
secretary of state and attorney general
of jointly between
the secretary of state and attorney
general of new hampshire
uh mark lindemann was appointed by the
selectmen
of the town of windham and we jointly
chosen the third person to be professor
philip stark
so first of all why we are talking about
election machines at all
this is a little bit of my personal
story i started vote
hacking election machines in summer of
2005.
and i got involved by being invited by
election
bechten elekson uh supervisor ion sancho
of the capital of florida tallahassee
he was responsible for the
widely popular widely publicized at 2000
2004 recounts
and when the supreme court stopped his
effort to find out
the truth uh what happened
he felt that he needs to know more and
he wasn't fully
appreciating the claim that voting
machines cannot be hacked
so he wanted to know the truth how the
voting machines
work after the work we did in
in florida i was participating in a
number of
state commissioned voting machine
studies
one of those largest ones is from 2007
everest by secretary of state ohio
it's a sad fact that the study we made
2007 is still valid
uh most of the the same systems are
still in use
uh very few of the of the systems have
had software upgrades
and you still literally have the same
software up and running which we
published the vulnerabilities 2007.
uh even the some vendors which have
published
a software upgrade to their system those
supply
upgrades are very seldom put in use and
deployed
so we have a the united states elections
are run with a lot of very old systems
and i have been doing similar studies
around the world outside of united
states
i'm also a co-organizer co-founder of
the voting machine hacking village here
at defcon
and also with alex and integrity
foundation
more recently uh the emmy nominee we
received an emmy nomination for
both of our our uh documentary movies
with hbo
back in 2006 hbo documented hacking
democracy was the first one
to lie to the general audience a
problems in voting technology
and then the new one the kill chain the
cyber war on america's elections
we received a emmy nomination on that
just few weeks ago our mission
in in defcon uh in a hot modding machine
hacking village is not to prove that
voting machines can be hacked
every single machine we have in a room
every single machine is in
is any use in the united states but
every single voting machine
has been hacked and their known
vulnerabilities our mission is
educational
we want people to be able to see the
truth
and and experience the technology the
old technology
themselves if they have concerns about
the software if they have concerns about
hardware
experience themselves how the systems
actually work
there's nothing which makes me more
happy than when local election officials
come to hack the very machine
they are using in their jurisdictions
under the election and this is the first
time when they are allowed to do so
so this is something where they ask the
first and often last line of defense uh
they need to have that knowledge they
need to have the experience
and so that they also understand what
kind of mitigations needs to be done
when you look the the voting systems
we have a lot of things where we can
lower
the risk by using mitigation strategies
better physical security etc etc
so our mission is to educate people and
before we started the voting machine
hacking village
there was a very small number of
privileged people who have been part of
these
election system studies we have
single-handedly hundred-fold
number of people who have first-hand
experience on the machine
by just having this room and and having
people to be able to experience the
technology and and find the truth
now when we go to this extremely heated
uh 2020 election uh i along with
59 scientists and
election security experts we signed a
letter in 16th of november
where we underline that extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence
and while we have seen a lot of claims
uh we have been not being found a single
appearance at that time where these
vulnerabilities
either are real or they have raised in
the level
of possibly changing the outcome of the
election
we keep on looking every single time a
new claim is coming along and we have
access we always keep keep our eye on
and want to study and
want to research any claim or with the
election technology in a 2020 election
uh like the audit which we are going to
be talking now
there are a instances where the results
were inaccurate but like in the case of
the new hampshire audit which we're
going to talk the
the inaccuracy didn't change the outcome
of the election
the same people get elected even when
there was a discrepancy in the number of
votes
so we're still uh largely behind this
letter
and the text uh but we keep on looking
and
and we have to remember how long are the
top lead times from a evidence and and
be able to
look in this so we keep on looking and
we keep on
uh developing a strategies to mitigate
against the risks because even if the
discrepancy didn't change the outcome of
hilox and there's always a lesson to be
learned
to improve the election we have to
improve our elections
a lot
a little bit about new hampshire
elections new hampshire is using
a handmark paper ballots no ballot
marking devices no no electronic voting
everything is done with handmark paper
ballots which is the most secure way of
voting
the from the election purposes the new
hampshire is organized to 320 thousand
words
and 123 of those
count only by hand new hampshire
elections
in the smaller jurisdictions can count
with hand without using voting machines
larger jurisdictions require voting
machines 197
use those and this is the this is normal
in the united states
we every state have their own election
laws uh some states have very complex
ballots they
they're even the smaller jurisdictions
we need to have a voting machines to
to reduce the error rate um
but we humans we are slow and error
prone so we are not
optimal counting machines for ballots
the combination should be using a voting
machine which you don't trust and then
verify the result
with a mandatory risk limiting audits
in new hampshire uh there is a they are
right now new hampshire is is
piloting with the risk limiting audits
the process in new hampshire is that the
candidates can request
a recount if they think that the result
was inaccurate
and recal recounts are very common in
new hampshire there were 16 recounts
requested and conducted
after the 2020 election and seven
after the state primary new hampshire
also has a safety mechanisms
in place one of the one of the many
safety mechanisms is ballast rotation
which means that the parties and the
candidates
appear in a different order in a ballot
so in one town
it might be republicans all the way left
and democrat next and the other
on the right and the next town over
where it's different ballot it is
other is first and then democrats are
centered et cetera
so those all are in the rotation
the same way if there is a
race where you have a multiple
candidates per
party and in multiple jurisdictions then
the candidates are rotating
when the parties are rotating from left
to right then the party candidates are
returning from top to bottom
in this recount hundred count which was
uh which
started this whole thing most motion the
last this was the largest numerical
discrepancy
between the machine count and the human
count
uh and that was a 300 votes and because
new hampshire didn't have a mechanism
to find the explanation why there was
this 300
300 vote difference that required the
state legislators to take an action
and pass a new law authorizing this
audit the forensic audit
so i have a typo it's sp43
so this was a reaction to the rockham
county district 7 context
and that contest is a eight candidates
vote for any four
that's the format in new hampshire when
recount is hundred count is done it's
customary that all candidates
gain more votes and this is because
people
are voting uh by feeling the ballot
inaccurately maybe
circling the name or underlining the
name or whatnot
making the mark in a way that the voting
machine didn't recognize that as a vote
but the human looking into the voters
intent
clearly understands who the vote was for
and
this is the mechanism why the hand
counts
always uh tend to have more votes uh to
all candidates
however this time uh in the handgun
the uh each of the republican candidates
gained about 300 extra votes the three
of the
of the democratic candidates gained
about 25 votes
and the the woman who asked for a
recount she lost
99 votes so there was a two different
discrepancies first of all
it was not clear how it's possible that
in the hand count she lost that many
votes
but also 300 votes was more than the
traditional
in in in this context of the of the
elections of the election 300 was a high
number
for extra votes the whole election was
a ten thousand and six ballots so that
gives you size
and this audit was starting from this
local
down the ballot race it had nothing to
do with the presidential race
it had nothing to do with the top of the
ballot tickets
this was a a single discrepancy found
in this recount in this one local race
only
this is what the ballot looks like um
again this may be
giving a better idea what when i say
that battle rotation changes the names
of
them the order of the of the political
parties
from left to right and then if the same
candidates are in multiple uh
races then from top to bottom
rotating the name of the candidate you
also see that
the uh the names of the democratic and
republican candidates are not on the
same line
and this was on purpose uh the the
the reason why this is done this way in
new hampshire was
that it was a
if they want to make clear that the
voters understand
that the candidates are not running
against each other
you can pick any four you are not bound
to be
making the choice between two candidates
who are in the same row
so so this uh physical setting of the
of the candidates having the democratic
candidates one
uh row below was to try to make sure
that the voters understand how the
ballot is constructed and
don't have the misconception that the
candidates would be running against each
other
this is the voting machine used in new
hampshire
it's a accu vote precinct optical scan
machine
it's a very old model we go back to that
in a moment of
the technical specifications it is also
widely used in other states so this is
this is not
a only in new hampshire this is widely
used in in all the states of new england
but also in other words these have been
used previously
in large states like california not
anymore
why the used machine
and just because it's old doesn't mean
it's bad
first of all this machine was originally
developed in 1986
and it's believed that it was first time
used in elections uh in general election
1990
it started to be marketed in 1989 and
the first election where was believed to
be used was in minnesota
this is extraordinarily old technology
the the cpu of that is a system-on-chip
it's a
microcontroller version of v20
it's a v-neck v25 it's a pin compatible
with an intel 808
and instruction compatible with a 180
186
so this is the first ibm pc
era technology that
chip cannot address memory more than one
megabyte
that's the maximum size of a memory this
is uh this is
really that old in this particular
uh system there's 256 kilobytes of ram
that's all this is not scanning an image
of the battle this is a technology
called optical marker recognition
which means that the scanner is looking
for a landmark
called landmarks going timing marks and
finding the vote targets from the cross
sections
of those marks so inside of the memory
of
the of the machine there's never a
picture never an image of the
of the ball a ballot only these cross
sections
the scanner itself is reading 36
positions per line that's
all and the lines are separate one
quarter inch from each other
so in a sense this is a 36 pixels
for the whole side of the of of the ball
of the line
this is uh the scanner is using a
laser diodes and so which are orange red
in color so on purpose this voting
machine is color blind for a color
red on on orange red it doesn't if you
have a marking made with a red pen
and mark your vote with a red pen the
voting machine will
not read it it will not understand it
the software itself is stored in two
uh eeprom chips uh 128k
and 64k chips these are eeproms not
eeproms and eeprom means that
the chip can be erased only by using
a intense ultraviolet light this
the machine itself cannot erase the chip
only way you can erase the chip and
reprogram you physically have to remove
the chip
from the voting machine place it for 20
minutes under an intense ultraviolet
light and after it's erased
then you can use a universal programmer
to write the new software into the chip
for this reason the chips
are the chips has a clear
mirror for the ultra white light to
reach the silicon chip
and always when the ships are programmed
uh
a a piece of paper or something has been
put
is put in top of a top of the lens
preventing a accidental unstability by
a a burst or ultra rail light old
camera flashes for example could cause
an instability
this system doesn't have any traditional
operating system this is a special
purpose
computer it's not pc compatible
as such uh the whole operating system
is replaced with a a micro kernel
and the micro kernel is living on the
same chips as
the application software running the
election
there's a plenty of empty space in in on
the ship so how it's the
actual software is only 143
kilobytes everything gone by
this system doesn't have hard drive or
any other form
a flash memory any kind of storage which
can be rewritten
in inside of the of the system uh to
store stuff only place where you can
store
anything and where the election is
living is
a epson style j40
card edge connector uh battery refresh
static ram card typically
these these cars are manufactured in 32
64 128k
but typically only the first 32k is in
use on this card and
the picture of that memory card is on
the left
so this is an extremely limited single
purpose
computer where your
where a attacker's surface
is very small and this is not because
of design of worrying about security
this is so old
that at the time when this machine was
designed
cyber warfare was bad science fiction
this is a hallmark of how old this
computer that's
this is even better than most of the
hardened uh
systems of today just because how
limited the capabilities
of the system were at the time
here's the picture of the voting
machine's internals
there you see the two chips with a a
white
stickers those are the rom chips uh
containing the software
the two chips the left side of the the
chips in the on or with the white
stickers those are the the ram chips are
128k
frames twos or 256 and the square
chip on the side that is the v25
microcontroller as you can see this is a
from the era where a a normal
t 74 series tl uh
logic ships were used this is a very
very old design
also i would uh like to point out that
because of the limited horsepower
is this this machine cannot even if you
would introduce a wireless
uh a controller this doesn't have the
horsepower to drive wi-fi this doesn't
have a horsepower to drive bluetooth
the all only connections this machine
was
originally having was a rs232
serial port with a maximum speed of 96
9600 bits per second and a modem with a
maximum speed of 2400 bits per second
but as a security measurement in new
hampshire
uh the modem has been physically removed
uh the sticker
on the the white sticker in in top of
the
plastic that's where the modem was
before it was removed
and also the cables for the serial port
has been
cut and removed so in new hampshire this
voting machine has
no means of communicating with the
outside world
by any other means than the memory card
you can also notice the copper
color inside of the plastic this was the
way how
electromagnetic radiation shielding was
done back those days
that is a faraday cage which is which
has been
done by uh spraying the inside of the
plastic case
with a copper so this
from the electromagnetic emissions point
of view this is an extremely quiet and
well-sealed
machine and of course inside of the
machine
there's additional shielding for a a
a combinance which might be radiating
more
the compartment on the left is where the
battery so this machine is intended to
be able to operate
uh without a external power for limited
limited time so power cut wouldn't be
stopping the election i would also point
out
an interesting thing which we will come
back later which is that when you look
the center
of the of the voting machine you see a
white
line on the top of the metal casing
we will get back to that white line
later
so this is the law which was a
authorizing this audit and as you can
see
this is really a targeting the rokham
district
number seven which is windham and that
arrays only but as a measurement
they are asking for recounting two other
races just to make sure
that whatever is uh is the cause of the
discrepancy wouldn't be affecting uh
other races so this was a security
measurement to take a into account
a uh two wider races just in case uh it
will reveal something
and the law called us to uh
throw or use all four machines in that
county
to count every single ballot so it's a
little bit different procedure than what
is used in election day where
the vote the ballots were divided
between four machines
and then also take the custardy of the
ballots understanding how the population
of used unused ballots etc
is maintained and then hand count uh
everything the their hand count those
three races
the state represents the governor and
united states senator having a local
race statewide race
and federal race uh in a hand count
this was the scope of the of the
audit and we were we were told and
authorized if we find something which
expands
a larger we can follow the evidence
wherever the evidence
will lead us because the intention was
to find out
what caused this discrepancy even when
the discrepancy
didn't change the outcome of the of the
rackham district
7 race
the first order of business was that we
machine counted
every single ballot uh
there are a number of ways you can do
the machine count
uh you could have a remove the cards
from the voting machine make a
a image of the voting machine with a
third-party device
we decided not to do that because the
this
technology is arcane so we would have
needed to use a third-party device which
nobody else have audited
so it would have raised a concerns
potentially
what happened when the cars were removed
and
from the ceiling and placed to this
device we could have used the voting
machine
to make a copies of the memory cards but
since we were
auditing the voting message it would be
illogical to trust
the voting machine to create a forensic
evidence for us
when the voting machine is is in in
doubt because new hampshire had removed
the cables
that was not an option so the last thing
which we
which we chose to do was in order to
have
the best uh possible
security for and and also make gaining
and regaining the public trust we only
resetted the counters of the election
previous election after printing on
audit tapes
and we left the cars fully sealed into
the machine with no physical access
preset the voting machine mode from post
election back to pre-election
and run it as it is and
also setting up the clock of the of the
voting machine back to the november
election day
so when we started when we processed the
paper ballots
uh with the uh same memory cards except
that now we
put all the ballots through every
machine
we got the results which were a little
bit different than
what was the 2020 election and remember
at the time when we started this we
don't know
which one is closer to true is the hand
counter problem
is the message encounter problem are
they both wrong we don't we cannot this
is
a the starting point was we don't know
where the what is the source of the
discrepancy was it the human count or is
it a matching con
so first when we ran all the ballots
through we found a
a plus -2 difference in 10 000 for the
presidential race
we found in governor's race a 50 to 60
fewer plans between those four machines
because again of all four machines have
a little bit different
results the usn8 the exit console
very small that change is a big issues
in
the state represent race and then rest
very small discrepancies but these
results were different
than the 2020 elections so now these
voting machines didn't even agree with
themselves so
now we have we have to think of what has
changed with the memory card didn't
change
um what has changed why we have a
different kind of results
this was the first clue for us in our
journey to
follow the evidence
this is as the numbers are the hand
counts uh between the
2020 hand code and 21 hand count and the
machine calls
now we see that the two matching do your
hand counts agree
very closely to each other which gives
us a
a strong evidence that the hand count
result was the wrong
right result and the machine count
results were the incorrect
results so this was the first critical
piece now we know
that the probably the main cause is not
hand count probably the main cause
is the machine count being wrong and the
machine is counting them differently
the other part which we found
immediately was
that this the voting machines the four
voting machines didn't produce
exactly the same results between each
other so we had a variation
of the results between the machines we
can see
that two of the machines are closely
matching each other
one machine is a little bit off and
one machine is way off from the others
another interesting data point
when we look the the uh the other hand
counts the governor and u.s senator
we saw that in the governor's race uh
there was a little bit more
a discrepancy and the discrepancy
is a non-votes being
eliminated being lower and more votes
found so
about the same amount of votes were
found for
both of the governor candidates and the
voting machine had clearly in this vote
say failed to recognize votes when there
was vote and when we have u.s senator
race very small differences
when i go back to the previous one we
see that the same thing was in the u.s
state representative
you have there's a thousand uh less
a uh non-votes for anyone so
now we are we are approaching the
question what means non-vote
and a non-vote can be two different
things it can be
that the voters didn't vote anyone or
the voter voted
too many because the other way non-vote
can happen
is called overvote condition it means
that when the
the voter was asked vote for four the
voter for example voted for five or six
and that cancels all the votes so if you
have if
you have a race vote for four and you
vote for
five the result is nobody gets any votes
so this is the condition we started
looking and focusing maybe
we are seeing what what caused this
problem
uh this is all 10 000 ballots
super imposed over its arm
this whole red plop in the left was that
before we started we made every single
ballot to be
unique by placing a unique number
to every single ballot we originally
were planning to use a base stamp
machines but the bait stamps uh broke
down
and eventually that's why we just then
did it with the handwriting but this
made every single ballot
unique and identifiable
and after the the serial number was done
we
we didn't use the the scans of the
ballots
for uh recount purposes these were
reference scans
to be used for analyzes and we didn't
know at the time when we did the
reference scan how useful this will be
i want to make sure that everybody
understands that
if you scan ballots uh with a separate
scanner
you cannot trust those images uh there
are a lot of features in the scanner
scanners which have been uh shown to
alter uh the ballots for example uh
the punch hole punch hole removal
from legal documents bunch hole looks a
lot a lot like a
filled oval so when you have a filled
oval it can remove that
you also have to establish trust that
your image population is a true
representation
of the physical balance so if you
are creating ballot valid images for the
purpose
of uh for example making a recount then
you have to
do make extra steps to
convince yourself that your image
population is trustworthy
and just taking the images or hashing
that
that is not nearly enough for this
purpose
anyway in when we superimposed the
images we saw
two interesting things here you is you
see we see
a a in the kirsty saint laurent
i hope i pronounce her name correctly we
see a
very high concentration of paper
foldings
going through her vote target and we see
in top of the ballot
a way wider area of foldings
some of them being over the vote targets
i have to this the darkness of the
folding is not
representing how many foldings were in
that place this is purely
uh maxing a type of superimposing
just to find where they are other
interesting thing is when you look the
uh the folding on the bottom through
going through the kirstie's
uh christie's target you don't see in a
flip side of the ballot nearly as strong
marking so that was interesting and the
last but not least
we find that the folding machine seems
to be
a little bit um oh the folder
seems to be a little bit off-center it
doesn't go straight from
from the left to right these ballots
had a score line score line is a a
weaker than a perforation it is a print
shop created
weakness on the ballot so if and that
weakness is created in a safe zone so
when
you hand fold the paper you
automatically fold the paper always in a
safe place
and it doesn't ever hit the uh
the vote targets
so our question was we know now that the
folding the correct folding line would
be
an [ __ ] the yulia sotis target
that's where the correct line is the the
similar the correct line is
in in above the the uh
the candidates in in the governor's race
so what caused a foldings
to appear in an incorrect place when the
the structural weakness is forcing
the hand folding to be always in a
correct place
if you try to fold the paper incorrectly
handfully correctly
you can not absolutely do it because the
weakness is where the paper wants to
fold and you would need a tool
like a ruler to make an incorrect
folding
so the plot thickens
the other part which we've started
looking into
the results we found out that uh one
machine
uh which was machine number two
processed
90 of the absentee ballots and at the
same time
that same machine had the highest error
rate
so we we had a perfect storm and
coincidence where
the absentee ballots which are folded
are the ones which are going through a
machine which have a highest error rate
why we have a higher error rate in that
one machine
the first discover we had was a paper
folding machine
when the good people in windham
had started to have a high number of
requests for
absentee ballots they
were they had a hard time to cope with
the demand
and someone had remembered that if they
had rented
a paper folding machine to be used in
dmv
not in elections used in dmv so
in order to for them to serve their
voters better
they decided to use this paper for paper
folding machine
and they use it as it is they didn't
change the
settings of the scanner of the folding
machine so it's got it
it folded the paper exactly the same way
as the dmv registration
papers had been previously folded
and at that time nobody thought about
the foldings the
secretary of state had been conducted a
few years earlier
a testing of the foldings
if they caused the voting machine to
re misregister those as a votes and they
had didn't haven't found
any problem at the time so there was no
knowledge
that the folding can be can have a this
kind of effect
but the folding machine is strong enough
that it can fold the paper
in incorrect place so now we found out
what
caused the folding uh to be in correct
place
again this was a machine which was
rendered by
by windham we made a query
to other jurisdictions to find out if
they have been
using folding machines and we couldn't
find a single other
township of ward which would have used
the voting machine so
our query was not conclusive
we didn't ask all third three hundred
and twenty but
from the sample we did and asked the
question
uh we couldn't find a another place uh
with a phone so that's a pointing that
this folding machine is a unique
appearance
it's a it's a a black swan
in this mix if you make
when we look at microscope what the
folding machine looks we've we found a
a unused ballast which had been folded
on the election day
and the uh the folding on
the right side is the folding which was
done on the election day
and the filing on the left was when we
used the folding machine to recreate
and this is a bump and we discovered
something else interesting
if the paper is folded up or down makes
a huge difference
when it's up folded it creates a bump
which creates a
shadow and the shadow can be
misinterpreted to be a marking on the
ballot
while it's down folded it creates a
bridge and it's almost invisible
in the microscope that the folding was
there and this
is consistent with what we saw in the
superimposed image where the same strong
folding which went through the
christie's
oval on the front side there was not a
strong folding
on the flip side and that was because
the unknown factor was
the direction it had been folded matters
and again we couldn't reconstruct uh
with from the secretary of state office
whether they
folded those up and down they didn't
know it makes a difference
nobody knew it made a difference but now
we found out what is the difference
this bump is permanent in the paper
but it is not equal strength
over time so at this point of time we
started looking into the bumps and we
realized
that why the machine count in
uh 2021 and 2020
were different the difference was that
the ballots have been
laying flat six months under the wake of
the other ballast and it had
straightened the ballots
so you still had the bump and it still
created
a false readings but it co-created
less false readings because of the time
the paper has been flattened under the
wakes
then we start looking something else and
the question was why these voting
machines are
different from have a different result
from each other
this scanner cannot be opened it's it's
there's no easy way to uh open it
so we use an endoscopic camera to
look into the the scanner to see
what was inside of there and
we saw a white powder
well it looked like a dust so at the
first time we didn't even know what we
were looking
i used a highly compressed air cleaner
and when we
cleaned with the compressed air a
massive amount of dust as you can see
here came out
only later we realized that this is not
paper dust
this is actually an offset printing
powder in offset printing when the
pallet is printed
the ink is not fully dry when it comes
out of the
printing machine and in order to prevent
the ballast to stick to each other
in that kind of printing technology a a
very very
a fine powder is sprayed to the seeds to
keep them
a little bit separated and allowing them
to naturally try
so this was what we found out it's out
of the printing technology
and that explained
why uh the message were a little bit
different
we conducted 32 test elections
with the 16 elections used by a
flat paper and 16
elections with the folded paper when the
paper was flat
all machines all four machines
regardless whether they had the paper
dust or not inside
were 100 accurate and then at the time
when when we processed the folded paper
the differences came out and these
differences seem to be indicating
the level of paper dust contamination in
offset powder dust contamination inside
of the machine
so we found a contributing factor
and these are just a we made the sanity
check we found
how many ballots are in each way we
found about 300
600 ballots where the folding mark goes
through a kirstie's target
we found a about
four where the folding line went through
uh mr salty's uh target
we found a a different combinations
uh of the foldings uh in different uh
intensities
and this showed us that there's enough
ballots
and this is also proves us that the
foldings can
both add votes and substruct rules
when a voter voted for less
than four candidates uh then if the if
the line went through
uh christie's target it created a
phantom vote for her
and the hand count corrected that's why
she lost 99 roles
in the hand cut but if a voter voted
for a straight party line republican
ticket
and the line went through kirsties then
it created
in certain intensity
a uh overvote which then tossed all the
votes out
and cancelled the votes so this folding
line both explained
why uh the republicans gained uh 300
votes and it also explains why kirsty
lost 99 was in a record and yet another
example here we have the
uh the folding line going through the
governor's race and of course now in
if that vote is if that folding line is
misinterpreted to be a a
business would be a vote then it cancels
those votes and we saw that 90
uh figure in earlier what was the time
but this
there were not very many ballots and not
all folding lines are always
interpreted as a balance we when we made
the sanity check we found out that
the the probability of strong folding
to be misinterpreted into a vote is 0.44
and it is the same with the two
different ways of counting so this is
both trying
our our hypothesis to be a same with
because of which way you are analyzed
again this is just a close-up picture to
show that the
external connections were really removed
and destroyed and there was no way of
communicating with the memory card
from outside world
just to wrap up the last things we did a
lot of things we
we added in addition we we looked
records we looked at absentee
applications we
made certain that all ballots are
genuine ballot
printed ballots hand marked not printed
printed we
measured the thickness we did a complete
software analysis of the eeproms using
gesara
an nsa open source a reverse
engineering tool we looked through
eeproms to find that
verify that there's no uh a unexplained
data there with because that would be
the only place where malware would be
so we complete all these analysis and we
found no
evidence of malware we found no evidence
of a any kind of irregularities in the
digital media
and we found no irregular like
regularities in the paper ballots
everything was authentic printed and
handmarked
we live streamed into our event and we
published a real-time huge amount of
documents
uh all along based on the request and of
production so we
we try to be as transparent as possible
i have spent more time to be an observer
and a monitor
so i wanted to run this the way i would
want to be i would be wanting to be
observe as observers we want to be as
friendly as possible to the observers
make sure
everything is is transparent when we
were doing the hand telling
the spreadsheet was a google docs
spreadsheet was a real time accessible
from the world
everybody could see all the data entry
as they go
and in the video every single ballot was
a uh
with overhead camera photo so every
single ballot of the 1006 ballot was
shown in a live stream in a full
hd so that everybody can follow that
process
i think that's wrap it up please ask
questions in the uh discord and uh
i hope this was explaining why
in this case in under very difficult
circumstances
windham elections where windham election
was run
very well of course when you
have a close scrutiny we have a
recommendations how to improve it
but this was just a coincidence a
conspiracy of coincidences
very many things needed to happen in
order to create this
animali and now the animal is explained
and there was no malicious intent or
malicious activity
thank you very much