- Feb 24, 2021
I wonder what is up with the disappeared logs, the ones used to reconstruct what happened during the election?
There is nothing up, because there is nothing missing. Everything is right there on the "before" copy.I wonder what is up with the disappeared logs, the ones used to reconstruct what happened during the election.
FFS, the logs are right there on the backup.Those logs have to be retained for 26 months following an election. There is no good reason why updating the system would include deleting logs.
It is people like you who give IT a bad name, facilitating problems to blame on others.There is nothing up, because there is nothing missing. Everything is right there on the "before" copy.
The characterization that files and folders have been deleted is completely disingenuous. It's stupid to think that the old files and directory structure should remain after a fresh build install. You always want to begin with a clean slate.
Whoever wrote this report didn't even have the guts to put their name on it. Not hard to understand why.
...the logs are right there on the backup.
Says who? The county has to have the data. Why should the 2020 data be consigned to a backup? Where is the backup stored? How is it accessed? How can it be put on a system running the build that generated it?The old logs are not relevant to the new build, and do not belong on the server. They reflect something that happened on a different build at a different time.
This is tripe. I am very competent in IT and made good money doing it.It is people like you who give IT a bad name, facilitating problems to blame on others.
Those logs have to be retained for 26 months following an election (Colorado law). There is no good reason why updating the system would include deleting logs. "Starting fresh" is a vague concept that cannot justify deleting essential data.
You are making pronouncements with nothing to support. You have no idea what the update manual says, or what the process was.If the intention for retaining 2020 election data is that it be offloaded to another system, the update procedure should verify the existence and validity of the offloaded data before proceeding with the update. If the county is responsible for having a copy of the data before the update is applied, the update process should require certification by the county that the copy exists in accordance with standards established ahead of time. That never happened.
This is just you making a bunch of accusations that you can't support. I downloaded the full report the day it was made public.Anyone responsible for systems used by others knows they are responsible for the data placed into their control. No one should delete data from any system that is not verified to have been preserved on another device, unless that data is not needed. No one could make the mistake of thinking the 2020 system logs on an election management server are not needed.
The secretary of State sponsored the update, without safeguarding the data. That violates the Secretary of States oath of office.
This update was designed to destroy data the county is required to maintain, and to create legal liability for county officials. It was a setup perpetrated by the Secretary of State, who is defended by rules that make it the county's fault for failing to preserve data. The Secretary of State did nothing to protect the county's data. This is not public service. It is tyranny, using the power granted by the governed to harm the governed, motivated by malicious intent.
What purpose is served by an update that does not safeguard data from the 2020 election? Answer: guarantees no one will see the 2020 election data. Produces violations of data retention law, making the county vulnerable to legal liabilities that can be pursued by the Secretary of State, the Department of Justice, and county voters.
The report's author is omitted from the copy posted at Frankspeech, to prevent attacks from Cancel Culture and dingbats like you. The report's author is known to the Mesa County Clerk, who stands by the report. The information in the report is verifiable, so it doesn't matter who wrote it for the purpose of ascertaining the facts regarding data on the Dominion system in Mesa County.
You are typical blowhard IT thug, whose interests oppose those of the people who depend on systems.You are a poser- you don't have any grasp of how server builds are done.
The county has to have the data. Why should the 2020 data be consigned to a backup? Where is the backup stored? How is it accessed? How can it be put on a system running the build that generated it?
The most logical, simplest configuration is to keep the 2020 election data on the server where it was generated. There is no good reason for not having the 2020 build and the new build both on the same hardware. Each build can operate as its own virtual system, with its own installation of Windows, isolated from all the other builds. The new build does not demand wiping the old one. This is easier and less expensive than maintaining separate hardware.
Should I call the waaambulance for you?You are typical blowhard IT thug, whose interests oppose those of the people who depend on systems.
1. There is no advantage to doing that, and it adds complexity for no good reason. At some point, someone will run the election on the wrong version.Please educate me on the shortcomings of maintaining multiple builds of the election system as virtual machines on one computer, described above, repeated here for your convenience:
Should I call the waaambulance for you?
Adds complexity to what?1. There is no advantage to doing that, and it adds complexity for no good reason. version.
So what?At some point, someone will run the election on the wrong version.
FALSE. Boot the build that needs to be certified, run the certification routine. What is the problem?2. It makes certification almost impossible, since every server would be a different configuration.
FALSE. The presence on disk of unbooted builds does not complicate troubleshooting. Can you provide an example of a case where it does?Should I call the waaambulance for you?
3. It makes troubleshooting more difficult because you don't know what remnants of the prior build are retained in the registry and in the system folders.
4. It consumes disk space and system resources.
FALSE.5. Clean builds are just more stable than VM's.
FALSE. An audit is done by booting the relevant build. The other, unbooted builds do not affect the audit, because the builds are stored in a packages the booted build cannot access. Verifying that the packages holding other builds are inaccessible by the booted build does not make the audit much more complicated.6. It makes auditing the machine much more complicated because you have data from multiple elections on one computer.
The law requires Preservation of Data. It does not require that the data must reside on it's original disk- only that it is preserved. Forensic images are petrified, bit-by-bit copies of the disk- they are admissible in court and comply with the preservation requirement (assuming chain of custody is maintained).
If you can show that there is something missing on the BEFORE image, you might have an argument that data from the 2020 election has been deleted. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
What is your perspective on the findings of the Mesa County report?We know a purge is coming, hopefully its Real Americans doing it!
Sad we have such negative spam/spin at times, maybe find a job at CNN, or maybe you do already!
Haha, knock yourself out. You are in HR because you are not competent to be in IT.I pick my teeth with people like you. Business manager hires me to deal with internal IT. That is where I meet you. If you force me, I will expose the weakness of your technical assertions you normally hide by being an asshole, which intimidates enough people for this strategy to work for you. You expertise in power exceeds your technical prowess. If you resist the truth of my technical assertions, I expose the weakness of your arguments and your irrational resistance to better information, killing respect for you in the business manager's eyes. While you are steaming about it, I collect an hourly fee twice what you are paid. If you are not a jerk, we'll both benefit.
Pathetic. The logs are generated by the server. The old logs are from the old build, and need to be kept separate from the new logs generated by the new build.You argued the 2020 data does not belong on the rebuilt server, because it was produced by an earlier build. If 2020 logs require the 2020 build, which they do not for most purposes, but since you said they do, what good is having 2020 log data on the backup image without a machine to run it on?
The server.Adds complexity to what?
Yeah, we'll just do the election over, no big deal...So what?
The problem is that you have to do it on every install. When you use trusted builds, you can push them all down and just verify the hash value.FALSE. Boot the build that needs to be certified, run the certification routine. What is the problem?
Yes I can, but it would go right past your pea brain.FALSE. The presence on disk of unbooted builds does not complicate troubleshooting. Can you provide an example of a case where it does?
I wonder what is up with the disappeared logs, the ones used to reconstruct what happened during the election.
100% correct. So no one shall wring their hands to object to preserving prior election data on election systems whether they are upgraded or not, for at least as long as that data is required to be retained by law.All this hand-wringing about how the servers are configured is utterly meaningless.
As soon as I am able to verify that Trusted Upgrades are not in the habit of deleting data that has not been preserved in convenient form on another device, I will stop worrying about prior election data being deleted by Trusted Upgrades. That is my provisional answer to the question starting this threadThe only question is- does the report show that data that should have been preserved was instead deleted?
Why is that?Pathetic. The logs are generated by the server. The old logs are from the old build, and need to be kept separate from the new logs generated by the new build.
That is not a problemThe problem is that you have to do it on every install. When you use trusted builds, you can push them all down and just verify the hash value.
This is complete non-issue. Holding onto the prior election data is not a significant complication. It is, however, it is a significant omission in any case where the only copy of the data is on the server getting the build. In no case should that data be deleted without verification of its being stored safely somewhere else. The impact of this on the certification routine, no matter what it is, is negligible compared to the importance of safeguarding the data.You talk about running the "certification routine" as if it's some little batch file or something. You and I do not know what all is involved in certifying the build, but it will certainly involve a lot of different tests under various scenarios. It could easily be a months-long process.
Depends on the schedules and loading of the various VMs. If you are running only one vm at a time, you need resources for the most demanding VM plus the hypervisor. If you run these as stand-alone machines instead of vm's, you can drop resources for the hypervisor (small) but you have to add resources for a whole new system. That is a big part of why virtualization is cheaper.Also you said VM's, not a multi-boot system. A VM runs inside the existing OS- it is an emulation of another OS. All the interactions between the Virtual OS and the hardware are managed by the hypervisor. The more VM's, the more resources have to be shared between OS's.
The EAC could say VMs are not allowed. It also could say the old data cannot be on the machine with the new build.And if you are going to run your elections on VM's, they become part of the election infrastructure and have their own certifications to meet. New versions have to be recertified, and update procedures have to be written for that software just like everything else. Another layer, additional complexity.
2020 election data was removed from the machine, by people who did not know the data had been copied to another device. So, no data was lost, but no thanks to the Trusted Build. Were the previous builds not trusted?But feel free to answer my question any time- can you show us any missing data from the "before" image"?
Because the forensic image is an archive of the history of that server over a specific time frame. The logs are part of that history and belong with the data. Somewhere, there is an image of that server on the day it was setup for the 2020 election. That's the reference image for that election cycle.Why is that?