Skip to comments.
E-Vote Software Leaked Online! (Second time)
Wired Magazine ^
| 05:00 PM Oct. 29, 2003 PT
| 05:00 PM Oct. 29, 2003 PT
Posted on 11/01/2003 11:13:17 AM PST by vannrox
Edited on 06/29/2004 7:10:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Software used by an electronic voting system manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems has been left unprotected on a publicly available server, raising concerns about the possibility of vote tampering in future elections.
The software, made available at ftp.jaguar.net, is stored on an FTP server owned by Jaguar Computer Systems, a firm that provides election support to a California county. The software is used for placing ballots on voting kiosks and for storing and tabulating results for the Sequoia AVC Edge touch-screen system.
(Excerpt) Read more at wired.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: code; computer; dnc; fraud; internet; power; rnc; vote; votefraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
1
posted on
11/01/2003 11:13:17 AM PST
by
vannrox
To: vannrox
has been left unprotected on a publicly available server
Just think if all companies did that. There would be no need to buy software.
2
posted on
11/01/2003 11:16:34 AM PST
by
rs79bm
(Insert Democratic principles and ideals here: ............this space intentionally left blank.....)
To: vannrox
This is a fully automated, electronic voting system. Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong
3
posted on
11/01/2003 11:20:11 AM PST
by
GladesGuru
(In a society predicated upon liberty, it is essential to examine principles - -)
To: vannrox
Voting machine code should be kept the most highly protected secret the nation has. It's the only way to assure that only official sources will be able to tamper with the electoral process.
4
posted on
11/01/2003 11:23:20 AM PST
by
templar
To: vannrox
Voting machine code should be kept the most highly protected secret the nation has. It's the only way to assure that only official sources will be able to tamper with the electoral process.
5
posted on
11/01/2003 11:23:34 AM PST
by
templar
To: templar
I wonder if a secret Gov't agency should be designing this stuff, instead of public companies. That is just begging for trouble.
6
posted on
11/01/2003 11:25:57 AM PST
by
rs79bm
(Insert Democratic principles and ideals here: .............this space intentionally left blank.....)
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: rs79bm
The compilers could also be hacked and change the source code.
9
posted on
11/01/2003 11:32:27 AM PST
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(CCCP = clinton, chiraq, chretien, and putin = stalin wannabes)
To: vannrox
VOTESCAM...algore wasn't suppose to lose--
10
posted on
11/01/2003 11:32:48 AM PST
by
Ff--150
(we have been fed with milk, not meat)
Good grief. Start with an insecure operating system connected to an insecure database engine.
Publicly posting the code was just icing the cake.
Do these guys even think about security?
11
posted on
11/01/2003 11:33:04 AM PST
by
D-fendr
To: vannrox
And all this time I thought the code was being written in India or China...
To: vannrox
There is absolutly nothing wrong with punch cards, butterfly ballots or anything similar, only with the people that use them. You do not even have to read English to vote anymore.
To: vannrox
sounds like a hanging chad to me..... don't worry, I know how you intended to vote, if you were appropriately informed.
14
posted on
11/01/2003 11:40:24 AM PST
by
pointsal
To: vannrox
Punch cards or other forms of paper ballots are a LOT more difficult to tamper with. You have to wonder why the Democrats have been so eager to trade in ballots for software.
Well, you don't have to wonder too much. Instead of poking a steel rod through the ballots by the Democrat's name or throwing inconvenient ballot boxes into the harbor, all you have to do is touch a few computer keys and, bingo, millions of votes flip from Republican to Democrat in one nanosecond.
15
posted on
11/01/2003 11:53:10 AM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: vannrox
This is telling. The last line of defense that the leftists have is the local elections. They have EVERY interest in establishing a recount proof system which they can control.
They are no longer a national party, next they will no longer be even a local political party.
To: templar
Voting machine code should be kept the most highly protected secret the nation has. It's the only way to assure that only official sources will be able to tamper with the electoral process. Nonsense. It should be fully public. If the system is well-designed, publicizing the code will not compromise security but will allow people to verify that the election is on the up-and-up. By contrast, if the code is a super-tightly-kept secret, then it becomes impossible for anyone to know whether the code that's being run is legitimate. Even if the source code is made available to auditors, unless they are given full compilable copies there's no way for autitors to confirm that the source code they inspect bears any relationship whatsoever to the code that's actually being used.
17
posted on
11/01/2003 12:21:01 PM PST
by
supercat
(Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
Comment #18 Removed by Moderator
To: supercat
By contrast, if the code is a super-tightly-kept secret, then it becomes impossible for anyone to know whether the code that's being run is legitimate.That's the point. And the purpose. What you wanna do, make people suspicious of the honesty of the elections? Next thing you know, the courts will end up having to decide what's a valid or invalid vote.
19
posted on
11/01/2003 12:25:42 PM PST
by
templar
To: Cicero
Punch cards or other forms of paper ballots are a LOT more difficult to tamper with. You have to wonder why the Democrats have been so eager to trade in ballots for software. What I would like to see would be a hybrid system using machine-readable optical ballots, a vote-entry terminal for disabled people which would produce a machine-readable optical ballot just like one that would be cast by a normal voter, and a ballot-counting system which tags each ballot and produces reports to make spot-checking ballots practical. Under such a system, a spot check of 100 ballots selected at random would be very likely to catch a 2% fraud/error rate; a check of 1,000 ballots would be sufficient to catch a 0.2% fraud/error rate. Note that that's 100 or 1,000 ballots selected at random for the entire area of the election. Very doable.
20
posted on
11/01/2003 12:27:44 PM PST
by
supercat
(Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson