flaw

All Creatures Great and Small fans call out major flaw in Siegfried romance plot

All Creatures Great and Small fans were quick to share their thoughts on the first episode of the new Channel 5 series.

Beloved Channel 5 period drama All Creatures Great and Small has returned.

On Thursday (September 17), fans were thrilled when a brand new series kicked off as the residents of Darrowby were now settling into a post-war existence. The episode kicked off with James in London, as Channel 5 viewers got to see Helen’s (Rachel Shenton) sister Jenny (Imogen Clawson) as a nurse in the city.

However, when the couple returned to Darrowby, trouble arose as a new vet arrived in the village, which didn’t sit well with Siegfried (Samuel West), who accused him of trying to poach his clients from Skeldale House.

Fans also saw the return of Dorothy (Maimie McCoy), who made a comeback during the festive special last year and has since sparked a romance with Siegfried.

Although during the episode, it seems as though the pair are including Mrs Hall (Anna Madeley) on their dates, as they spoke about going to see a film at the cinema later that night.

Elsewhere, Helen and Mrs Hall spoke about her return as Helen mentioned her being back had ‘made a difference’. Mrs Hall agreed as she said: “In more ways than one.”

Despite Helen joking that it meant she was keeping Siegfried out of their hair, Mrs Hall remarked: “No, she’s exactly what he needs. I had a feeling she would be if he gave her another chance.

Helen replied: “He doesn’t know how lucky he is to have you, do you know that?” As it seemed as though she was suggesting there was more to their friendship than is said, Mrs Hall didn’t notice.

As Dorothy later suggested, the three of them saw another film, Mrs Hall told her she didn’t mind if they wanted to spend time just the two of them, as she told her: “I’d hate to feel like I was getting in the way.”

Her friend replied: “If anyone is getting in the way, it’s me. You’re working, and here I am getting under your feet.” Mrs Hall added: “If you were in my way, I’d tell you.”

Later on, Siegfried was frazzled over the new arrival as Dorothy assured him he had no reason to worry over it, although Mrs Hall didn’t seem too convinced as she stayed quiet on the matter.

The interactions between the three characters didn’t go unnoticed with viewers, as many were quick to comment on the episode as they noticed the only link between Siegfried and Dorothy is Mrs Hall.

On X, one person said: “Both Dorothy and Siegfried are basically dating Audrey because she is the only common interest they have. brilliant.” Someone else added, “Audrey is the glue between Siegfried and Dorothy. These two do not have much in common, which became obvious. D doesn’t know Siegfried needs truth, not flattery, and Siegfried doesn’t even want her opinion.”

Another person added: “Wait. Why is Dorothy so hesitant to spend time alone with Siegfried, without Audrey there as well? Are things not going well? ill-matched?” While someone agreed: “So the cracks are already visible? Just what my predictive analysis hinted at. We would see stuff already, but things are going south just yet.”

All Creatures Great and Small continues Thursdays on Channel 5 from 9pm

Source link

The secret ballot has been an article of faith in U.S. elections. That’s being tested in Georgia

Security researchers say rapid advances in artificial intelligence are making it more critical to address a flaw in Georgia’s voting equipment that can allow voters to be matched to their ballots after they have been cast.

The system’s vulnerability has been drawing increased attention, with election security advocates criticizing state election officials for failing to fix it before the November elections. Georgia election officials say they have taken steps to address the potential harm, but some advocates say the state is not going far enough.

The vulnerability does not allow votes to be changed or cast doubt on election results, but it could let someone see how others voted. That is important because ballot secrecy is a fundamental right under the state constitution, and violations could create an opening for legal challenges.

The development comes in an election season of uncertainty, as President Trump threatens to interfere with the midterms, and he has long demanded that states turn over voter rolls. Georgia has been a particular focus, as Trump continues to deny he lost the state in 2020 to Joe Biden. Earlier this year, the FBI seized ballots cast in that election from a Fulton County election hub.

While the flaw in Georgia has been known for a few years, the widespread adoption of AI tools and the blistering pace of its sophistication have election security experts raising alarms.

This is “a bit of a wake-up call because it illustrates how much more easily vulnerabilities can be exploited now that AI can do all of the technical work for you,” said J. Alex Halderman, a voting technology specialist at the University of Michigan who was part of the team that exposed the flaw.

Other jurisdictions across the country use the same voting equipment made by Liberty Vote, which was known as Dominion Voting Systems before the company was sold. But many have applied a software update to fix the flaw, and some other states do not allow the public release of records that are needed to exploit it, said Mark Lindeman, policy and strategy director at Verified Voting, a nonpartisan group focused on election technology.

Georgia, a presidential battleground with one of the nation’s most closely watched U.S. Senate races this year, is the only place where the system is used statewide. Lindeman said that, combined with an open records law that has allowed access to key documents, creates a “perfect storm.”

“It’s really embarrassing that this is still a possibility,” Lindeman said.

How does voting work in Georgia?

Georgia voters make their selections on touchscreen voting machines that print paper ballots voters insert into scanners to tally the votes.

Such cast-vote records detail the votes from each ballot. Those records and electronic ballot images created by the scanners are randomized. But the software flaw allows them to be put back in the order they were cast, according to a report by researchers who discovered it in 2022.

Along with other publicly available data, that information could be used to match voters to their ballots, the researchers wrote.

Max Springer, a Princeton University researcher who was not involved in the original research and studies AI, said he gave a publicly available AI assistant that research. He said it was able to reverse the shuffling of electronic ballot records from Georgia’s May primary and then tell him what other records it would need to match names to ballots.

He then gave the AI assistant the early voting list for the counties he examined and the cast-vote record file, which could be obtained through a public records request. It was able to create “buckets of ballots and potential voters,” he wrote in a blog post. In many instances, that made it possible to match voters to their ballots.

In cases where ambiguity remained, he wrote, he got the public audit log for the ballot scanners and precinct check-in records and was able to match most ballots to specific voters.

“AI coding tools are essentially supercharging laymen people to exploit vulnerabilities,” Springer said in an interview.

Why does ballot secrecy matter?

Georgia’s Constitution says elections “shall be by secret ballot,” and state law requires voting machines to “permit voting in absolute secrecy so that no person can see or know any other elector’s votes.”

A lack of ballot secrecy can make it easier to buy or sell votes and increase the danger of coercion to vote a certain way by family members, political organizations, employers or government officials. It also is information that could be invaluable to political campaigns.

Gabriel Sterling, special projects manager in the secretary of state’s office, pushed back on the concerns. He said it would be easier to use mail ballots if vote-buying or coercion was the goal and that it probably would be cheaper for campaigns to just increase outreach to voters who fit a certain profile than try to identify voters this way.

State Election Board member Salleigh Grubbs proposed a rule during the board’s August meeting that would have required the secretary of state’s office to apply the software update recommended by the manufacturer by Tuesday.

“Each [voter] has one vote, and no one is entitled to know how it was cast,” Grubbs said. “That privacy protects more than the individual voter. It protects the integrity of the entire election.”

In a letter to the election board, an agency lawyer argued that the update has not been certified by the secretary of state, the implementation would take months, and the Legislature has not provided necessary funding. The board rejected Grubbs’ proposal. Some members said they did not believe they had the authority to order the secretary of state to act and they raised concerns about the short timeline before the November midterms.

Board member Sara Tindall Ghazal, who voted against the proposal, said it is “intensely frustrating” that the software update has not been applied. But she pointed out that it is a felony to reveal how someone voted, which should serve as a deterrent.

“I hate the fact that it’s even physically possible, but there are very, very severe penalties if somebody were to actually do this,” she said.

What’s being done?

The secretary of state’s office sent guidance to county election officials instructing them to refer open records requests for certain records to the secretary of state’s office. It will release them with the problematic information blacked out and decline to release other information and documents.

Sterling said the office is working with a vendor to scramble the original order of ballot images and cast-vote records before they are made public. Halderman said that precaution would be necessary to keep someone from reconstructing the order.

While some other jurisdictions have applied the software update that reportedly fixes the problem, some have done what Georgia is now trying to do by restricting public access to the records needed to exploit the flaw.

Marilyn Marks is executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, which advocates for election transparency and security and raised the alarm about the vulnerability. She argued that withholding documents is not the solution and that steps need to be taken to ensure ballots cannot be traced to voters in the first place.

“When Georgia’s election records contain identifiers that can be used to trace ballots to voters, the only legal and acceptable answer is to stop recording that information — not restrict public access to sensitive unlawful information to insiders and commercial vendors,” she said.

With time growing short before the elections, Marks said a workable interim solution would be to collect ballots in locked boxes at precincts and then shuffle and scan them at a central tabulating center.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

California voters can fix a flaw in the state’s recall system

Is a hissy fit worth $200 million?

That was the tab in 2021, when California held a recall election less than a year before Gov. Gavin Newsom was set to face voters.

There was angst — the COVID-19 pandemic was raging. There was anger — the lifesaving restrictions imposed by Washington and Sacramento made daily living a chore and drove many small businesses to the brink. Others went clear over the edge.

There was also no small amount of political opportunism at play.

The recall gave Newsom’s critics, mainly on the right, a chance to try to chase the Democrat from an office that Republicans, under normal circumstances, stood little chance of winning.

In the end, the recall effort amounted to scarcely more than a partisan tantrum. The result — 61.9% voting no, 38.1% voting yes — matched the outcome of the 2018 gubernatorial race down to the decimal. All that money and effort wasted on an election in which voters said pretty much, yep, we meant what we said. Not too long after, they gave Newsom a second term.

The plebiscite, and its pointlessness, underscored the many flaws inherent in California’s recall system. In November, voters will get a chance to remedy at least one of them, eliminating the chance a candidate could take office with just marginal support from voters.

You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

Expert columnists cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know.

Trigger warning: What follows is a somewhat wonky explanation of election rules and procedures.

One choice, not two

Currently, a recall election is conducted in two parts. Voters are asked whether a lawmaker should be removed and, if so, who their replacement should be. If the incumbent is ousted, whoever gets the most votes takes their place, even if they fall well shy of attaining majority support. (Which is not out of the question in a large multi-candidate field; in 2003, 135 people were on the ballot, vying to replace Gov. Gray Davis.)

Among its provisions, Proposition 5 would amend the state Constitution so that voters would be asked a simple yes-or-no question: Do you wish to recall the incumbent? If so, the lieutenant governor would serve as governor for the rest of the ousted executive’s term — unless the recall occurred during the first two years a governor was in office and before the filing deadline for the next statewide election.

In that case, a special election would be held on the same date as the next primary and a candidate receiving a majority of votes would serve out the governor’s term. If no candidate received a majority, the top-two finishers would face each other in a November runoff, with the winner taking over as governor.

Still there?

Proposition 5 has two benefits. It would save taxpayer dollars by consolidating elections and it would enhance the legitimacy and political standing of a replacement governor by ensuring he or she assumed office with at least 50% support.

But there’s still more to be done.

Ending political promiscuity

California makes it way too easy to qualify a gubernatorial recall measure.

Of the 19 states that allow their governor to be booted, California is by far the most permissive. Forcing an election requires signatures reflecting just 12% of the ballots cast in the prior gubernatorial contest. In Newsom’s case, proponents needed just under 1.5 million signatures in a state with more than 22 million voters and nearly 40 million residents.

Not exactly a thundering roar.

The threshold should be higher and the reasons for kicking a governor out of office should be more serious, such as corruption, official malfeasance or conviction for a serious crime. Not just because a governor is a member of the opposite party, or people on the losing end of an election are unhappy with the result.

“The system in its current form offers bad actors an incentive to target an elected official with whom they disagree and to have the official replaced by someone who otherwise would not enjoy the support of a majority of voters,” Josh Newman of Fullerton and Isaac Bryan of Los Angeles said in advocating change. The two Democratic lawmakers authored the constitutional amendment, which was placed on November’s ballot by the Legislature.

If you think overhauling the process is simply about protecting partisan interests, consider: Should Republican Steve Hilton pull off an epic upset and become California’s next governor, is there any doubt a recall effort would be underway before he and Mrs. Hilton even had the chance to start boxing their belongings for the move to Sacramento?

The recall is a vestige of the Progressive-era good-government movement. But the process needs to be revamped to reflect today’s bad-faith political environment.

The Little Hoover Commission, California’s independent oversight agency, has recommended several changes, including raising the signature requirement and prohibiting recalls undertaken during the first 90 days and the last six months of an officeholder’s term.

Elections, it’s said, have consequences. They also have — or should have — end dates and final results that are respected, not re-litigated until the losing side gets its way.

Proposition 5 is a step in the right direction. More should follow.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Trump’s economic record is working against him in the midterms
The deep dive: Backlash over data centers hits California, and the midterms
The L.A. Times Special:Integrity on the ballot: Election deniers target secretary of state races in key states

Until next time,
mzb

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Source link

Channel 4 The Jury viewers fuming as they spot huge flaw in new series ‘ridiculous’

A brand new series of Channel 4’s The Jury started this week

The Jury viewers were left slamming the show after pointing out a major problem.

The Channel 4 programme returned for a new episode on Wednesday (September 2) following a group of ordinary people in a specially constructed jury room in a recreated murder trial.

This time, the jury is considering the case of two brothers who are accused of killing their stepfather. The brothers admit stabbing the man more than 69 times while he was asleep, with the jury having to decide whether the killing was an act of desperation or a calculated murder.

In the latest instalment, 14-year-old defendant Daniel took the stand and described the abusive home he grew up in. Meanwhile, CCTV and other evidence challenged key parts of the boys’ evidence, unsettling even the sympathetic jurors.

However, fans watching at home were left feeling disgruntled by one aspect of the show. They slammed how the jurors were able to break and talk about the case throughout the trial.

In real life though, jurors are not allowed to discuss the case this early in proceedings and can only share their thoughts once all the evidence has been presented from both prosecution and defence.

“I get that it’s a simulation but in my experience juries do not discuss the trial until the deliberation,” said one person on X. Someone else added: “This programme is utter rubbish!! It’s meant to be realistic, but you are not meant to discuss the case until the end.

“Certainly no talking while in court and the judge would have been right on to the juror talking.” A third chimed in: “Quite. It’s ridiculous and so annoying and I just can’t watch it.”

It comes after The Jury viewers were surprised to see such strong opinions emerging early on during the first episode this week. One viewer wrote on X: “Not seen any evidence yet and they already arguing #TheJuryC4.”

Another said: “Making up your mind before you’ve heard even a lick of evidence is insane but go off I guess.” A third questioned the make-up of the jury, asking: “Do they actually have level-headed people on the series this time? #TheJury.”

However, not everyone watching was critical of the programme. One viewer praised the return, writing: “I’m watching, it’s one of the best programmes on TV and with all the debate over jury trials, a fitting watch. #TheJury.”

The Jury airs at 9pm on Channel 4.

Source link