[nyokodo]

> The methods Mrs. Peters chose were most definitely the wrong ways

Showing how systems are corrupt, broken, and vulnerable by technically illegal action was something that the left and the HN community have historically applauded. That's what was behind the Pentagon Papers, the Citizen's Commission, and Wikileaks. Apparently illegal activity motivated by the public good is only excusable if you aren't a Trump supporter.

[penultimatename]

Notice how all of your examples started with evidence. The participants did not start with a political goal and then work their way backwards to justify or prove it.

[nyokodo]

> Notice how all of your examples started with evidence.

An insider observing a simple way for a bad actor to gain access to voting machine hardware is evidence. I don’t agree with her methods of exposing that vulnerability just like I don’t agree with Wikileaks exposing unfiltered diplomatic cables that had nothing to do with criminality. However this community and the left in general has fostered blatant double standards in this area depending on the politics of the subject.

[penultimatename]

Her stated goal during her trial was to prove vote manipulation by Dominion, not to prove that voting machines are vulnerable.

Rob a bank and say you were just pentesting, but the stolen money wasn’t the motivator, it was the public good.

[kurikuri]

> An insider observing a simple way for a bad actor to gain access to voting machine hardware is evidence.

Is evidence of what? She abused her elected position to pursue a conspiracy theory and no evidence of that conspiracy was discovered. She, a week after having the cameras monitoring the election office turned off, knowingly allowed an unauthorized person to view election machine credentials. She, a person who was supposed to protect the integrity of the election as part of being a clerk and recorder in her county, betrayed her public office and the people who elected her.

There is no ‘blatant double standard’ here. Instead, you’ve drawn a false analogy to other situations to make this seem like something it wasn’t. Even if we were charitable and said the ends justify the means, there were no justifying ends that came about.

[nyokodo]

> She, a week after having the cameras monitoring the election office turned off, knowingly allowed an unauthorized person to view election machine credentials.

A single insider shouldn't be able to potentially undermine the voting in an entire jurisdiction and, depending on the vulnerability, multiple jurisdictions. That is a massive vulnerability revealed by the fact that she was able to do it. No single person should be able to undermine our voting system and she knew they could and then demonstrated it. It is illegal and she should answer for the way she revealed the vulnerability but then I think Julian Assange and Edward Snowden should have been tried and jailed long ago for their unethical and irresponsible disclosures too, so I'm not a hypocrite.

[more_corn]

No vulnerability was found. No secret cabal was uncovered except the one that made up a fantasy of a stolen election, deliberately damaging our democracy to subvert a free and fair election. This was an illegal act committed in support of a lie that damaged our very democracy.

[nyokodo]

> No vulnerability was found

Unregulated access to voting machine hardware is a vulnerability.