This is just a quick update. Work on the comic book is keeping me occupied thanks to the high level of historically accurate detail it calls for. Drawing comics isn’t just a matter of drawing. Often, the research takes more time than making the artwork. For instance, in the panel above, I wasn’t just drawing PLA soldiers crossing a river. It was Korea’s Imjin River on the night of April 22, 1951, at a specific bend in the river.
I had to use a UK military map to find the location on Google Earth, which wasn’t easy because the map used British placenames. To find the spot, I had to compare the shapes of landmarks to what remained of them in the present day, 70 years later. It felt like I was solving another algorithm in a complex pattern matching exercise.
Speaking of which, I have been looking at New York’s algorithms again this past week. I don’t have a lot of time for it, after losing a few days to a couple of intense migraines and the work on the comic, but did have some. In that time, I became even less convinced that a reasonable explanation for the voter roll algorithms will come to light.
It comes down to cost. To get an idea of what I mean, I quickly slapped together a demonstration database with no files. It was designed to simulate a New York State Board of Elections database.
The Spiral algorithm, and others used by the NYSBOE, “map” county ID (CID) numbers onto state ID numbers (SBOEID). Meaning, they decide which SBOEID each CID is attached to. It’s like a series of secret marriages among two types of numbers.
My simulation database was designed to show how easy it is to map CID numbers to SBOEID numbers in any normal off-the-shelf database software. All I had to do was create a data field for the SBOEID number and leave it blank. Then, I took the county-provided voter rolls for a small county, which does not have SBOEID numbers, and pushed the import button.
This brought up the mapping menu. The mapping menu shows all the field names from the imported file in a column on the left, and the field names from the simulation database on the right. It asked me which field names on the left corresponded to field names on the right. In this way, “First Name” on the left can be imported into “FName” on the right.
After going through this part of the mapping exercise, I ticked a box that asked it to create a serial number for any fields that didn’t have any data. In this case, the SBOEID number. I could set it to increment by any value, but I left it at the default, “1.”
With this done, I had spent all of about five minutes setting up the import. I pushed the “accept” button, and a few seconds later, had the full county records imported into my simulated state database, each of which now had a newly assigned SBOEID number, created during the import process.
I could do this with the next county, and it would automatically continue the numbering started with the first county. This is because the tool keeps track of the last number assigned, to avoid assigning the same number to different entries.
The point is this: the import tool I used is included in my database software, Filemaker. Filemaker cost me about $600. As far as I know, every database tool currently available has an option like this to assign unique serial numbers on import. In other words, no special tool is required. If you have a database, you already have the serial number creation and mapping tool for free. Not only that, it is easy to use.
In case any of you noticed my qualifier “currently available” and are thinking, “wait a minute, didn’t you say these numbers were assigned in 2007?” The answer is yes, but it doesn’t matter. This is such a basic item that it has been a part of database software since at least 2000, possibly as early as 1990.
The reason someone would normally write custom code to create a complex mapping scheme, such as the Spiral, is to protect commercial or military secrets. Voter rolls, by law, are public. Therefore, they aren’t secret and cannot be made secret without violating public disclosure requirements in federal law. In addition, the Spiral is designed in such a way that it doesn’t protect the privacy of voter information, enhance security, or make the database more efficient.
With all that in mind, why would anyone hire a talented team of programmers to create something they already had for free, and that worked perfectly every time it was used? This is the sticking point for me. The algorithm can clearly be used for nefarious purposes, and there is strong incentive among malicious actors to have a way to secretly keep track of records. The Spiral mapping algorithm can be used this way.
Therefore, with a strong nefarious motive and no known legitimate reason to use the custom mapping algorithms found in New York’s voter rolls, which is more likely?
“Drawing comics isn’t just a matter of drawing…..It felt like I was solving another algorithm in a complex pattern matching exercise.”
“Often the hands will solve a mystery that the intellect has struggled with in vain.” Carl Jung
Jung would qualify your Z steering wheel, (June 7th post), a mandala—the Sanskrit word for circle. He said, “My mandalas were cryptograms concerning the state of the self which were presented to me anew each day.”
Wish your wheel can be staked through the heart of the NYSBOE data base and then twisted back in the opposite direction.
We know the software/hardware of all these machines can be and are corrupted. The testing and certification of these contraptions must be strictly and legally challenged.
For God’s sake, keep the damn things in the warehouses (legally) with court orders—county sheriffs—wherever possible—sheriffs must stand with their constituents, force the county and local boards to move to paper ballots/hand counted at the precincts done by honest citizen brokers.
“By turning elections over to black boxes running software outside the public domain, we surrendered the ability to meaningfully verify the election process.”
Lake v Fontes Petition for Certiorai
The Supreme Court ignored this stuff two months ago. Now what?
https://frankspeech.com/Video/ban-the-machines-a-live-demo-of-machine-vulnerabilities
Here’s another long one for illustration purposes. (If there is a better way for me to share these with you other than posting the text here, DM me elsewhere.)
First I asked Frank AI this question:
“Can you read this PDF file?
https://auditny.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/nyca-steganography-example.pdf”
It replied that it can’t read files from URLs (note: maybe it can some, but not this pdf) but said I could copy and paste sections of the pdf and it would analyze them, so I did.
Here was its initial takeaway:
“Thank you for sharing the text from the PDF! It looks like this document is a detailed report on the use of steganography within New York State voter rolls. Here's a brief summary:
### Summary
**Title:** An example of steganography in New York state voter rolls
**Author:** Art Zark/NYCA
**Date:** 7/13/2022
**Abstract:**
The report claims that New York State voter rolls contain evidence of steganographically-concealed data, hidden beneath at least six layers of obfuscation. This concealed data appears to be linked to the assignment of State Board of Elections Identification (SBOEID) numbers via an algorithm. The purpose of this algorithm could be to facilitate the insertion, tracking, and manipulation of "phantom voters."
### Key Points
1. **Steganography Definition:**
- Steganography is a form of cryptography designed to conceal information in plain sight.
- Effective steganographic methods must embed data within host media without creating perceptible artifacts.
2. **Context:**
- The 2020 General Election and subsequent claims of voter fraud provide context for examining New York’s voter rolls.
- The report aligns with broader concerns about election integrity and potential fraud.
3. **Evidence:**
- A specific case is highlighted where an individual in Brooklyn was assigned 11 unique SBOEID numbers over two consecutive days, which is against New York State election law.
- The report suggests that these irregularities are part of a larger pattern involving hundreds of thousands of potentially illegal registrations.
4. **Obfuscation Methods:**
- The report details various obfuscation methods used to hide the steganographically-concealed data, including:
- State partitions
- County ranges
- SBOEID/CID incongruences
- Sort order manipulations
- Calculation-based obfuscations
5. **Algorithms:**
- Different algorithms were identified across various counties, each producing distinct patterns in the voter rolls.
- Examples include "Spiral," "Inverse Spiral," "Metronome," "Motion Blur," and "Tartan" patterns.
6. **Implications:**
- The presence of these patterns suggests intentional manipulation to hide phantom voters.
- These techniques could allow fraudulent votes to be validated by assigning them to illegally generated SBOEID numbers.
7. **Further Research:**
- More research is needed to fully understand the extent and purpose of these algorithms.
- Preliminary findings suggest similar patterns may exist in other states' voter rolls as well.
### Conclusion
The report concludes that New York State's voter rolls contain algorithm-generated patterns indicative of steganographic manipulation, potentially facilitating election fraud. Further investigation is required to determine the full scope and implications.”
Next I asked it if it could answer a question based on the text from the pdf, but first I asked it if it understood what a total loss of control data breach is, to which it intelligently replied:
“Yes, I understand the concept of a "total loss of control" data breach. This type of data breach occurs when an unauthorized party gains complete access to and control over sensitive or confidential information. This means that the attacker can view, modify, delete, or exfiltrate the data without any restrictions.
In the context of voter rolls or similar databases, a total loss of control data breach would imply that the attacker could potentially manipulate voter information, introduce false records, delete legitimate records, or otherwise tamper with the data in ways that could undermine the integrity of an election or other critical processes.
Would you like to know how this concept might relate to the steganography report you shared?”
I said yes, and this is how it replied:
“In the context of the steganography report on New York State voter rolls, a "total loss of control" data breach could have several significant implications:
### Potential Implications
1. **Manipulation of Voter Records:**
- If an unauthorized party gained total control over the voter rolls, they could manipulate SBOEID numbers and other voter information. This could include adding "phantom voters," deleting legitimate voters, or altering existing records.
2. **Introduction of Steganographic Data:**
- The report suggests that steganographic techniques were used to conceal data within the voter rolls. An attacker with total control could introduce or further obfuscate such hidden data, making it even more difficult to detect and trace fraudulent activities.
3. **Election Fraud:**
- With total control, an attacker could potentially validate fake ballots by assigning them to illegally generated SBOEID numbers. This would allow fraudulent votes to be counted as legitimate, undermining the election's integrity.
4. **Erosion of Public Trust:**
- A total loss of control data breach would likely lead to a significant erosion of public trust in the electoral system. If voters believe that their information can be easily manipulated or that fraudulent votes can be inserted without detection, confidence in the democratic process would be severely damaged.
5. **Difficulty in Detection and Correction:**
- The use of sophisticated algorithms and multiple layers of obfuscation, as described in the report, would make it extremely challenging to detect and correct any manipulations introduced during such a breach. This complexity adds another layer of risk, as it would require substantial effort and expertise to identify and rectify the issues.
### Relation to the Report
The report already indicates that there are irregularities and potential manipulations within the voter rolls, attributed to steganographic techniques and algorithmic patterns. A total loss of control data breach would exacerbate these issues by allowing an attacker unrestricted access to introduce or modify such concealed data at will.
In summary, a total loss of control data breach in this context would mean that all safeguards against unauthorized access have failed, allowing for extensive manipulation and concealment within the voter rolls, thereby posing a severe threat to election integrity and public trust.”