I'm not going to give more O2 to that dreadful voting article that came out the other day. But I will say that "don't find things out or tell other people about them because bad people might misinterpret them out of context" is a weird premise for a journalist to start from.
Anyway, as a scientist and academic, I'm committed to the value of finding things out and telling others about them, even when they're complicated, subject to disingenuous misinterpretation, or inconvenient.
I also take pains to try to put my work in context, but that doesn't always survive sloppy malicious compression into soundbites.
Voting security is complicated. All these are true:
- There's been great progress securing US election infrastructure.
- There are still serious vulnerabilities and much work is left to be done.
- Yet there's no evidence technical attacks have altered election outcomes.
- There's been great progress securing US election infrastructure.
- There are still serious vulnerabilities and much work is left to be done.
- Yet there's no evidence technical attacks have altered election outcomes.
In any event, I'm extremely proud of the Voting Village and what it has accomplished, especially as a training ground for the next generation of election security experts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
