Goodness - I was in the process of whining about us losing every motion in AZ. As I typed it, the judge denied the TRO. I am quite surprised.
Now, we need to win the blocking of policies and procedures release on appeal.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (28)
sorted by:
That is a great question. I am surprised by the fact that they were hired as the lead contractor. I would expect a company of their stature to be included on the team, but I'm surprised that they are lead.
They do have a background in the conducting of large scale cybersecurity event mitigation efforts. This has required them to quickly and effectively put together forensic teams with a high degree of vetting.
Regarding the process of the tactile aspects of the audit - I just don't get it. I'm surprised that they are tasked with the design, implementation and execution of the physical inspection of the ballots. I'm quite impressed by the quality of the system design and the order of the operation, but I don't see from the surface as to why they are the right group for that.
My guess is simple - a very sophisticated coordination effort is run behind the scenes and CyberNinjas are the front people for that.
Yep indeed even because, a part of them is not doing anything really cyber related at this time if not for general IT support to the scanners / cameras etc, cyber forensic is used for digital stuffs, so that will be more tied to the ballot scanners / dominion servers and related stuffs
btw don't know if in this case they have an exception via the EO but normally what is related to forensic, the certified ways to handle forensic findings / proofs and all the data, how to build a case and use that in a court with correct arguments and so on, is quite a complex matter and should / is be written / defined by laws