Slashdot Mirror
E-Voting Firm VoteHere Discloses October Break-In
linuxwrangler writes "In the ongoing saga of electronic voting 'security,' eVoting company VoteHere is the latest to reveal that they were the victim of a computer break-in. According to VoteHere founder, Jim Adler, the concern isn't about their source code which they plan to reveal 'eventually,' anyway, but is about the possible release of salary and other HR data. Astoundingly, the 'hot poll' associated with this story has (as this is being posted) 28% of respondents saying they would trust their vote on the internet and 41% saying 'not now, but maybe soon.' Feel free to cast your vote." Reader nSignIfikaNt points to the Assocated Press' article as carried by CNN.
Problems with voting are clear and simple proof that fascist dictatorships are the only way to go.
E-Communism and E-Oppression would be far more successful, no doubt.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
Neato! I caught this story right when it went on slashdot's main page, 0/3 comments and got the vote tally, we can safely say that this is pre /. effect. Now, I think I know which way most slashdoteers are going to vote, and we've already seen vote skewing here when a sig told people to vote no on Verisign all through September and October (it got around 5000 votes at the end of the month as I recall), let's see how slashdot affects a slightly larger traffic/voting site:
/. effect:
So here are the current vote totals, pre
24692 Responces
27% Yes
41% Not today, but maybe soon
29% Never (Likely to spike? Let's see!)
2% None of the above
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Why should we trust their voting systems without auditing?
So what, your telling to vote on the internet to tell them that I dont want to vote on the internet? Quite astounding indeed...
Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
Let's ignore hacking and break-ins. Those are too easy. Vendor bugs are bad enough. There have been bugs that cause automatic medicine dosers in hospitals to give out too much medice and almost (or completely) kill a paitent. I'll go vote for candidate Ham Sandwich, but how do I know some bug won't cause every vote for his oppoent, Mr. Mayor, to be counted 100 times? These things just seem to happen more and more.
So what WILL have me trust it? Let's set it up like a slot machine is set up. It has it's software burned into some ROM. It should be thouroughly tested by independant labs, the code should be available for me to look at, and I should be able to read the ROM chip after the elections are done so I know that it's got what it's supposed to on it (not that many people would do this, but it should be an option). When I'm done voting, it should print out a paper punch ballot that I can look at to see that it voted the way I told it to. The voting commisions can use the electronic results, but a random 5% of all districts every election should check the electronic counts against the paper ballots to make sure nothing weird is going on there. And most importantly of all (and like a slot machine), YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHEAT. Shock it with 10,000,000 volts to make sure it doesn't mess up and let me vote twice. Punch it and kick it and do anything possible (and then some) to make sure it still functions correctly, just like a slot machine. Slot machines go through all that because they might be responsible for millions of dollars. My vote should be worth more than that, and there for should have TOUGHER standards behind it.
In short, I don't trust e-voting. The only way I'd LIKE to see e-voting is that you choose your candidates on the computer, then it prints out a punched ballot (with names and all, so I can see it did things right) that I turn in, and THAT'S my ballot; the machine is nothing more than a ballot punching tool and holds no results of it's own. I should be able to do it all by hand if I want. This is the only way I'd like to see e-voting, and the description above is the only way that I'll accept it.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Someone probably rooted their linux mail server with a cracked account, and took the code for their app in the process.
Anyone want to bet they are in violation of the GPL, and we might just see the code itself under posted to the net any day now?
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
The EFF is organizing a petition to encourage IEEE to set trustworthy standards for electronic voting. Read about it and join the petition here:
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/IEEE/
"EFF supports the IEEE in taking on the issue of setting standards for electronic voting machines. We also support the idea of modernizing our election processes using digital technology, as long as we maintain, or better yet, increase the trustworthiness of the election processes along the way. But this standard does not do this, and it must be reworked."
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
I questioned whether it was Alanis Morrisette-like irony or real irony that a company charged with securing internet voting had their servers hacked and also alluded to the possibility that the 2004 presidential election will make us all remiss for the stability of the 2000 elections.
It was actually one of my better submissions. It was funny and yet pithy. It had pith. Real pith.
...
But this submission is ok, I guess...
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
From the little I hear about US elections (and let's face it that's gonna be all the cock-ups & bad press) I wasn't aware that people a) voted much, or b) had much faith that the votes were fairly counted and apportioned anyway...
Then again, perhaps I need to find an alternative to Michael Moore as my sole window into US POlitics.
"It is the prerogative of fools (or noobs) to utter truths that no one else will speak."
About fifteen years ago, when last I checked, there were many dead people voting in Philadelphia - however, it was found that roughly as many dead people voted Democrat as Republican, so neither party bothered to invalidate the vote.
It is also only within the last few decades that states have inacted laws to keep campaigners away from voting booths where they could "help" people choose whom to vote for.
Voting in the United States has long been wrought with fraud and inaccuracies, and as long as that fraud is equal on both sides, the system has worked.
Now, if there were more than two viable parties, then it might be a problem. But since there aren't, I will consider my vote as secure electronically as it is non-electronically.
Now, what many of you might not know is that the VoteHere source code has been used in entrapment attempts. Specifically, with me, and I documented the entrapment effort at the time. Pure retaliatory crap designed to find a way to get activists to shut up.
Next, it is not surprising they will try to link it to the Diebold files. But that's bullshit, too, and here's why:
The FTP site wasn't hacked, it was sitting there. Look in any user manual and you'll see the address.
The memos weren't hacked either, they were obtained with an employee ID number.
Now, are you ready for this? I've had dealings with both the Diebold memo leaker and this supposed "VoteHere" hacker. The second person is NOT the same as the first, and I find it extremely interesting that VoteHere is trying to claim it's the same person. I am dead-certain it's not.
This "VoteHere" hacker tried to dump the VoteHere source code on me; it was simply dumb; first of all, VoteHere was supposed to be going public with its source code, so who in their right mind would want to steal it. I certainly didn't want to touch it.
Then this "VoteHere" hacker agreed to a telephone interview with me. He made some claims about who he was, but was unaware that I had additional information from inside sources that would allow me to test the veracity of his claims. The first question I asked was a test question; he put me on "hold" and then came back and offered a lame-ass guess which immediately caused him to fail the ID contest.
I believe this is going to turn into an entrapment scheme. Some activist somewhere is going to get nailed, probably that's already in the works. That's because they were running around offering this honey pot and, unfortunately, some naive activist probably bit on it.
By the way, I asked the supposed "hacker" point blank how hard it was to hack into a company that specializes in encryption. Every time I asked a tough question, he had to put me on hold and go ask someone what to say. His answer was totally unconvincing.
The voice on the phone was quite distinctive, and matches another voice I've heard on the phone. I will be only too delighted to share what I know with the authorities. Just hope I get an honest cop.
The timing on this is very interesting. The chairman of VoteHere, Ralph Munro, is former Washington State Secretary of State and a few things are starting to pop in relation to the use of unauthorized voting software under his watch, and an ethics complaint that's being filed, or has been filed.
I'll be on the Mike Webb Show at 11 p.m. tonight (Pacific time) and will discuss this at more length.
Bev Harris
Black Box Voting