Skip to comments.Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine(tin foil hat alert)
Posted on 09/14/2006 5:21:23 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates.
(Excerpt) Read more at itpolicy.princeton.edu ...
But here we go again.
I'd bet that this was oversaw by Princton's resident Ward Churchill.
Zot by proxy?
Translation: Without paper ballots there can't be weeks of recounts and generation of necessary votes after the election.
So, how can we be assured that it hasn't been tampered with?
A paper ballot is the ONLY way to go.
From years ago: "This may be the biggest vote fraud scandal ever to rock the nation!" -- Mike Wallace of "60 Minutes" upon reviewing the Votescam evidence. However, after meeting with his higher-up's, Mr. Wallace dropped the issue like a vial of Anthrax.
From the Democrat party back room technicians who have been trying to figure out a way to beat it, and having failed now want it banned.
The corruption of the American voting system demands our urgent attention. The scam has come about through the devious introduction of electronic voting systems that leave no verifiable footprints or paper trail. This is clearly not an oversight or mistake, but an attempt to intentionally introduce equipment whose vote tallies can be altered without any possibility of detection. It is the perfect crime. We are all in the debt of Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.com for exposing this despicable conspiracy.
The cacophony of rhetoric over other more sensational issues in the public domain is often deafening. Yet the citizens' only power to resolve these other issues relies ultimately on the vote. Without the vote America is like a floundering, helpless ship at sea that has lost it's rudder. Without it every person in this country is individually and collectively at the complete mercy of whatever force is behind government, sinister or benevolent. We become slaves, not metaphorically, but actually.
So, if the dems win the seats in November we can all blame Diebold's faulty program and act like rats.
The problem with democrats is that they can't see what's coming down the pike if they win. Talk about burned bridges...
This stealing of the vote is not new. It is only an extension of a little known, sordid history of election rigging in the United States. This has all been kept from your eyes yet well documented in the widely banned book "Votescam: The Stealing of America" c.1996, ISBN: 0-9634163-0-8. The book is the result of a 25-year investigation written by two brave investigative journalists/brothers James & Kenneth Collier (now deceased). They present compelling evidence that various forms of wide spread election rigging have been going on for at least the last forty years, all with the complicity of most media. See: www.votescam.com
I can live with that, so long as they are uniform and there is no way to "lose" them or to "find" more after the voting.
Since that is near impossible, there has to be a set of checks and balances. For instance, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that results in districts with 105% turnout are obviously fraudulent and MUST be disregarded! Full ID required of every voter. Purple finger after voting. Double voting by "snowbirds" (absentee in NY/NJ, at the polls in FL) needs to carry jail time.
I am beginning to wonder if this is not something we should be concerned with. Since it is the lawyers party that has a history of vote fraud maybe we should stop and consider vulnerabilities. By, claiming that the machines are fraudulent they are creating for themselves a justificationf or doing what they would want to do any way (steadl eelctions).
I hear you. (Honest) voting is a joke as it is now.
It is truly unfortunate that trust does not exist in this arena, but it is a fact, and the only solution is to remove as much doubt as possible. PAPER IS NECESSARY to accomplish this goal. (Along with positive voter ID!)
I believe that the voting machine should count votes, but also produce a physical ballot, readable by machine and human, that the VOTER would be able to inspect, and either accept or reject it before it drops into the ballot box. The ballot should contain a "check digit" code to verify accuracy. Rejected ballots could be stamped "VOID" and routed to a waste bin instead of the ballot box.
An accepted ballot should cause the machine to generate a paper voting receipt - without any indication of the votes - that the voter would retain. The voting machine tally would be reported as UNOFFICIAL, or PRELIMINARY. The voting receipt MUST NOT carry any indication of the actual vote, to prevent vote buying and selling.
The ballot boxes with the completed ballots would then be transported under guard to a central site, opened, and ballots counted by machine. The machine-printed ballots should produce virtually NO errors, but hand counting would still be possible. Voter verification before the ballot goes into the box insures accuracy and confirms readability.
Conditional and provisional voting could be handled by assigning a random ID number to the prospective voter, and printing it on the ballot. Once the voter is determined to be eligible, the NUMBER ONLY would be transmitted to the counting facility and used to retrieve and tally the ballot. Revealing the number outside the system, or any attempt to associate a ballot back to a particular voter, would be a felony.
Electronic voting is easy to thwart. On top of that, it is easy to cover one's tracks by having the software delete itself.
As a computer programmer, I know how easy it is to write manipulative code. It is foolish to hide your head in the sand and think that electronic voting is fool-proof.
Why do I feel like the guy yelling, "Soilent Green is PEOPLE!"? The more I warn against it, the more those warnings go unheeded, and the more I look like the fringe kook.
The latest news is that you don't even have to pick the lock on this voting machine. The exact key that will open it is the same type that opens office furniture and minibars, and is freely and legally available from office supply stores. Basically, what this entire picture tells us is that the people who designed this voting machine have less security sense than the guy who used to put a $10 padlock on a paper ballot box.
Do you really want a product designed with such an extremely lax security attitude handling your vote?