Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Voting: Your Worst Nightmares are True
jfreon writes "On Democracy Now Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting fame, disclosed (near the end of the transcript) that in the compromised 1.8Gigs off Diebold's FTP site they uncovered "an actual election file containing actual votes on election day from San Luis Obispo County, California". Problem is, the date stamp was 3:31pm - during voting hours! The Diebold system uses a wireless network card. Worse: "So that means if they can pull the information in, they can also send information back into those machines. ""
I know this will get modded troll, but the stupidity of the general public is the biggest problem. I mean, people in FL couldn't figure out the chad ballot system... How in the world do we expect them to figure out an electronic system? Security IMHO is really a close number two problem compared to this.
How about some protections for democracy back home first? This is utterly unacceptable.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
We're supposed to have elections that are free and fair. Without a paper trail or other permanent and immutable (practically, at least) record of individual votes cast, how can any election be verified as either free or fair?
--- Submission is feudal.
The general public and opponents of electronic voting will use this as "proof" that e-voting can never be stable and reliable. I fear that any blunders we have now may severely cripple public perception to the point that the masses won't WANT to e-vote, despite the ease and efficiancy such a system could provide. I also fear that we won't be able to EVER make an unhackable e-voting system - humans are falable creatures, and with something so obvious a target, there will always be attacks launched against it to expose the inevitable weaknesses, with resulting bad press.
...then again, maybe the public will get used to crackable e-votes. I mean, what, 95% of them run Windows unpatched, right?
Every technological setback may end up as another knife in e-voting's back.
The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.
Maybe fewer people will be able to form their opinions on freely available information that way. That's what you neocon/conservatives would like, after all. Just like Britney Spears says:
Don't question the authority. That's the way to go.
BOO! TERRO
That makes no sense.
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
Think about this and answer honestly: If the same guy were a vocal supporter of a politician who you support, would you be convinced he was going to cheat? Or would you see it rationally- the man has opinions, just like every other person in the world?
Username taken, please choose another one.
Unless an electronic voting method can be proven (in the mathematical sense) to be accurate and secure, we probably are much safer from fraud using pencil and paper in a highly distributed voting scheme.
Perhaps a few precincts can be corrupted with paper voting, but the whole nation can be corrupted with electronic voting. What moron puts a wireless adapter on a voting machine, anyway?
Voting is a fundamental exercise in any democratic system. I think being very cautious and conservative is justified, here. Chasing electronic voting for its own sake is simply foolish. It almost seems the push for electronic voting is due only to hungry contractors trying to make a dime for themselves. The 2000 Florida vote is merely a red herring in all this.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
the general public won't notice.
If someone were to tamper with the things, they wouldn't make it a Saddam-ish, 100% of the vote.
Then again they might get Micheal Bolton to mess up the decimal point.
That is an interesting comment.
Why would it be "bitter liberal types" who should be worried about voting machines that cannot be audited?
Why shouldn't right wingers also be concerned about voting machines that give you no way to verify who voted for what?
Why is it a "liberal" issues? And why do the right wingers instinctively want these machines?
Curiouser and curiouser!
Electronic voting systems were flaunted as a way to avoid these problems.
Unfortunately, electronic systems cannot fix these problems because they all stem from the stupidity of some Americans. If they are so stupid as to be unable to follow simple instructions on completing a paper ballot, then their opinion on the "best candidate" is likely to be irrelevant. They are unlikely to be able to pick the "best candidate".
Further, these ignorant Americans will be unlikely to follow the simple instructions for completing an electronic ballot as well. The electronic system might prevent them from selecting multiple political candidates, but they will still, somehow, end up in being unable to select the candidate that they want.
we will succeed in realizing His will and our place in it.
1) God's will should be fundamentally irrelevant in the U.S. government (First Amendment).
2) The USA isn't "better" than other countries from a humanistic standpoint. There isn't anything super-special about the US that God would put it up on a pedestal over anyone else.
People who try to inject God's will into the US government are most often arrogant, naive, and ignorant Christians who think their rules are superior to any others (again violating the First Amendment).
The US is a country ruled by the People, all inclusive, regardless of faith.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
..next thing you'll know, we'll get an actor elected as president.
Those were the good ol' days, kid. Small government, wars that ended, and a Commander-in-Chief who kept his trousers on while working.
Come to think of it, the music was a lot better back then too, wasn't it?
I think the point is that it would be very easy to prevent any communication to or from the voting machine during voting hours, but that while, as you say, it would be possible to ensure that only outgoing communication can happen, it's relatively difficult to ensure and prove that the outgoing communication doesn't allow any incoming communication. Bear in mind that TCP/IP, for example, is inherently two-way; it's impossible to send packets unless you can receive ACK/NAK messages back.
Point is paper is a PITA. However, it is substantially more difficult to compromise a physical ballet than electronic data.
A paper trail is comparatively expensive, but worth its enduring characteristics in recording a vote.
Not that any of the major candidates would vote differently on DMCA et al as long as they get their campaign contributions.
The people who built the machine are the same ones running the data stream. They've got ROOT. Having any data access in the middle of the election means that Diebold could write back too, and that simply shouldn't be possible with a well-designed voting system.
Definitely. Now, how do we accomplish that? I don't have contacts with the press. I've got contacts on at least one dem campaign team (surprisingly, not Dean!), even contacts in the defense industry, but the press? Nothing. Who does? How do we get this in front of them?
--Somebody infect me with a
But Oracle DOES say to make backups....
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Actually, this is one of the times I'd be LEAST likely to suspect election fraud. You seem to forget that any election more attention-getting than local school board is going to be continuously monitored by opinion polling.
If, as you suggest, the landslide was fraudulent, then the election results would have no relation to either the pre-election polls or the exit polling. This would attract an awful lot of attention in the media, and I believe that any fraud on the scale that you suggest would at least be openly accused.
The only place, in my mind, that election fraud would be useful beyond the threat of detection would be in extremely close races -- those that no one has any idea who will win. In those cases, than altering the votes by 1% would still be within the margin of error on even the exit polling, and so wouldn't be immediately suspicious.
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
Yeah George Bush is a big leftist commie. *rolling eyes*
Ironically, the "neo-conservative" tradition he and his cabinet (except Colin Powel) espouse, was, in fact, founded by a former Trotskyite and Communist. See the History of Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol. So, we are in fact led by those who espouse an ideology closely crafted and derived by former Communists and Communist ideology. Former Communists running the GOP - go figure! --M
Speed in counting? Who needs it? It's not like the offcials take office the day after the election anyway -- hell, the President has to wait two and a half frickin' months. Why the rush to have an instantly-countable system?
Furthermore, in many other large-ish countries (such as France, the UK and Germany), voting is still done by making a big honkin' X on a circle next to the name of the guy you want. And no, it's not a bubble form that has to be filled in just right -- just make your damn X as sloppy as you please. No hanging chads, no network to hack, no problems reading it. And they still have the results in by the morning in time for the early papers.
So why have electronic voting again?
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
You should do this in Java, not Python. Why? Java has a solid security implementation, it's able to recognizing signed binaries, and it's backed by Sun and IBM among others. Nothing against Python but those 3 points are pretty damned hard to refute in an implementation that's all about trust. A runtime compiled based solution that cannot be signed will simple not be considered this type of application. That said, it's your project, this is a suggestion, mod it into oblivion or do whatever you want with it.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
about your bank funds? Diebold makes ATM machines, for companies like mine and Reynolds and Reynolds, and is a major player in banking institutions. Their secrecy is the same there.
How do you trust them with your money but not your votes?
Damn those evil Republicans!
But seriously, all politicians are evil, and substantial campaign contributions (especially from companies or special interest groups) should be illegal. Dammit!
Sure, say what you want, but I can't believe you really think the manufactures of our voting systems should fall within the same rules as normal companies.
We have special restrictions for all sorts of vendors to the US Gov. For instance most military contractors need to certify that none of their employees are non-citizens.
Saying that voting machine manufacturers should be as impartial as possible is hardly a radical idea.
This page on Diebold's website mentions that "Election results are securely stored utilizing world-class encryption techniques." As far as I can see, that's all they tell you about their encryption. Does that mean it has the same 128-bit encryption as, say, Mozilla? (Which, I suppose, is still pretty darn secure, but probably not "world class.") Is the "world class" bit is just marketing hype? Diebold doesn't say anything, which makes me a little nervous.
And what about their wireless security? You can store votes in a steel box protected by voracious bears, but if they (the votes, not the bears) aren't protected on the way to wherever it is that they count them up, it doesn't make much of a difference. (I'm assuming here that that is what the wireless networking is used for). Is Diebold using WEP, which can be broken in a couple of hours? Unless Diebold has adopted WPA early (which, given their track record on security, I kinda doubt), some schmuck could sit in his car outside the polling place and run a wireless packet sniffer on whatever traffic is being sent.
The way that Diebold seems to be hiding information on its machines' security is disturbing - you'd think that if they had solid software they'd talk a little about it to impress potential customers, rather than just making vague blanket statements. Given everything that's happened, though, that's apparently is not the case.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
You don't want someone to take the last section as I have and conclude 'scare mongering rubbish'
this is really frightening, and must be stopped PRONTO. The computer may be useful for helping people to fill-out/print the ballot, and for rapid counting. But, as has been said a thousand times already, there must be a paper trail.
Better yet, I think the bureau of printing and engraving should make some fancy counterfeit-resistant ballots, each printed/embedded with a unique serial number in a place where everyone can keep an eye on the process.
After the election, any unused/mismarked ballots must be accounted for. The ballots should have a matching stub with the unique number and what they voted for that the they can take home with them and may at any time go to the county clerk's office to verify that their ballot is still recorded as having said what they thought they said.
now let's talk conspiracy theories
I would disagree and say it is fairly radical. First of all, you are saying lets judge someone for what they think, not what they do. Beyond that, you are saying lets judge them for political thought/speech. (Giving money to compaigns is considered a free speech issue currently by the courts.)
You are telling these companies (and by companies, you of course mean the employees of these companies) that they have no right to political discourse in the United States if they are in this industry.
I can see the interview for a job in this new market segment.
Wait, I got a great idea, all companies should be forced to be politically "diverse" -- we should force companies to hire people based on thier political beliefs... Also, while we are at it, companies should also be religously "diverse" as well... screw standards, screw who does the best work, as long as you get a high enough "diversity" rating, maybe the government will give you corporate wellfare!
*sigh* -- I don't like these stupid, un-secure, un-open, non-standard voting machines anymore than the next guy, but when the political party of the company owner/employees starts to be picked at as the primary way to attack it, I start to worry deeply about political freedom in the United States.
Pass a law that states all voting systems must be open-source and reviewed by at least 5 state colleges or some such, and you will get a decent system (or you will at least know that you can't get one) -- but attacking the political beliefs of the owner/employees of a company is pathetic and sad.
Attack Christians. Check.
Now that is terrifying, that Anonymous Cowards equate "The US is a country ruled by the People, all inclusive, regardless of faith" with an attack on America's history and destiny, and belive that the statement "God's will should be fundamentally irrelevant in the U.S. government" is attacking christians.
You need to listen to less talk radio, and try greek mythology instead, you'll find that it does a much better job satisfying your bloodlust and explaining away those scary ideas.
This actually shouldn't be that surprising, for a few reasons.
The first is that both movements are extreme, and many times extremists will move from one extreme to the other. Sam Kinison and David Horowitz are two examples of this phemomenon. Think about how many hard partier types suddeny "See God" and become exterme evangelicals.
Also, both movements share a proclivity for authoritarianism. Both have a "We're right, you're wrong so just shut up" attitude. Both have a tendency to ignore inconvenient facts (e.g. global warming, Lysenko Genetics). So it seems natural for people who want to assert authority one way to smoothly transition to another, with only the change of a few core beliefs.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
It's more simple than that. It's called "conflict of interests". The CEO and his company should be making an IMPARTIAL voting system (I'm sure that was mentioned in the brief, even if they did giggle when they all read it). It's hard for it to be impartial when the CEO and most of the board are heavy republican donators. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter if the CEO of a milk company is a great friend of Bush's, he can't affect bush's political career through underhanded professional action. That is not the case with Diebold. Not at all.
You seem to think I am advocating a system where the employees are forbiden from giving money to political organizations.
That's not what I am talking about. I am advocating a system that refuses to do business with partisin companies. The owners and officers of said organization should be forbidden from making political contributions.
You may not like it, but the truth is that is plain unethical for them to behave this way, closed source or otherwise.
Defense contractors screen their employees all the time, because security is important there. Is the security of our elections any less important?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
So conservativism (limited government) is equated with communism(totalitarian government). I guess the gubment education is paying off eh?
Do you see this administration engaging in limited government, or espousing freedom in any way, shape or form? I certainly don't. How much larger has the budget grown under under these GOP controlled executive and congressional branches of government? How many more laws and repressions of basic constitutional freedom and civil liberties has this GOP instituted? How limited has their role been in "Nation Building", that term so Bush disdainfully spouted to tar Clinton's policies in the Balkans and Africa, and yet exactly the same has he done (poorly) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You call that "conservative"??? I call them "authoritarian", but certainly not "conservative".
Better check your political compass, buddy.
Cheers,
Maynard
Most of the websites and statistics regarding felon "disenfrachnisement" come from drug and prisoner advocacy groups, like the sentencing project... this makes their statistics suspect from the start. Many of these groups use these statistics to make voting for felons a "racist" issue. Also, some of them consider it "disenfranchisement" if a state does not automatically restore your civil rights after your sentence is served. Personally, I see no problem with making a felon fill out a form to get his voting rights back.
Further, some of the states they cite as "permanently" disenfranchising felons DO have procedures in place to restore civil rights... Florida (where I live) is a good example. Florida is often cited as one of the 10 (some sources cite 14 states) that permanently keep felons from voting... NOT TRUE. Check out this press release from the ACLU
Some states give voting rights back automatically... some have a few hoops you must jump through. Either way, committing a felony costs you. Now, I'm not aware of a single state that does not have procedures in place for restoration of civil rights. If someone wants to correct me, please do so.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Attacking an obviously shoddy and insecure proprietary product produced by someone who has stated they wish to see a particular party in power is seems to be directly relevant and an important part of making sure we don't get fixed elections.
However, the fact that the company is run by republicans isn't relevant. Both parties are corrupt. They're both bought, there are conflicts of interest with both, etc. Bush and Haliburton, the Clinton's and their scandal, etc. I wouldn't trust either of them and until people realize that they're simply two sides of a plutocracy we're going to be screwed.
To use these machines from an obviously biased company is tantamount to election fraud. Saying otherwise, pretending that everyone looks past their personal preferences to provide a fair playing field, is just ridiculous and goes against all of recorded history. The *only* way we'll get a fair result is if people who hate each other watch every step of this together, both watching for the other to screw up, and both afraid to cheat for fear of being watched.
It's not a question of if this particular company is crooked. That's a given. The question is how to keep everyone honest.
Well, that's very simple actually. The group of potential leaders you have to chose from in an election are NOT just a random sampling from the population. The choices are almost exclusively, well-educated, reasonably intelligent individuals.
If you look into US history, you will find many many times that a political leader has made a very unpopular decision, that, in retrospect, was the right decision to make. And those aren't rare exceptions, they are regular occurances.
Well, the constitution, through the courts, provide only a bare minium of protection.
No longer would you ever see anything like "Equal Rights" laws being enacted. You would probably also see lots of programs like Welfare end, simply because it has a bad reputation among the majority of the people.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Think about this and answer honestly: If the same guy were a vocal supporter of a politician who you support, would you be convinced he was going to cheat? Or would you see it rationally- the man has opinions, just like every other person in the world?
Indeed; just look at Michael Moore. He's made a lot of noise about the man he calls "Governor Bush", but the problem is, it's very obvious that it's not the democratic process that he's worried about, but rather that his own side lost. Can you even imagine Michael Moore ranting about "Former Vice President Gore"? No, it simply wouldn't happen.