PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - How to rig an election, the Diebold way, with live video

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)

- - How to rig an election, the Diebold way, with live video (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/164675-how-rig-election-diebold-way-live-video.html)

How to rig an election, the Diebold way, with live video

http://www.ddj.com/dept/security/193000399

Quote:

They Said it Couldn't be Done: Diebold Voting-Machine Hack Announced at SD Best Practices
John Jainschigg
In his Wednesday evening keynote address on Security at SD Best Practices, Boston, Cigital's Gary McGraw discussed a paper and shared clips from a video demo released today by Edward Felten, Ari Feldman, and Alex Halderman of the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy, titled: Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine. The paper details a simple method whereby the Princeton team was able to compromise the physical security of a Diebold voting machine, infecting it with a virus that could change voting results and spread by memory-card to other machines of the same type.

The Diebold machine -- a tablet computer-based tabletop device -- saves program and vote information on standard Flash cards whose slots are secured by a locked metal cover. The video asserted that keys fitting these locks are easily duplicable, and that -- even lacking a key -- a member of Felten's team could routinely pick the locks in less than ten seconds; or gain access to the Flash card by removing six screws from the bottom of the machine and lifting its upper shroud away completely. Once access to the Flash card is gained, the card can be briefly removed, a virus-bearing card inserted, and power cycled -- loading the malicious code into memory. The original card is then re-inserted, exposing it to infection by the virus and making its contents vulnerable to change by viral code. Felten's team was, they assert, able to develop viral code that could "steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates." And they were able to embed this functionality in viral envelopes that could propagate from machine to machine during normal pre- and post-election activities (e.g., periodic collection, backup and summary of vote-counts). By compromising just one machine, therefore, an attacker could conceiveably alter results for an entire electoral district, or in some situations, in even more far-reaching ways.

The Princeton team performed its study independently, using a machine obtained from a private party. In his executive summary to the paper, Felten notes that the current work extends and confirms assertions first made by Kohno, Stubblefield, Rubin (all of John's Hopkins) and Wallach (of Rice University) in their well-known 2003 paper Analysis of an Electronic Voting System, which concluded that Diebold machines failed to provide even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts (e.g., banking), and asserted that closed-source approaches to building such a device were intrinsically flawed. One of the leaders of that team, Dr. Aviel Rubin, just released a book on this subject, titled: Brave New Ballot: The Battle to Safeguard Democracy in the Age of Electronic Voting.

Here is the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJOyz7_sk8I

No that can't be. Republicans operate Diebold. This is the greatest country on earth. We're honest here.

ahhh, Diebold takes me back to my banking days....thanks for the memory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 1277402)

No that can't be. Republicans operate Diebold. This is the greatest country on earth. We're honest here.

I agree. All republicans in the current administration are honest folks who have the best interests of the electorate in mind. That's why the electorate continues to support them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton (Post 1277410)

I agree. All republicans in the current administration are honest folks who have the best interests of the electorate in mind. That's why the electorate continues to support them.

-dies laughing- sorry i had to

Which committee in the RNC is responsible for selecting, buying, installing and programming voting machines in all of the states, counties, and cities?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1277527)

Which committee in the RNC is responsible for selecting, buying, installing and programming voting machines in all of the states, counties, and cities?

That would be the executive director of political operations........he's the one responsible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton (Post 1277544)

That would be the executive director of political operations........he's the one responsible.

This will come as a shocker to our various clerks of court and Secy of State, who think it is their job. Democrats, all. Are they also part of this coup plot?

Bot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1277560)

This will come as a shocker to our various clerks of court and Secy of State, who think it is their job.
Bot

No, they'd be mistaken..........it's the RNC's job to oversee those machines. I thought you would have known that..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1277560)

This will come as a shocker to our various clerks of court and Secy of State, who think it is their job. Democrats, all. Are they also part of this coup plot?

Bot

Clerks in this part of the world tend to be Republicans. Not that it has anything to do with voting machines, but I thought I should correct the record on that.

*** If you're too stupid to get out of Jury Duty... ***

Just like the phrase, "If you're too stupid to get out of Jury Duty, do I want you as one of 12 jurists in a murder trial?" - I would like to be sure I have someone, smart enough, running this country that can figure out how to "outsmart" a stupid machine!!! :eek: :P :cool: :D

What's the problem here?

#1.) You make a machine...
#2.) You have someone (anyone) try to "break" the machine...
#3.) You fix the first "breakage" and...
#4.) You have someone else try to "break" the machine, again...
#5.) You fix the next "breakage" and...
#6.) Repeat Steps #4 & #5 until...
#7.) You can't find someone to break it...
#8.) T H E N . .
#9.) Unlike Bill Gates/Microsoft, you then market it..."Bill & MS ALWAYS put this step between #1 & #2 ... you end up doing #3 - #7 yourself!" :P

Do you guys want Bill Gates handling our elections? GEEZ! We'd never know who, or what, got elected...we'd be "re-booting" crashed boxes 'til the next election cycle and the lost data? And you think DIEBOLD has issues?

Life's too short to be worried about some test that was, probably, shot a year and half ago and the "fixes" have already been done...BTW, has anyone checked as to the date of video, when and where it was performed and, more importantly, have the issues been corrected?

The machine that was tested...(the Princeton team's independent study machine, that was obtained from a private party) - did ANYONE check the date of the study, source of the machine, whether it was a prototype or on-line production sample unit, a "beta" machine, or even the report itself, in that it was an "in-house, for our eyes-only" type of report, to be used in the above mentioned style of testing-breaking-fixing scenario that I outlined above?

If you don't know the basics of what the reports is about, the foundation of any arguement is baseless...just as, if the foundation of house is unknown, how do you know whether the house is a "house of cards" or a real castle?

Let's see if someone, out there, can find the real story - ala the "Valerie Pflame" thread we just got done grinding through here for ... how many pages/weeks?

ENJOY THE WEEKEND AND REMEMBER...DRIVE CAREFULLY OUT THERE...'CAUSE YOU KNOW NO ONE ELSE DOES!

;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin (Post 1277600)

Clerks in this part of the world tend to be Republicans. Not that it has anything to do with voting machines, but I thought I should correct the record on that.

Around here they're mostly Democrats who have the major (bureaucratic) role in the voting process. At the state-wide level we have we had an elections commissioner jailed for demanding and receiving kickbacks from .... election machine companies. Most of our currently jailed crop of elected officials are Democrats. I don't know about other states. In Louisiana it isn't because Democrats are more crooked, it is because they vastly out-number republicans, IMO. If the Repos get majority status they'll have their piggy faces in the trough. I hope we have a Fed Prosecutor as tough on political crime and as competent as the guy we have now. He's another one of the good guys. And no, I don't know what party he is in.

Here's the Jefferson Parish C of C's responsibility as relates to elections. It is pretty typical.

Responsibilities

The clerk of court is the Parish's chief elections officer. He qualifies candidates for office in all municipal, parish, and state legislative elections. The Secretary of State qualifies candidates for statewide, congressional, state appellate and supreme court elections, and public service commission elections.

The clerk's elections department conducts all training seminars for commissioners and commissioners-in-charge and sends all notices to supporting elections officials. These notices inform the appropriate officials of the crucial information concerning the election. The department also addresses any problems that may arise on election day.

After the polls close, and during days immediately following an election, the department tabulates totals, checks voting machine counts against the election night print-outs and prepares the payroll for the election workers.

If there is anybody left who honestly thinks that politicians are honest, I have some land I'd like to sell you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg (Post 1277617)

What's the problem here?

#1.) You make a machine...
#2.) You have someone (anyone) try to "break" the machine...
#3.) You fix the first "breakage" and...
#4.) You have someone else try to "break" the machine, again...
#5.) You fix the next "breakage" and...
#6.) Repeat Steps #4 & #5 until...
#7.) You can't find someone to break it...
#8.) T H E N . .
#9.) Unlike Bill Gates/Microsoft, you then market it..."Bill & MS ALWAYS put this step between #1 & #2 ... you end up doing #3 - #7 yourself!" :P

Let me guess: You're not a software developer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L (Post 1277735)

Let me guess: You're not a software developer.

Nope! Didn't pretend that I did!

But, it seems that between MAC and MS, MS has more problems getting it right, before marketing, than MAC does...

Someone does #4 - #5 better than the other...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg (Post 1277750)

Nope! Didn't pretend that I did!

But, it seems that between MAC and MS, MS has more problems getting it right, before marketing, than MAC does...

Someone does #4 - #5 better than the other...

So why is there more than one release of OS X?

Hint: Apple doesn't get it right the first time either. But the malevolent software developers go for the widest breach, which isn't Apple. Or OS2. Or VMS, OS/400, HP/UX, Tru64 Unix, etc, for that matter.

Matt L:

The only point was was trying to make was that MAC users seem to be more loving of their units than MS users.

Having used an Apple II back in the 80s, then migrating to MS-OSs, I tend to agree w/the MAC folks in the stability arena...my ONLY intent w/the MS comparison to marketing something BEFORE ITS TIME, was the fact that as an MS-OS type of guy, I'm more "attuned" to the "beta" style of fixes and programs that have issues w/existing programs that haven't been tested and fixed before being released...all the while MS asking "us" to shell out cash to help pay for fixing their screw-ups and the marketing department's "rush-to-shelf" timing of their products.

Oh well, I didn't want my comment about MS to migrate this discussion away from the fact that DIEBOLD might be pushing a product on the American Public before its had a proper shake-down period...I'm trying to point out that there's a business paradigm that exists in the MS world and there's another business paradigm that other folks use that SHOULD be better than MS's.

Let's all hope that DIEBOLD (or whoever is, eventually, selected!) is more attuned to the latter than the former...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg (Post 1277750)

Nope! Didn't pretend that I did!

But, it seems that between MAC and MS, MS has more problems getting it right, before marketing, than MAC does...

Someone does #4 - #5 better than the other...

Sounds like the stereotypical Ford vs Chevy debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1277560)

This will come as a shocker to our various clerks of court and Secy of State, who think it is their job. Democrats, all. Are they also part of this coup plot?

Bot

Like they have a lot of choice. How many federally certified machines were available when they had to choose? This is your fabled "free market" at work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty (Post 1277878)

Like they have a lot of choice. How many federally certified machines were available when they had to choose? This is your fabled "free market" at work.

It is your United States Constitution at work. The US government is constrained in it's role in elections. Start with Article 1 and work through amendments:

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years

I'm sure there are many hundreds of pounds of case law but my understanding is that the states set the time and manner of voting, with the stipulation that the rules must apply fairly to all legal voters.

Oh hell, I guess it is just another conspiracy to make the government look bad. /end sarcasm

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5431048.html

Quote:

E-voting: Can it be trusted?By Robert Lemos, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: October 28, 2004, 1:15 PM PT

Forward in EMAIL Format for PRINT ZDNet Tags: E-voting
When the Maryland State Board of Elections ordered more than 5,000 voting machines from Diebold Election Systems in 2002, the touch-screen computers came with assurances that they met federal voting standards.

Election officials quickly discovered that those assurances meant little. The machines had indeed been certified by a third-party testing lab, but the federal voting system standards to which the touch-screen computers were held hailed from 1990 and did not address many of the problems in the latest voting technology.

The issues in the certification system were further highlighted when Diebold's source code for a similar system leaked out, allowing security researchers to analyze the software. The verdict: The code had serious flaws.

For Maryland, the revelations resulted in an arduous six-month process that involved implementing 23 recommendations by security researchers. The issues also confirmed serious problems with federal standards that are intended to ensure the reliability of voting machines.

"I think everyone recognizes that there is room for improvement," said Linda Lamone, administrator of elections for the state of Maryland.

As U.S. voters prepare to head to the polls Tuesday, weak and outdated federal voting standards have emerged as a major cause of e-voting security concerns. Over the years, state election officials have approved purchases of thousands of e-voting machines, relying on their compliance with federal guidelines that fail to address critical problems.

Security and election experts say the latest revisions to the standards, adopted by the Federal Election Commission in April 2002, are an improvement. But they acknowledge that standards for touch-screen election technology, also known as direct recording electronic (DRE) systems, have a ways to go.

"I think it is going to be 10 years before these issues work their way out," said Paul DeGregorio, one of four commissioners at the newly formed Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which oversees the administration of federal election standards and recommendations. "Version 1.0 was not good enough; we'll have to wait for version 4.5 to get it right."

Some 30 percent of voters are registered in counties that plan to use DREs, according to Election Data Services, and computer security experts have raised doubts over how well the equipment will perform come Election Day.

"There are going to be tens of thousands of machines on Election Day that will be stressed as they never are in a lab," said Aviel Rubin, a professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University and a well-known critic of current electronic voting systems.

The lack of standards for DREs and other electronic voting systems has left the nearly 40 states that rely on federal voting guidelines to their own devices. Some states, such as Maryland and Georgia, have done significant additional testing and remediating of issues. Others, such as Nevada, have added additional measures, such as a paper receipt, known as a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT), as an additional check on the systems.

Maryland's Lamone stressed that the state has applied all recommended measures and continues to run tests to make sure that elections go off without a hitch. In the end, almost the entire state will vote on the systems this election.

Nevertheless, e-voting experts said millions of voters could potentially be exposed to inadequately tested equipment, particularly where election officials have taken federal compliance as the only litmus test for adopting systems.

Many groups equated certification with security. In February 2004, the League of Women Voters dismissed calls for more security in the form of a VVPAT, choosing to put its faith in "the certification and standards process." Five months later, the group reversed itself, backing "voting systems and procedures that are secure, accurate, recountable and accessible."

The faith in federal compliance testing is most dangerous in states--such as California, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia--that have adopted newer systems based on computer technology. Many of those states have rushed through additional testing in the past year.

Rubin, who co-authored the initial analysis of Diebold's source code, believes that voting-machine makers used federal certification essentially as a sales tool and, in many cases, state election officials relied on certification testing as a crutch for their own quality control.

"There was no kind of pressure to do this right," Rubin said. "People won't do something hard deliberately when that way costs more and there is no pressure."

Global responsibilities, local budgets
That viewpoint is voiced by some election officials as well. A great deal of the difficulties that the United States faces in elections stems from the fact that a process that has nationwide significance is largely regulated by the states.

County election officials typically only worry about holding well-run elections that are inexpensive and reflect the will of the people, said the EAC's DeGregorio, who served as an election administrator for Missouri's St. Louis County in the late 1980s and early 1990s. More global problems--such as machine design, audit trails and other technical issues--are generally left for another day or another person.

"I remember times when I was an election official trying to get counties to spend money to improve elections, and you had to beg them," DeGregorio said. "People are beginning to see how complicated it is to do an election."

Until 2002, with the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) by U.S. Congress, state election officials had never received federal funds to help them run elections, DeGregorio said. After Congress passed the election law, states had an incentive to spend the money--more than $2.3 billion--and spend they did.

"We have seen more changes in the past three years than in the past 100 years," DeGregorio said.

More than a quarter of the nation will likely be voting on new equipment bought between the election in 2000 and the coming 2004 presidential election. That pace is accelerating as well. By 2006, a major deadline for many of the federal requirements of HAVA--such as the ability of voters to review their ballot before voting--will require changes to machines or new systems for another 30 percent of U.S. voters.

Despite newly revised standards for voting systems--the Voting System Standards for 2002--the guidelines still lag behind the technology in the new systems.

Stumbling to standards
A key portion of the U.S. Constitution guarantees states the right to hold elections as they see fit and, while the federal government explicitly has the power to alter the election process, the power has historically not been used.

Machines have been used to count votes at the polls for more than 100 years. But the reliance on state governments to run their own elections allowed voting-machine makers to design their own systems with few requirements, except those set by the states.

Concerns about the systems are nothing new. Two reports written by the National Bureau of Standards, now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 1975 and 1982 highlighted many of the problems with computer systems used to tally votes.

It was not until 1990 that the first set of standards, based on the NIST reports, were issued by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). But those recommendations were merely guidelines and proved largely toothless for years, until states began to require voting-machine makers to adhere to them.

"The certification and testing of voting software has been historically weak because it has gone through a voluntary scheme created by a voluntary organization," said Roy Saltman, an election technology consultant and the former NIST computer scientist who penned the 1975 and 1982 reports.

With the passage of HAVA in 2002, the federal government took a role in certifying so-called Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs), which confirm that systems meet federal voting guidelines. NASED had previously taken on that role. In addition, the law created the EAC to advise state election officials and set standards for voting equipment.

Above article continued...

Quote:

Perception problems
One of the worst problems with the certification process, critics say, are disclosure rules. The three major testing labs--Wyle Laboratories, SysTest Labs and Ciber--currently do not offer any information about the voting machines that have been tested.

"Much like a lawyer, we have to keep our client information confidential," said Dan Reeder, a spokesman for Wyle Laboratories. "The companies that produce the machines are free to talk about the issues."

Moreover, voting-machine makers also beg off giving information about their systems, citing intellectual-property concerns. While a legitimate business concern, such posturing over technology of such public importance has garnered withering criticism from voting-technology experts.

Michael Shamos, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University and a voting technology examiner for more than two decades, called the process of granting ITA status "dysfunctional" and attacked the labs for not revealing test procedures and results.

"I find it grotesque that an organization charged with such a heavy responsibility feels no obligation to explain to anyone what it is doing," he said during a Congressional hearing in June on voting-machine certification and testing issues.

Shamos said the danger lies less in some group taking control of the election and more in machine failures and long lines at the polling stations. He warned the Congressional committee members that "a repeat of the Florida 2000 experience will have a paralytic effect on U.S. elections."

Election officials believe that HAVA will help make the ITAs more responsive to requests from the public and government for information regarding the certification of specific machines.

This week, four major makers of e-voting machines, including Diebold, agreed to reveal substantial portions of their source code to the EAC. Although individual states have made this a requirement, it's the first time the companies have agreed to cooperate with federal regulators.

Evolve or die
For the standards creators and voting-machine makers alike, the last two years of travails have led to better procedures for voting machines.

While Diebold was criticized for having no formal software development system in place, it has revamped its entire process, company spokesman David Bear said.

"We recognize that the technology changes day by day, and we also realize there is an evolution of the regulatory environment," he said.

Other machine makers have also said that the current public debate over voting systems has resulted in more rigorous development standards.

"I would agree that security is in its infancy," said Neil McClure, vice president of voting-machine maker Hart InterCivic. "Where that evolves will be partly determined by technology advances and partly by what decisions are made regarding the security of electronic voting data."

While critics have lambasted voting-machine makers for their products' software flaws, election experts remind them that the current crop of voting machines have many growing pains to endure.

"People make the assumption that the election equipment industry is a mature industry," said Merle King, associate professor of information systems for Kennesaw State University. "But most of these companies aren't used to dealing with issues at the national level."

While improved federal standards will be a positive result of the current debate, the heated criticism has left casualties in its wake, King said.

"We have, through our collective actions of questioning DREs, mandated that people in those battleground states will use technologies that aren't as reliable as DREs," King said. "The law of unintended consequence seems to be the only one that governs elections."

I saw an article recently that said a university group, maybe at Princeton, hacked a voting machine as a project and the kids were laughing at how easy it was.

Now I admit that I didn't verify this article's existence or accuracy, that is left to someone who actually gives a ****.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty (Post 1277942)

I don't give a ***** is Diebold is God's gift to democracy or a massive Republican conspiracy. It is up to the election methods of each state to determine the time and manner of voting. You got a beef? Go see your state reps. It is their job to get it right. If they fail, vote the bastards out or move to a state that conforms more appropriately to your expectation of fairness.

It's not rocket science, deal with it.

Bot

So how did the Republicans manage to get the electronic voting machines into the European Union too?

I'm thinking illuminati...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro (Post 1278107)

So how did the Republicans manage to get the electronic voting machines into the European Union too?

I'm thinking illuminati...

...and Vietnam. All we are saying, is give peace a chance. Bush lied and men died. It's the economy, stupid (oops, that slipped in accidentally).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1277949)

It is up to the election officials in local juridictions to buy federally certified electronic voting machines. Now we want to know who wrote the regulations for certification, who certified the machines and who paid them? The way government works today, diebold is probably the answer to all of the above questions.

It would be interesting to know how generous the Diebold salesmen are when they approach, lobby, payoff local election officials also. Did Diebold get corporate welfare? Are they using taxpayer's money to buy their way into the election process across the country?

If you don't think this kind of thing happens, read about the rolling blackouts in California.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty (Post 1278156)

the rolling black-out thingie is exactly why conspiracies on a massive scale are so darned difficult to believe. they are almost impossible to conceal. Like Ben Franklin said, "Three people can keep a secret only if two are dead." Or some such.

In my state our Commissioner of Elections (also an elected position, talk about opportunity for recursive corruption) was caught demanding kickbacks from voting machine companies. He is now in jail. This is evidence of corruption and it is also evidence that corruption, even in the arguably most politically corrupt state in the USA can be caught and serve hard time.

By the way, the voting machine companies are the ones who brought this to light by informing the US Attorney's office. Maybe they are part of an even more braniac conspiracy of some sort that involved undermining the political independence of the elected office. That was what the convicted felon tried to argue in his defense. It have been a really interesting conspiracy had it been proven in court. The jury rejected it and jailed the guy, Fowler, IIRC.

Maybe it was true and really evidence of an even deeper conspiracy. If it is possible and nobody is checking into it, then is probably true.

Bot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1278210)

I'm leaning more and more to there being truth to the statement that rampant conspiracy theorizing is in fact seditious and unpatriotic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1278210)

the rolling black-out thingie is exactly why conspiracies on a massive scale are so darned difficult to believe. they are almost impossible to conceal. Like Ben Franklin said, "Three people can keep a secret only if two are dead." Or some such.

In my state our Commissioner of Elections (also an elected position, talk about opportunity for recursive corruption) was caught demanding kickbacks from voting machine companies. He is now in jail. This is evidence of corruption and it is also evidence that corruption, even in the arguably most politically corrupt state in the USA can be caught and serve hard time.

By the way, the voting machine companies are the ones who brought this to light by informing the US Attorney's office. Maybe they are part of an even more braniac conspiracy of some sort that involved undermining the political independence of the elected office. That was what the convicted felon tried to argue in his defense. It have been a really interesting conspiracy had it been proven in court. The jury rejected it and jailed the guy, Fowler, IIRC.

Maybe it was true and really evidence of an even deeper conspiracy. If it is possible and nobody is checking into it, then is probably true.

Bot

This is totally wrong. Are you at all familiar with the way this whole thing was revealed? Even it after it was revealed it was swept under the carpet again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty (Post 1279820)

This is totally wrong. Are you at all familiar with the way this whole thing was revealed? Even it after it was revealed it was swept under the carpet again.

This is self-evident.

It was revealed. A revealed conspiracy is exactly evidence of why conspiracies are difficult to conceal. I have to explain this?

B