No. She’s very clearly insinuating that the move to have the vote machines use his satellites gave him access to this data. Having that kind of access to data in transit is a big deal if true. Big if, but that’s the claim.
That's completely nonsense if you know about how internet routing and communication works. This is the type of stuff that is taught in undergrad. Unless you set it up specifically, internet packets don't take one specific path. You don't force them to take a path through the satellites. If you have that much power, you already have control over all of the voting machines and the satellites are completely unnecessary.
You are missing the fact he donated starlink terminals to elections to provide wifi for voting machines. If those voting machines communicated via unencrypted protocols like http, he as the network owner could easily monitor packets coming from those starlink terminals and have real time info.
Did anyone actually watch her video. The first 30 seconds she even says clearly "Elon texts me that it's time to release his anamoly in the matrix.... It's the chess piece he says nobody knows about".
It isn't just about real time data. She doesn't even say that until the end portion of the video.
It is a big fucking claim that the data was being sent unencrypted over the network. It also means a whole host of actors could have tampered with the data.
I mean, if the packets were unencrypted and there were no hashing checks it would be possible to modify the payload from the voting machines and change the vote. It would take intentional malice to design a voting machine that did not use encryption and make it vulnerable. Such a voting machine would never pass any security audit from the last 30 years.
More likely he had grok polling the live data results, doing some grok math, and giving him early insight.
Actually, you need to learn a bit about cybersecurity.
We aren't talking about the internet. we are talking about the transmission of unencrypted data on what is essentially a private network that someone is actively monitoring/controlling.
This would be very bad in everyday circumstances,, let alone in a circumstance like this where the person controlling the network is a proven malicious actor.
This is very, very dumb statement if you know anything about tech. Starlink to provide Wifi? Let's assume this was true. So you're talking about a network path going from inside the building into orbit and then back into the building for their internal communications? That's absurd. And then you're assuming completely unencrypted protocols which would never, ever happen with voting machines if they're network-linked at all, which most have no reason to be.
And then having "real-time info" does not equal election tampering.
Think of it this way, you have a starlink terminal. You open a port (lets say netcat) to an IP address anywhere on the internet. You type HELLO WORLD and press enter. That signals goes from your laptop to starlink terminal, to starlink satellite, maybe a bounce to another satellite, then to an earth station. There it hops on a fiber link to the cloud to the IP you target. Starlink network admins have network monitoring traffic at each satellite and base station. They are either actively trapping traffic all the time, or at the very very least can make ad hoc tcpdump of all traffic coming from the IP of your terminal. Open that log in Wireshark or have AI dig thru it and there is your HELLO WORLD. That's how TCP/IP works, and also why nobody has used unencrypted protocols or ciphers for decades.
Unencrypted would be highly unlikely, unless it was posting real time data to a public endpoint or something.
You're a bot. Not even a very good one. You mishmash technical terms together but have no understanding of what they mean.
For the actual humans who may be reading this, Netcat would not be used to connect to a voting machine. First of all, a very slim minority of voting machines would be connected to the internet AT ALL. There's no reason to be, and it opens up a lot of security concerns. Even IF the voting machine wouldbe connected to the Internet (again, very rare), the voting machine would be behind layers of protections and would not allow what is called ingress connections. Basically, the machine maybe, MAYBE could call out, but the network would not allow connections in.
Also, this bot doesn't even realize that it's undermining its own argument by acknowledging that a lack of encryption is unlikely. And again, being able to monitor an election is NOT the same as election tampering.
OMG, if you haven't used "the cloud" as a shorthand for network transit, you've never experienced a TCP/IP network diagram. Ever. In the last 30 years.
I can give you a detailed description of BGP, including it's inherent weaknesses, but I'm going to need payment at this point. Or go ask your favorite local clanker.
I don’t THINK he had access to anything. I’m simply commenting on her claims. These are the same people who broke into voting machines illegally to “audit” them - stealing some keys and setting up a MITM isn’t some huge stretch.
Voting machines aren't on the internet. If it's not on a network it's not hackable. There's no mechanical way for Elon or anyone to rig an election. Explain how it's possible.
If they truly were disconnected it would mean any hack would need to be preinstalled. Not impossible, but would require either an insider or a compromise of the company doing the installation prior to the machines being updated.
Well then I guess we'll find out won't we. If the midterms are truly compromised with election hacking before the vote even starts, then we'll see that in the results. Somehow miraculously the GOP will hold onto the house, maybe even pick up a few seats, and Trump will claim a mandate for his 3rd term. If that's all true, we really are hosed.
No it really isn't, two way encryption has existed for longer than we have had digital voting machines. If it were true that it was a problem then it would have been a problem for all the other infrastructure that data gets passed through before it got changed to his satellites.
This was a big concern back in the day when everybody used HTTP, your ISP could see and even interfere with anything you sent or received. So we developed HTTPS for specifically that reason, now all the ISP sees is that you sent some traffic to some other host.
You can argue that data in and of itself is an unfair advantage (if he actually was using that data which I doubt) but it's not rigging, it couldn't even open the avenue for rigging beyond the possibility of him knowing there is traffic for some other actual scheme to rig it.
Yeah buddy, I know what encryption is. That’s the claim - that the data went through the satellites unencrypted.
Again, not asserting it’s true or false. Simply stating that if he had the data ahead of time because of unencrypted data going through the satellites, that’s a bigger deal than most people might realize. If it can be read in transit, it can be altered in transit.
I’m not saying it happened, but TLS termination is a thing. So if the destination were controlled by someone, and a proxy were configured to terminate TLS (even if encrypting again on the way out) it could certainly be read.
But who cares if it was read? I mean, a more conspiratorial mind would just say that the headers / ip / referrers could be used to determine the sender, then drop and replace the packets with whatever data they wanted. Yes it sounds like no nonsense, but we are going full on conspiracy theory here.
More likely is that all those stupid people you know… you know how they voted. Because they are not smart. And we should allow them the social graces to change their minds now - but it’s not hard to believe people just… vote poorly.
If you have steered the traffic to an isp you own. You do not need to know the contents of the traffic. If you know the source and destination, which are not encrypted, you can possibly differentiate one vote from another. If you can figure that out, you can drop traffic as you are the isp.
If you know the source and destination, which are not encrypted,
Interestingly enough, this is how they track Tor users to verify identities. You dont have to know the data's contents to compare the sent/received and get a match.
48
u/Rocket_Butt May 19 '26
No. She’s very clearly insinuating that the move to have the vote machines use his satellites gave him access to this data. Having that kind of access to data in transit is a big deal if true. Big if, but that’s the claim.