Skip to comments."Researchers expose flaws in California voting machines"
Posted on 08/02/2007 3:45:59 AM PDT by lifelong_republican
"...the team was able to bypass security in every machine they tested..."
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
“ATM systems have all sorts of internal auditing, and they provide you with a paper record of your transaction that you can verify on the spot. If there is a discrepancy, you can immediately go into the bank and have it resolved. If your monthly statement shows transactions that you never made, you can get your bank to fix them. ATM systems also include cameras that can be used to identify criminals or to prove that a genuine customer was using the ATM. Banking systems are not anonymous, as elections are required to be. Also banks are insured for losses (and there are considerable losses at ATMs), while elections are not insured. Election systems are thus significantly more difficult to design and build than ATM systems.”
You’re absolutely right, of course.
I agree with you.
Paper ballots can be watched.
Counts can be observed and duplicated.
There’s a heck of a lot more to banking systems than ATM machines. ATMs aren’t even a fraction of the systems that process trillions of dollars a day.
You’re thinking of the Vote-Matic machines. They were fine, afaik. A bit bulky by todays’ standards!
My spidey-sense starts tingling when people start talking about a “verifiable paper trail.” As a concept that is OK, ut a fundamental tenet of democracy is a secret ballot, a concept that is lost on many today. A voting “receipt” is just a nice way of buying votes outright. That’s when democracy morphs into mob-rule, which is another matter.
Yet election electronics aren’t even
as good as ATMs.
Americans deserve real physical ballots
with observable and repeatable counts.
The receipt systems are totally flawed.
The paper needn’t match the ‘counts’.
“Yet election electronics arent even
as good as ATMs”
The electronics are fine, its the people and programming that may need improvement.
“Americans deserve real physical ballots
with observable and repeatable counts.”
Americans ‘deserve’ valid elections. Physical ballots are expensive, error prone (yes I’m from Florida) and easily forged.
The electronics aren’t suitable, according
to computer scientists and such as the GAO.
Properly ID’d voters can still have
their votes lost, switched, or faked
by the electronics.
“Anything that doesnt leave a paper audit trail is not acceptable, in my opinion.”
Most of the banking system does not have a paper trail. They do have extensive audit trails though.
“Additionally, when systems like these are compromised, they are compromised in a big way and its difficult to detect.”
As a computer security professional its not all that hard to secure these kinds of systems and detection isn’t all that hard either. I’m not disputing that the existing systems need improvement. I am disputing that electronic voting is any less secure than paper ballots.
“member the recent ruckus over the breaking of the DVD copy protection scheme?”
Apples and oranges. Copying a DVD is much different than hacking into a computer system.
“It was broken by a bunch of neophyte hackers with too much time on their hands.”
It was broken by a bunch of professionals using simple hacking methods. Most hacking methods are simple as they exploit known deficiencies.
Bring the machines up to industry standards and apply proper physical controls and they will be plenty secure.
“The test was initiated by Bowen to try to crack the voting system, hoping to reveal any holes or leaks. The team was given full access to the machines source codes and manuals, which some argue would be extremely difficult for the average hacker to get their hands on.
During the tests there were able to access the internal components of the machine by unscrewing screws. They were also able to load on malicious firmware which they could use to manipulate election results and access election management systems.”
From the article. With this kind of access I could hack ANY system thats ever been created. yes even an Apple. This study is a complete fraud designed to undermine popular support for electronic voting. It has no basis on reality.
Using this same standard for paper ballots I would be able to print my own ballots and stuff the ballot boxes.
The machines aren’t remotely up to industry standards,
so patriotic Americans should not use them.
The tests repeatedly show vulnerabilities to hacking,
and the machines aren’t, in practice, kept in even
remotely secure conditions.
They’re also extremely unreliable.
Do you know what a MTBF is?
There isn’t a proper design implemented, much less any component thereof.
The systems are costly, unreliable, vulnerable to being hacked, and inconvenient for voters.
The backups would merely reiterate
the faulty algorithms.
That’s part of the issue of no valid
recounts being possible on the electronics.