Skip to comments.E-Voting Bites
Posted on 10/23/2006 7:18:25 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent
What will happen in November? Are electronic voting machines secure? One need not believe in a vast plot to rig the elections to take those questions seriously and to be pessimistic about the answers.
When Princeton researchers announced in September that the Diebold Accuvote TS voting machine software was vulnerable to tampering, it was the first time that independent computer scientists had confirmed the weaknesses long suspected in techie circles. A few days later, in a minute-and-a-half segment on Fox News, Professor Edward Felten demonstrated just how easy it would be to steal an election (to which the blonde and tanned anchors responded with the canned surprise you'd expect from a demonstration of a new food processor).
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Mmmkay, they're already laying the groundwork for the "we were robbed!" wail.
And as if the Rats are not the king of stealing elections. They do know of what they speak!
Absolutely... they are going to claim foul... but it makes them look even more looney... so let them.
Anything from CBS news is automatically discounted as false until it shows up in ten other major news distributors, not including CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS, LAT, NYT or the Boston Globe.
They ought to use paper ballots and scanners. These machines
are bad if for no other reason than they are so controversial
and undermine confidence in elections where they are used.
Sure, lets go back to hanging and pregnant chads while we're at it
Because of constant media hype, and failure for MSM to really look at what a hoax the Princeton study was.
Tell the truth and the confidence comes back.
Why did SEEBS reference a professor as an expert on voting machine vulnerabilities? We know any sub-level DNC operative is a resident expert with a boatload of practical in the field experience at rigging free elections.
How about teams of psychologists to look at undervoted ballots to determine the intent of the voter? That almost worked.
Call the waaaaaaammmmmbulance!
Actually, it's not false. It's "fake, but accurate."
Check out the "expert" quoted in the article: he says something like (**whine**) "at least with hanging chads we knew what we didn't know."
Just like the Rats. Same reasoning as "well, we had *good intentions* . . ."
Golly, that was some kind of ride, I tell ya.
I used the punch cards for years. There is no problem with
hanging chads IF the voter looks at the ballot before they turn it in.
Genevieve Smith is an editorial intern at Harper's magazine.
Where I am, we have electronic voting machines that also print out everything that is chosen. (The voter can watch to check.) It seems like the best of both worlds - quick returns and a paper trail.
And I've used the mechanical push-lever machines here in New York State for years, and they didn't 'develop a problem' until Pataki and Giuliani and then Bloomberg were elected and then re-elected .... /shrug
Well, hell! All this time I've been worried about the 'Rats taking back Congress! Turns out I had nothing to fear-we're gonna STEAL it! How cool! I'll sleep SO much better tonight!
ANYTHING to keep the 'Rats outta power!
Went to vote this morning, and the machines were down. I don't worry about elections being stolen, just the normal problems with machines and computers. I don't understand why they cannot have a machine/computer voting system in which, when you indicate you are finished, it not only records your vote, it also gives you a slip of paper that you can check (like a reciept). Then, you could slip that into a ballot box, so that if they had to do a recount, they could use those little paper ballots.
Oh, darn, I thought I was having an original idea! Doh! ;)
They lied!!! I saw this segment!!! Diebold had on an engineer that had a machine and stated that the new firmware they use in the machines now, secures holes in previous software versions. They have created safety valves that open up if certain watermarks are not present in the firmware upload. Any attempt at tampering with the firmware will render the machine useless, but not before making a mirror file of the original votes logged.
Six Flags couldn't have come up with a more severe roller coaster ride, ehhh ?
it also gives you a slip of paper that you can check (like a reciept). Then, you could slip that into a ballot box, so that if they had to do a recount, they could use those little paper ballots.
They do except you can only view it through a window,
and is rolled up on a spool. All voting machines in california should have this now.
It sounds like a good option. Of course, I would like to go back to the old paper ballots, but I think that's because I'm getting old...
The level of security on the Diebold machines is shameful. There are thousands of keys to the machine in circulation (the security is slightly better than a suitcase lock, but not by much). Someone with a key to a machine and a suitably-formatted memory card can do whatever they want with the software in the machine. Their software can if desired alter votes and then erase any trace of itself.
Any machine used for voting should have all code and parameters stored on a medium that can be read out in its entirety without running any code thereon, and can be protected against alteration from before the time it's read by both parties before the election until after the time it's read by both parties after the election. One of many simple and fundamental security principles that Diebold completely failed to grasp (that a mini-bar key can open the machines is just the icing on the cake).
"And as if the Rats are not the king of stealing elections. They do know of what they speak!"
While that may be true. The premice of the article is also true. These machines are a bad idea.
How about get rid of the untraceable electronic crap and the confidence comes back?
Yeah, just like the new version of Windows is secure -- LOL.
How were they deceptive? I'll admit that at the time the report was written, they may have underplayed the fact that attacking the machine requires physically opening it. Given, however, that the machine can be opened with a mini-bar key, that doesn't seem like much of an omission by the researchers.
Certainly Diebold claims that the security holes are fixed, but from what I can tell they are not fixed in any way that would prevent someone with inside knowledge from hacking the machines in such a way as to fake vote totals and then remove all trace of the hack.
There are some simple principles that can and should be applied that would make an attack very difficult even by someone with full inside knowledge. So far as I can tell, Diebold has made no effort to make their machines secure against insider attacks. Why?
If it's rolled up on a spool, how do they prevent reconstruction of the order in which votes were cast?
I don't trust e-voting. Too easy to manipulate. Personally, I would much rather punch a paper ballot.
In the meantime, the states can simply inform their citizens that they must apply due diligence when punching holes in their ballots and any malformed ballots, if questioned, will be discarded. The hanging chad and butterfly ballot debacles were just evidence that some people don't need to be voting.
That nutter needs a straitjacket.
The Ohio Diebold machines have paper trail stored in them.
Yeah. We all know how much the Liberals trust those things, and how qualified they are to use them...
I don't care how much liberals trust or don't trust paper ballots. A 14 year old kid can't hack a paper election.
I love these old mechanical machines. They've worked, never a hint of scandal, easy to operate and count the votes simply and accurately.
I dread the new "improved" stuff we've got coming to us.
In a proper secret-ballot election, it's impossible for anyone to ever tell how a particular person voted unless the election was all but unanimous in a particular precinct (if there were 300 ballots cast in a precinct, 299 of them were for Joe Quimby, and one was for Lionel Hutz, the person who voted for Lionel Hutz would know that each of the other 299 ballots was cast by someone voting for Quimby).
If the ballots are stored, in order, on a paper roll there's no way a voter can be sure people won't discover how he voted. By contrast, if someone drops a card into a box which is large relative to the number of cards such that the card can fall randomly, then (especially if the box is turned over occasionally) it's impossible to associate any particular ballot with any particular voter.
I have never seen anyone wearing gloves to vote. Paper ballots are touched by each voter leaving fingers prints. My polling place is in a privately owned clubhouse where cameras would be easy to hide. Impossible is impossible. The best we can do is highly improbable. As for the Lionel Hutz, Quimby vote. Quimby would get Fat Tony to replace all the paper ballots with his own.
Yes...a 14 year old can hack a paper ballot.
The most secure computers around can be hacked if physical access to them is granted.
Paper ballots can be added to, altered, removed or destroyed if access to them is not strictly monitored. When someone can confirm on each and every singular base by base casis that ALL ballots are in custody of a VERIFIABLY trusted organization, then I will concede that paper is inherently safer.
The real problem is trust,, for decades the League of Women Voters in Miami-Dade stole elections for RATS by pre-punching ballots for the RAT candidates (using a drill press with a smooth punch ,, doing dozens of ballots at a time),, in 1992 they were caught by 2 Miami Herald reporters in the act who took some of the "spoiled" ballots to the Dade AG (Janet Reno) ,, Reno had the reporters arrested for stealing the election materials... it was then that Clinton saw her value and picked her up for his team.. Using the drill press for punching ballots lead to some off-center punches , and some incomplete punches ("pregnant") .. of course all ballots that had both a valid Bush punch and the manufactured Gore punch were automatically invalidated..
I don't like the electronic machines ,, they will always be susceptible to hacking ,, best to go with the punch card or scanner options.
Optical scan ballots have the lowest error rates, period. No punch-cards, simply mark the correct box. You can even make sure your ballot scans correctly before you drop it in the ballot box.
It's simple, accountable, and has a complete paper trail.