(U) Summary of Select Intelligence Reporting from 2004-2020 on Venezuela's Electronic Voting Manipulation Capabilities
(U) Summary WE Intelligence Community reporting from 2004-2020 documented persistent concerns about Venezuelan government manipulation of electronic voting systems and the potential national security implications for US election infrastructure. The intelligence established that Venezuelan government officials developed sustained interest and likely some capability in manipulating electronic voting systems, including Smartmatic technology, to influence electoral outcomes in Venezuela. The 2006 Intelligence Community assessment that Smartmatic's ties to Venezuela posed a national security threat was based on solid intelligence regarding Venezuelan government intent to influence US politics and evidence of Venezuelan manipulațion of their own electoral systems: This assessment led to US government action forcing Smartmatic to divest its US operations in 2007. ME reporting indicated that electronic voting systems contained vulnerabilities that could theoretically be exploited by sophisticated actors with insider access. However, while the intelligence validated significant concerns about foreign-linked voting technology vendors, it did not definitively confirm that large-scale electronic fraud was successfully executed in specific Venezuelan elections, with CIA's baseline assessments maintaining that other factors better explained electoral outcomes. The reporting on advanced techniques like we provided concerning insight into alleged Venezuelan government capabilities and intent, but came from limited sourcing.
{U) Scope Note: This summary focuses on what Intelligence Community reporting established regarding Venezuela's intent and capabilities to manipulate voting machines, both domestically and potentially in other countries. It is not a comprehensive re-assessment of all available intelligence on this topic, but rather a summary of key findings from select intelligence documents spanning 2004 to 2020.
(U) Venezuela Government Interest in Election Manipulation WE intelligence sources between 2004 and 2020 reported that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his successor Nicolas Maduro demonstrated sustained interest in manipulating electoral outcomes through electronic voting systems. In April 2004, intelligence reporting indicated Chavez stated his objective was to prevent the reelection of a sitting US president, suggesting intent to influence US domestic politics.? This finding was part of the basis for the Intelligence Community's 2006 assessment that Smartmatic's acquisition of US voting systems company Sequoia posed a "moderate threat" to US national security?
• Prior to Venezuela's 2012 presidential election, F We reported that Chavez's intelligence services, including the General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence (DGCIM) and the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN), worked with the National Electoral Council (CNE) and Smartmatic to develop plans to manipülate election results using preprogrammed voting machines. C reported that these plans called for deploying altered machines to approximately 300 voting centers in traditionally pro-Chavez areas to ensure. victory by approximately 1.5 million votes." Following the election, which Chavez won by. approximately 1.6 million votes, sources reported that Chavez congratulated his team for successfully implementing the manipulation plan.!
In September 2020, g reported that Venezuelan • had developed detailed technical plans to manipulate the December 2020 National Assembly elections using what were f * According to this reporting, the technique involved creating a second set of virtual machines that would replicate legitimate voting machine results, then substitute manipulated data while making votes appear to originate from legitimate machines.g
U) Technical Capabilities and Vulnerabilities CIA analysts assessed in 2006 that certain capabilities regarding electronic voting manipulation were technically possible and operationally feasible 57 Specificaliy, that voting machines in Venezuela had unspecified artificial intelligence components installed, were designed to alter vote tallies; could detect when they were being audited, and could provide printed receipts without registering, recording or transmitting those votes.® While CIA analysts judged these capabilities were theoretically achievable, this assessment focused on technical feasibility rather than confirmation that such features were actually implemented..
A 2013 CIA alternative analysis, produced using the "Devil's Advocacy" methodology, outlined a plausible scenario for how large-scale electronic manipulation could have occurred in Venezuela's 2012 election without detection. This analysis noted that Venezuela's electronic voting system was vulnerable to insider access, the centralized nature of the CNE's control over voting technology, and gaps in opposition monitoring capabilities. The report assessed that if such manipulation occurred, "elections in Venezuela and other countries that are clients of the technology provider could be in doubt." However, CIA's baseline assessment maintained that. no large-scale electronic fraud occurred in 2012, based on pre-election polling data, abserice of irregular voting patterns, and the opposition's concession. 10
• Intelligence reporting consistently indicated that individuals with ties to Venezuelan intelligence services had access to election technology and voting systems. In 2012, sources reported that Chavez assigned an army communicațions specialist to the CNE to provide real-time access to election results.1 Reporting from 2012 also indicated that the CNE Information Technology Director, described as a confidant of the head of military intelligence with expertise in voting technology, was responsible for designing protocols for auditing voting software, 1? These relationships provided potential pathways for manipulation of electronic voting systems.
Technique 4) The September 2020 intelligence reporting on 1l plans provided the most detailed description of a specific technical approach to election manipulation, technique was allegedly designed to:?
- Replicate digital hash files sent to the central vote counting database;
- I Mimic real voting machines that favored the ruling party;
- # Overwrite hash files of voting machines that favored the opposition;
- and Make altered votes appear to originate from legitimate voting machines.14
this technique would, in theory, allow the Venezuelan government to monitor and adjust resülts in real-time during and after the election. The reporting indicated that virtual machine technology would be employed to accomplish this manipulation while evading detection through standard audit procedures.15
(U) IC Assessments and Concerns mug The 2006 National Security Threat Assessment produced by the National Intelligence Council evaluated Smartmatic's acquisition of Sequoia Voting Systems as a "'moderate overall threat to US national security interests." This assessment was based on several factors:
intelligence indicating Chavez's intent to influence US domestic politics and public opinion;
# Reporting that the Venezuelan government manipulated Venezuelan national elections with Smartmatic's direct involvement;
intelligence that Smartmatic directors held credentials from Venezuelan intelligence services We Open source reporting of corrupt relationships between Smartmatic and Venezuelan government officials; and Smartmatic's and Sequoia's reported contracts in approximately 400 US counties at the time.
• The assessmen concluded that Smartmatic's susceptibility to Venezuelan government manipulation makes the acquisition a potențial instrument for Venezuelan officials seeking to undermine confidence in, or manipulate the electoral process in, the United States. This finding led to pressure from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that resulted in Smartmatic divesting its ownership of Sequoia in 2007.
a In March 2018, Smartmatic ceased operations in Venezuela after publicly accusing the Maduro regime of inflațing voter turnout by over one million votes in the August 2017 National Constituent Assembly electionfigures that diverged from data recorded by Smartmatic's voting machines. This represented a break between Smartmatic and the Venezuelan government after years of the company providing electoral technology to Venezuela. '
(U) Limitations and Analytic Caveats .. The intelligence reporting contains important limitations that must be considered when assessing what it establishes:
A First, the 2006 Intelligence Community assessment concluded that neither Smartmatic nor the Venezuelan Government had the capability-that is, the level of control or access required-to manipulate the outcome of an election outside of Venezuela in a predictable fashion. The Venezuelan Government's ability to manipulate the results of voting in Venezuela. rested in part on its ability to control every stage of the electronic voting process, from initial acquisition of the machines to pre-and postvoting machine security, to programming, to storage of paper voting receipts, to control of the audit process. Neither the Venezuelan Government nor Smartmatic would have such a complete spectrum of access during an electoral process outside Venezuela. 19
Second, CIA's baseline assessment regarding Venezuela's 2012 election maintained that large-scale electronic fraud did not occur, despite B reporting.of manipulation plans. This assessment was supported by pre-election polling showing Chavez ahead by approximately I0 percentage points, a 24% increase in government spending before the election, the opposition's concession of defeat, and CIA quantitative analysis showing no irregular voting patterns indicative of systematic manipulation. 20
Fourth, the September 2020 reporting.on g and judged the regime did not need to resort to gross fraud to win the December 2020 National Assembly elections, given that virtually the entire opposition. boycotted and the regime had already co-opted opposition party leadership. 22
a Third, the 2013 Devil's Advocacy Report that outlined a plausible fraud scenario was explicitly an alternative analysis. exercise rather than a definitive finding. The report acknowledged "conflicting we ... reporting" and "limited insight into key elements of the electronic voting system."2
Fourth, the September 2020 reporting.on g and judged the regime did not need to resort to gross fraud to win the December 2020 National Assembly elections, given that virtually the entire opposition. boycotted and the regime had already co-opted opposition party leadership. 22
(U) Resumen de informes de inteligencia selectos de 2004 a 2020 sobre las capacidades de manipulación del voto electrónico en Venezuela
(U) Resumen de informes de inteligencia selectos de 2004 a 2020 sobre las capacidades de manipulación del voto electrónico en Venezuela
(U) Resumen: Los informes de la Comunidad de Inteligencia de EE. UU. de 2004 a 2020 documentaron la persistente preocupación por la manipulación de los sistemas de voto electrónico por parte del gobierno venezolano y las posibles implicaciones para la seguridad nacional de la infraestructura electoral estadounidense. La inteligencia estableció que funcionarios del gobierno venezolano desarrollaron un interés sostenido y probablemente cierta capacidad para manipular los sistemas de voto electrónico, incluida la tecnología Smartmatic, con el fin de influir en los resultados electorales en Venezuela. La evaluación de la Comunidad de Inteligencia de 2006, que determinó que los vínculos de Smartmatic con Venezuela representaban una amenaza para la seguridad nacional, se basó en información de inteligencia sólida sobre la intención del gobierno venezolano de influir en la política estadounidense y en evidencia de manipulación venezolana de sus propios sistemas electorales. Esta evaluación llevó al gobierno estadounidense a tomar medidas que obligaron a Smartmatic a desinvertir en sus operaciones en EE. UU. en 2007. Los informes de ME indicaron que los sistemas de votación electrónica contenían vulnerabilidades que, en teoría, podrían ser explotadas por agentes sofisticados con acceso interno. Sin embargo, si bien la inteligencia validó importantes preocupaciones sobre proveedores de tecnología de votación vinculados al extranjero, no confirmó de manera definitiva que se hubiera ejecutado con éxito un fraude electrónico a gran escala en elecciones venezolanas específicas. Las evaluaciones iniciales de la CIA sostenían que otros factores explicaban mejor los resultados electorales. Los informes sobre técnicas avanzadas, como los que proporcionamos, ofrecieron información preocupante sobre las supuestas capacidades e intenciones del gobierno venezolano, pero provenían de fuentes limitadas.
{U) Nota de alcance: Este resumen se centra en lo que los informes de la Comunidad de Inteligencia establecieron con respecto a la intención y las capacidades de Venezuela para manipular las máquinas de votación, tanto a nivel nacional como potencialmente en otros países. No se trata de una reevaluación exhaustiva de toda la información disponible sobre este tema, sino más bien de un resumen de los hallazgos clave de documentos de inteligencia seleccionados que abarcan el período de 2004 a 2020.
(U) Interés del Gobierno de Venezuela en la manipulación electoral: Fuentes de inteligencia de EE. UU. informaron entre 2004 y 2020 que el presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez y su sucesor Nicolás Maduro demostraron un interés constante en manipular los resultados electorales mediante sistemas de votación electrónica. En abril de 2004, informes de inteligencia indicaron que Chávez declaró que su objetivo era impedir la reelección de un presidente estadounidense en ejercicio, lo que sugiere su intención de influir en la política interna de EE. UU. Este hallazgo sirvió de base para la evaluación de la Comunidad de Inteligencia de 2006, que determinó que la adquisición de la empresa estadounidense de sistemas de votación Sequoia por parte de Smartmatic representaba una "amenaza moderada" para la seguridad nacional de EE. UU. • Antes de las elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela de 2012, F We informó que los servicios de inteligencia de Chávez, incluyendo la Dirección General de Contrainteligencia Militar (DGCIM) y el Servicio Bolivariano de Inteligencia (SEBIN), trabajaron con el Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE) y Smartmatic para desarrollar planes para manipular los resultados electorales utilizando máquinas de votación preprogramadas. C informó que estos planes contemplaban el despliegue de máquinas alteradas en aproximadamente 300 centros de votación en áreas tradicionalmente pro-Chávez para garantizar. victoria por aproximadamente 1,5 millones de votos. Tras las elecciones, que Chávez ganó por aproximadamente 1,6 millones de votos, fuentes informaron que Chávez felicitó a su equipo por la exitosa implementación del plan de manipulación. En septiembre de 2020, se informó que Venezuela había desarrollado planes técnicos detallados para manipular las elecciones a la Asamblea Nacional de diciembre de 2020 utilizando lo que se describía como... Según este informe, la técnica consistía en crear un segundo conjunto de máquinas virtuales que replicarían los resultados de las máquinas de votación legítimas, para luego sustituir los datos manipulados y hacer que los votos parecieran provenir de máquinas legítimas.
U) Capacidades y vulnerabilidades técnicas. En 2006, analistas de la CIA evaluaron que ciertas capacidades relacionadas con la manipulación del voto electrónico eran técnicamente posibles y operativamente factibles. Específicamente, que las máquinas de votación en Venezuela tenían instalados componentes de inteligencia artificial no especificados, estaban diseñadas para alterar los recuentos de votos, podían detectar cuándo se auditaban y podían proporcionar recibos impresos sin registrar, grabar ni transmitir esos votos. Si bien los analistas de la CIA consideraron que estas capacidades eran teóricamente alcanzables, esta evaluación se centró en la viabilidad técnica. En lugar de confirmar que tales características se implementaron realmente... Un análisis alternativo de la CIA de 2013, elaborado mediante la metodología de "abogado del diablo", describió un escenario plausible sobre cómo pudo haber ocurrido una manipulación electrónica a gran escala en las elecciones venezolanas de 2012 sin ser detectada. Este análisis señaló que el sistema de votación electrónica de Venezuela...
El sistema era vulnerable al acceso interno, a la centralización del control del CNE sobre la tecnología de votación y a las deficiencias en la capacidad de monitoreo de la oposición. El informe evaluó que, de producirse tal manipulación, "las elecciones en Venezuela y otros países clientes del proveedor de tecnología podrían verse comprometidas". Sin embargo, la evaluación inicial de la CIA sostuvo que no se produjo fraude electrónico a gran escala en 2012, según los datos de las encuestas preelectorales, la ausencia de patrones de votación irregulares y la concesión de la oposición.
