Sometimes the Conspiracy Theorists Might Have Something of a Point: The Konnech Controversy

"District Attorney investigators found that in contradiction to the contract, information was stored on servers in the People's Republic of China."

[UPDATE Nov. 21, 2022: The D.A.'s office dropped the charges earlier in November.]

[FURTHER UPDATE Jan. 27, 2024: L.A. County has agreed to pay Yu and Konnech $5 million to settle a lawsuit arising out of the prosecution.]

[1.] From the N.Y. Times Monday:

At an invitation-only conference in August at a secret location southeast of Phoenix, a group of election deniers unspooled a new conspiracy theory about the 2020 presidential outcome.

Using threadbare evidence, or none at all, the group suggested that a small American election software company, Konnech, had secret ties to the Chinese Communist Party and had given the Chinese government backdoor access to personal data about two million poll workers in the United States, according to online accounts from several people at the conference.

In the ensuing weeks, the conspiracy theory grew as it shot around the internet. To believers, the claims showed how China had gained near complete control of America's elections. Some shared LinkedIn pages for Konnech employees who have Chinese backgrounds and sent threatening emails to the company and its chief executive, who was born in China….

Unlike other election technology companies targeted by election deniers, Konnech, a company based in Michigan with 21 employees in the United States and six in Australia, has nothing to do with collecting, counting or reporting ballots in American elections. Instead, it helps clients like Los Angeles County and Allen County, Ind., with basic election logistics, such as scheduling poll workers.

Konnech said none of the accusations were true. It said that all the data for its American customers were stored on servers in the United States and that it had no ties to the Chinese government….

[2.] From the L.A. County D.A. Tuesday:

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón announced today that an executive with a Michigan-based company responsible for the software used in managing Los Angeles County election poll workers has been arrested as part of an investigation into the possible theft of personal identifying information of those workers….

District Attorney investigators found that in contradiction to the contract, information was stored on servers in the People's Republic of China.

And more:

This investigation is concerned solely with the personal identifying information of election workers.  In this case, the alleged conduct had no impact on the tabulation of votes and did not alter election results. But security in all aspects of any election is essential so that we all have full faith in the integrity of the election process."

Earlier today, Konnech Corporation Chief Executive Officer Eugene Yu was taken into custody on suspicion of theft of personal identifying information by investigators from the District Attorney's Office Bureau of Investigation with assistance from the Meridian Township Police Department in Michigan. In addition, hard drives and other digital evidence were seized by LADA investigators.

The District Attorney's Office is seeking Yu's extradition to Los Angeles.

Konnech distributes and sells its proprietary PollChief software, which is an election worker management system that was utilized by the county in the last California election. The software assists with poll worker assignments, communications and payroll. PollChief requires that workers submit personal identifying information, which is retained by the Konnech.

Under its $2.9 million, five-year contract with the county, Konnech was supposed to securely maintain the data and that only United States citizens and permanent residents have access to it….

The East Lansing Police Department and Ingham County Sheriff's Office in Michigan also assisted in the investigation.

Now I don't want to excessively fault the Times or its reporter for the original story; it may have been the best interpretation of the evidence that they had at the time, and even if they erred in analyzing the evidence, everyone makes mistakes. I surely have.

Still, it's worth noting when such situations unfold, as a reminder to be a bit more skeptical all around, both of those who allege conspiracy and of those who deny it.

Also,

[3.] From the Complaint filed Sept. 12 in Konnech Inc. v. True the Vote Inc.:

All of Konnech's U.S. customer data is secured and stored exclusively on protected computers located within the United States….

On the strength of various of the unauthorized computer access allegations in that Complaint, Konnech got a temporary restraining order that day related to that access (including forbidding such access and barring the distribution of material gotten through such access); Konnech also has a defamation claim in its Complaint, but that wasn't the basis of the TRO. Query what effect the prosecution will have on Konnech's lawsuit; to be sure, even if Konnech's executive violated the law, this wouldn't justify unauthorized access by True the Vote to Konnech's computers (if such access indeed took place), but if it indeed misstated the facts in its Complaint, that surely won't look good for it.

If you want to see the parties' sides of the story, here's Konnech's (filed before the criminal charges were announced) and here's True the Vote's. There's also more, related to Konnech's attempt to hold True the Vote in contempt for allegedly violating the TRO; much of that is available here.

Comments

[Nige]

Or an example of how the proliferation of conspiracy theories and Big Lies serve to obscure and conceal actual conspiracies.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe in your world.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's one theory for why there are so many easily disproven conspiracy theories around: To deflect attention from the minority that happen to have some basis.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories.

This white, male, right-wing blog deserves what it gets.

[Nige]

You're saying the same thing I said, but you've turned it into an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. The easily disproven conspiracy theories are not the problem - most people accept that the election wasn't fixed because there was no evidence that it was. The unfalsifiable conspiracy theories are the ones that propagate and mutate and survive - the election was fixed and the evidence is everywhere and nowhere and will emerge at some undetermined future time - and the benefit of these is that the people caught up in them will cling to their belief no matter what. Qanon is a Republican voting bloc. You are a Republican voter. You just believe in different unfalsifiable conpiracy theories.

[Brett Bellmore]

We pretty much agree on the effect, just disagree about the motives of the people who generate them. I think they're mixed. Some are sincere idiots, some are scammers, and, yeah, I suspect that some are deliberate chaff. All three sorts exist.

The question is, in what proportions?

[Sarcastr0]

And the answer is something you've decided you know for pretty certain.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, yeah, I think most of them are scammers. That's what you meant, right?

[Sarcastr0]

How do you have any idea what all these strangers are motivated by?

[Toranth]

Perhaps he's using the same method you do to analyze the motives of all the people you've never met?

[Sarcastr0]

Nice tu quoque.
You have any examples for me, or just venting?

And you didn't answer my question.

[Toranth]

Not being Brett Bellmore, I can't answer your question to him. I do hope you noticed that.

Similarly, I've made no claims for or against your argument with Brett. I do not even know what it is you two are arguing about, precisely.

I do, however, know that it is laughable for you to be posting an argument against attributing motives to others without evidence. I mean, you did it just two posts earlier in this very subthread.

[JasonT20]

Or an example of how the proliferation of conspiracy theories and Big Lies serve to obscure and conceal actual conspiracies.

This is an important point. I would think that someone would have come up with moral story to teach people about the dangers of this kind of thing by now.

[Davy C]

Intentionally lying in a pleading is perjury, is it not? Seems like it's never prosecuted.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You are correct that it is extremely unusual for criminal charges to be brought for false statements made in civil litigation.

[F.D. Wolf]

No, it is not (except possibly for a sworn pleading like an affidavit). Imagine Paul sues Dan, claiming Dan broke into his house last week and assaulted him. Paul is intentionally lying. Dan can prove with 100% certainty this is false. He's been out of the country for a year. Not only is there no criminal liability, but Dan could not even sue Paul for defamation. This is known as "litigation privilege".

[Michael P]

Does litigation privilege extend to false claims of fact about the speaker, as might be the case in the Konnech complaint? Usually it is limited to defamatory claims.

[phoqueue]

Yes, it's typically that broad.

[Roger S]

Rule of thumb: If the NY Times says that something is a conspiracy theory, then it is probably true. And that the newspaper really wants to rebut it, but lacks the evidence to do it.

[great Unknown]

same category as "racism", "elitism", "white patriarchy". or, tracing this line of "journalism" back a few decades, "Jewish".

[David Welker]

This is a great illustration of my comment below.

X (here the NY Times) has low credibility.

So, if X says A, that is EVIDENCE of not A.

The conclusion that X has low credibility isn't that X isn't informative. Instead, the conclusion is that whatever X says, the opposite is actually true. In this view, X is a VERY important source of evidence.

[great Unknown]

The conclusion is derived otherwise: If the NYT had any contradictory information, or any logical means of refuting the claim, they would have presented it - with trumpets blaring, probably. The fact that their only rejoinder was "conspiracy theory" indicates that they actually couldn't disprove it, hence the claim was probably true.

Their low credibility is not the cause of this conclusion but rather a result.

[JasonT20]

X (here the NY Times) has low credibility.

So, if X says A, that is EVIDENCE of not A.

That is not how logic works, at all.

[David Welker]

JasonT20:

I agree completely. And that is exactly my point.

Those who conclude that the OPPOSITE of what a person they think has diminished credibility says is true, is actually giving undue weight to the person with diminished credibility.

Unless we believe the person is actively lying, when people have diminished credibility, it means that their statements aren't persuasive as evidence for anything one way or another, not persuasive evidence for the opposite of what they are saying.

[Brett Bellmore]

But G U gives a reasonable heuristic: If somebody with the resources to factually rebut a theory conspicuously denies it on a non-factual basis, it does shift the presumption towards it being true, to at least some extent. Doesn't make it certainly true, but it has to move the dial, because you know that if they could factually rebut it, the would have.

It's like when Snopes debunks some claim, and you notice that they're being oddly specific about what they're debunking, you reasonably suspect that there's some adjacent version of the claim that might be true.

But just suspect, it's hardly confirmation.

[David Nieporent]

And that the newspaper really wants to rebut it, but lacks the evidence to do it.

Yes, that's the conspiracy theory mindset: that one can make crazy claims, and it's up to everyone else to rebut them, rather than on the crazy claimer to support them.

[Michael P]

In this case, the New York Times was playing the role of crazy claimer.

[Sarcastr0]

What claim did it make that was crazy?

[Nige]

If the NYTmes reports one day that something is a conspiracy theory then the very next day reports that it turned out to be true, the NYTimes, though initially wrong, is showing that media that corrects itself rather than clings irrationally to a belief or assertion is better at its job than ones that don't.

[David Welker]

It is true that it is a good thing that they reported facts contrary to their original reporting.

But, on the other hand, the NY Times should not have made the error in the first place.

[Chili Dogg]

That’s a big IF. When has The New York Times ever corrected itself about an alleged “conspiracy theory” the next day? (Or on the front page?) Take the example of Hunter Biden’s laptop. They reported that all the intelligent people thought it was Russian disinformation, even though those people had no evidence. IOW, THEY were the ones promoting a conspiracy theory!! It fit the media narrative to defend Basement Biden before the election.

Remember how they acknowledged that it in fact was Hunter’s laptop: In the 24th paragraph of a long article about Hunter Biden, they slipped it into the last sentence. Did they ever correct their earlier false conspiracy theory about the laptop on the front page? I haven’t looked at The New York Times in ages, but I would bet my life on it that they have never done so. They are woke leftists now. They don’t care about the truth. (Remember when they fired an editor for the sin of publishing an editorial by Republican Senator Tom Cotton? As the Left is a cult, “sin” is the appropriate word.)

Whatever media outlet you are describing, if it exists, is certainly not the New York Times. Your hypothetical has little if any basis in reality. Do you actually believe the New York Times?

[great Unknown]

Something of a point? This one has more points than a porcupine.

[David Welker]

We also saw a similar pattern with respect to dismissing as a mere conspiracy theory the lab-leak theory for COVID-19. Even though that was a perfectly plausible and reasonable theory.

Ultimately, if people stick to understanding that their conclusions should be tentative based on the amount of evidence they have seen, they will not be too susceptible with respect to either accepting or rejecting theories.

For some reason, a lot of humans want to pretend like they know more than they do. For example "That conspiracy theory is wrong because X revealed it, but X said something else that was false. X has no credibility."

But that X has decreased credibility does not establish that something else (call it A) that X says is wrong. It only establishes that X's word should not be relied upon as an important source of evidence for A. But some people actually go completely backwards and take X's endorsement of A as evidence of not A. Which is actually a bizarre argument from authority (or you could say, reverse-authority).

[shawn_dude]

The boy cried wolf too many times.

[bacchys]

"We also saw a similar pattern with respect to dismissing as a mere conspiracy theory the lab-leak theory for COVID-19. Even though that was a perfectly plausible and reasonable theory."

There was and still is zero evidence supporting "lab leak."

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, except for the disease showing up right next to a lab researching similar viruses, and the famed Chinese competence at biosafety. I suppose if you found a puddle next to a hose, you'd consider it unreasonable to think the water came out of the hose, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, I know you know what evidence is, so come on.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I just related part of it. In fact, while the lab leak theory isn't proven, and given the amount of effort the Chinese put into destroying records, probably never can be, it was always a perfectly reasonable theory, which never deserved to be dismissed out of hand the way it was.

In all likelihood the CDC was hot to quash it because of the questionable research they themselves were funding at that lab; If it came from that lab, their own hands were dirty.

[Toranth]

Have you never heard the phrase "circumstantial evidence", O Commenter of a Legal Blog?

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't read bacchys comment for context, I take it.

[Toranth]

There is circumstantial evidence supporting the lab leak theory.
We'll almost certainly never have direct evidence, because if there was any, it would have been destroyed by now during the CCP's purge of potentially embarrassing data - like anything that would have gone against their claims that the disease came from outside China.

I DO hope you don't believe that, even though China has provided "evidence" for it?

[Lee Moore]

There was and still is zero evidence supporting “lab leak.”

It depends on what you mean by "evidence" of course. Brett has noted some circumstantial evidence and there's plenty more. Including documented lab leaks from other labs researching the virus after the outbreak.

But if you dismiss all that as "zero evidence" you have to say the same, in spades, about a natural origin. There really is zero evidence of a natural origin - merely the observation that it's possible. And in this case absence of evidence is - partial but real - evidence of absence, since virus outbreaks with a natural origin leave footprints of their passage from animals to humans. This one managed to do the Kung Fu rice paper walk.

So how we ended up with a natural origin being almost certain and lab leak being a cranky conspiracy theory is entirely down to politics, not evidence.

[Voize]

"Natural origin" versus "lab leak" is a false dichotomy. A disease can leak from a lab without having been created there as you seem to understand when you say "documented lab leaks from other labs researching the virus". Natural origin and lab leak can both be true.

[Lee Moore]

True.

My vocabulary lacks a snappy label to attach to a virus whose escape to the general public has precisely nothing to do with the activities of virus-researching humans, whether that be collection in caves, transport to the lab, storage in the lab (during which time it might mutate naturally), research in the lab, with or without attempts to transform it, and so on.

[Nige]

Yet another example of how the proliferation of conspiracy theories served to obscure the truth, which was already difficult to discern because it was an unfolding situation and our understanding of the virus and its effects was frequently updated and altered as our knowledge grew through study and experience.

[Chili Dogg]

Nige, to follow up your post, the fluid situation at the time makes it even less logical that the CDC immediately denied the lab leak theory and so vociferously attacked anyone who thought it might have merit or should at least be investigated.

[Lee Moore]

But some people actually go completely backwards and take X’s endorsement of A as evidence of not A. Which is actually a bizarre argument from authority (or you could say, reverse-authority).

It's an incorrect extension of a perfectly valid Bayesian inference. The absence of evidence is validly evidence when the absence is surprising. Thus Sherlock Holmes and the curious incident of the dog in the night.

An obvious example in politics would be the modern incarnation of the "October Surprise" - if in a tight race the NYT and WP fail to drop an October Surprise on a political candidate, then if it's a Democratic candidate then Bayes tells you nothing about whether there's something Octoberly Surprising about that candidate. Because whether there was or wasn't the NYT and WP wouldn't report it.

But if there's a Republican candidate and silence from the NYT and WP then while you can't infer that the Republican has no skeletons in his closet, you can infer at least that the NYT and WP don't know about any (and have probably expended a fair bit of effort looking for them.) Making such skeletons net-net less probable.

So silence can, in some circumstances, speak. But in this case the NYT plainly did zero work to investigate whether the claims were true or false - even though they obviously wanted them to be false - and so you can't infer anything about their truth or falsity from the NYT's article.

[NotAnExtremist]

I think part of the problem is that in today's political climate, many people are predisposed to reject any idea that sounds like a "conspiracy theory", at least as long as it comes from or favors their political opponents. People should to be more thoughtful about these things, but to do that they'd have to understand the difference between what they want to believe, what their friends and political allies believe, and what is actually true.

[bacchys]

'Still, it's worth noting when such situations unfold, as a reminder to be a bit more skeptical all around, both of those who allege conspiracy and of those who deny it."

Those alleging a conspiracy need to provide evidence of it. Even this isn't support for the election denier conspiracy which opens the post.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The conspiracy mongers had no idea what they were doing. As always, they had done no research. They simply were right like a broken clock is occasionally right.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

In the past few years, the conspiracy theorists have been right about two bazillion times.

[JasonT20]

Then they have been wrong two gazillion times.

[Toranth]

You know what research they did or didn't do? Are you part of the group?

If you want to talk about "conspiracy theories", how about the idea that they just happened to make random accusations about a small, otherwise unnotable, group and those accusations just happened to accurate match the same things the government was investigating, and just happened to reach the same conclusions and facts the government did?
Rather than concluding that either a) they did their own research, or b) they were getting leaks from the government investigators?

Which set of circumstances do you have the evidence to support, Cappy?

[Brett Bellmore]

That is an excellent point: Between the people who turned out to be right, and the people who turned out to be wrong, why assume it was the people who turned out to be right whose beliefs were baseless? Maybe they actually had good reason for thinking Konnech was storing data in China, and the NYT just had no interest in looking at it.

[Jimmy the Dane]

In a news room near you....

"How can these dumb right wingers think that the 2020 election was rigged???? What a bunch of suckers and sore losers!!!!!"

"There is absolutely no evidence that the elections had any fraudulent activity that would have effected the outcome!"

Turns around then to publish another story about Trump and Russia while multitasking on the latest virtue signaling "white supremacists are everywhere" story.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The guy hasn't been convicted yet. The problem is that the NYT's extensive network of sources didn't alert them of the pending arrest.

He could still be innocent as a lamb.

[Brett Bellmore]

He could be, yeah, though I'm not certain that's the smart bet, given that the Chinese government is VERY active in encouraging this sort of thing, and Yu was a Chinese emigre who likely still has family in China.

[Lee Moore]

What interests me is that the investigative intervention is by Mr Gascon. The basic dispute is between Konnech and True the Vote. Since True the Vote is, by definition, the bad guy; that makes Konnech the good guy. So why would Gascon turn nasty on them ?

Well, maybe to seize control of all the evidence. Just my little conspiracy theory 🙂

[David Welker]

What does that mean?