Slashdot Mirror
Voting Machines Can Be Easily Compromised, Symantec Demonstrates (cbsnews.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a report from CBS News:
For the hackers at Symantec Security Response, Election Day results could be manipulated by an affordable device you can find online. "I can insert it, and then it resets the card, and now I'm able to vote again," said Brian Varner, a principle researcher at Symantec, demonstrating the device...
Symantec Security Response director Kevin Haley said elections can also be hacked by breaking into the machines after the votes are collected. "The results go from that machine into a piece of electronics that takes it to the central counting place," Haley said. "That data is not encrypted and that's vulnerable for manipulation."
40 states are using a voting technology that's at least 10 years old, according to the article. And while one of America's national election official argues that "there are paper trails everywhere," CBS reports that only 60% of states conduct routine audits of their paper trails, while "not all states even have paper records, like in some parts of swing states Virginia and Pennsylvania, which experts say could be devastating."
Symantec Security Response director Kevin Haley said elections can also be hacked by breaking into the machines after the votes are collected. "The results go from that machine into a piece of electronics that takes it to the central counting place," Haley said. "That data is not encrypted and that's vulnerable for manipulation."
40 states are using a voting technology that's at least 10 years old, according to the article. And while one of America's national election official argues that "there are paper trails everywhere," CBS reports that only 60% of states conduct routine audits of their paper trails, while "not all states even have paper records, like in some parts of swing states Virginia and Pennsylvania, which experts say could be devastating."
The left isn't trying to eliminate voter registration laws and you know it. They're just trying to stop the right from making the process more difficult to qualify for than a driver's license. Remember, we actually want more people to vote, not less, to have more certainty of a fair voting outcome. Or is that the part you're opposed to, the part where you're forced to allow everyone to vote even if they have brown skin and don't go to your church?
Voting doesn't matter. Voting is for the 99% to make them feel better, and think they have some control.
It doesn't matter who the POTUS is, who the FLOTUS is, or even who the SCROTUS is.
Lobbying controls everything.
Lobbyists write the bills, all the POTUS, and HOROTUS and SCROTUS do are sign them and collect their fee.
Want to effect positive change? Don't vote, lobby!
Join a lobbyist group, form a lobbyist group, or contribute to a lobbyist group.
The only little slips of paper that mater in the US are green.
Ha, no. What Trump has suggested is that the *only* way he could lose is due to voter fraud (a problem that is statistically nonexistent). That's dangerous rhetoric at best; it delegitimizes the process (but only if he loses). It's not as if Trump has any actual information on planned fraud or evidence t support his assertions. He's merely covering his ass, because in his mind he *can't* legitimately lose. And yes, the process of voting should be easy and painless for everyone entitled to vote. That's the basis of a functional democracy.
I swear, some people have the memory of mayflies. The voting machine debacle has been with us for almost 20 years now. They've been proven to be trivially hackable, poorly documented, and lacking significant paper trails in MANY different jurisdictions for ages, now. Suddenly Trump mentions it, and it's this partisan issue? How many people here are so young that they don't remember the blatant corruption surrounding Diebold?
Trump's statements are meant to undermine your democracy by priming an angry electorate to believe - note the word "believe" - that all polls in favour of Clinton are dishonest. Stop and think about the conspiracy required to falsify all polls. He doesn't appear to care about the consequences to the country. If can't win, let it burn, appears to be the philosophy of that campaign.
I didn't imply it, I flat out accused you of it. Then you proved me right by spending your sockpuppet mod points on me then quickly replied 4 times anonymously with equally absurd attempts to distract from the fact I just caught you in your own logical trap, bigot.
You've been misinformed by the media or are intentionally misstating the candidate. Trump's statement was only about certain areas in Pennsylvania. His call to have neutral observers at poll locations, a thing the DNC and the UN has itself suggested during BOTH of Obama's elections in the same areas, is now being met with threats to arrest those observers.
The US has such large voting problems the UN AND the DNC has called for observers and those observers are now being threatened with arrest.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It doesn't scale, and every voter would need a private encryption key that can't leak....
I'm just happy a security company has finally been able to get one of these machines to demonstrate how bad it is. Most of the more major but less visible outside of the field researchers have been screaming for a decade that there are obvious flaws but haven't been able to get their hands on the machines to prove them.
The only thing, it had to be Symantec, really... The one company that is too large for it's own good, uses unnecessary scare tactics to fleece customers and has suffered it's own fair share of security failures. Only good thing I see with Symantec doing it is maybe they are well known enough that the powers that be might take note.
Please correctly attribute your quotes (of Mark Twain)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It's getting pretty bad. My karma has taken a beating. Simply put, Slashdot is the Donald Trump Forum, and if you're not advocating for him to be president and demanding imprisonment for Clinton, you're going to pay. I'm going to be honest, after being here since 2003, I'm just about ready to leave simply because mod points are being handed out to some of the most regressive people around, the very same kind of people that endlessly whine about how they're being censored for their views.
In fact, I'm not even sure why I'm here now. This place sucks, and not because of new owners or advertising, but simply because it has become a den of libertarian reactionaries who hate everything and everyone.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you need a picture ID to vote it should be your voter registration card given to you free of charge at the time you register to vote.
When Pennsylvania tried to enact a voter ID law the people who voted for it (all Republicans) openly stated they could not point to a single act of voter fraud. The best they could say was, "the number of voter fraud cases that are prosecuted are only a sliver of the fraud taking place because there is no system in place to detect fraud."
Which is a great work of circular reasoning. One can't show voting fraud has taken place but that's only because there isn't any way to detect it. If one can't detect voter fraud, how do you know it's taking place?
One of the biggest issues with PA's attempt was the person who did not have a driver's license had to travel to only a select few locations during certain hours and do this twice. Once to prove who they were then come back a second time to get their state-issued ID. All during regular business hours.
If you're on the bottom rung of life you need to work as much as you can and can't afford to take off work to prove who you are, twice, and if you're a senior citizen you may be dependent upon someone else to take you around because not everyone has a bus stop in front of their house.
PA's law was nothing but a blatant attempt to suppress voting.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
tl;dr: I don't like the guy who won, therefore democracy is horrible idea.
Here is Trump in a nutshell.
I can say whatever I want and when it's received negatively, I was just joking.
When I don't get my way, someone else is cheating.
He's a joke of a human being. He represents the worst of the US.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
That's also a way of saying the states that moved their primaries earlier did a better review of election law... Clinton was a late surge in the polls outside of the ballots too.
People who don't vote get trampled in most places... if parents don't teach how to vote, then the parents get control of the the government and get to ruin their children.
This is why Election Day should be a school-closed holiday every year.
I gather you didn't even read my post. I'm not complaining about opposing view points, I'm complaining about Trump supporters who attack opposing view points by using mod points to silence criticism.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why don't you correctly attribute your quotes? The attribution to Mark Twain is spurious, and anyone familiar with his style and 19th-century American English in general could sense that something was off in calling this a Twain quotation.
I am a poll worker in Virginia. From the very scant details on this particular hack, the apparent claim is that you can vote more than once by "resetting" the machine while in the booth and not touching any equipment. Well, if it is even technically possible to pull this off, within an hour we'd know that the votes in that precinct were off, because we do an hourly audit of the of the number of people who check in to vote vs. the number of votes that are cast. When we are off by even a count of 1 it is a major event, and triggers an immediate investigation. Any kind of mass attempt to defraud the count would be caught immediately. And, nearly 2 million people are eligible to vote in Virginia, so you'd have to pull off an enormous hack across multiple precincts. You'd most certainly wind up canceling the election, not swaying it.
Virginia does not use direct-recording voting machines any more, we use machine-counted paper ballots. We decertified all our direct-recording machines two elections ago when it was discovered that in a couple of precincts the wireless local area network between machines were running with default administrative passwords. The scanning equipment we use is not networkable, and it is sealed with numbered seals. I do not believe it is possible to even do the hack suggested by the article any more.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
"So you are saying you've grown 6 inches, gained 200 lbs, changed your hair & eye colors as well as your sex... that's the reason you don't look anything like your photo from 20 years ago? Ok... here is your ballot."
Little different than the ID-less system we have today, just mention a name on a street and get offered a ballot: http://projectveritas.com/2016...
In my state we have vote by mail and I don't get sent a ballot unless I'm registered under my correct address. My ID is my signature on the outside of the ballot envelope which gets compared to my signature on my registration. It a system that works well.
Where I come from ID is mandatory... you cannot exist here w/o it. (Sweden) You get a personal identity number when you are born. Which makes voting simple. Voting also always takes place on Sundays, when working people are free, and we don't have electronic voting systems because that would be really bad...
1) You should have an ID, and it should be super easy to get it.
2) You should have to prove your identity when voting
3) You should not have to take a day of in order to vote.
4) Electronic voting should never be allowed, since it can always be hacked. Voting over internet is even worse, since then people can buy votes, or coerce others to vote against their will.
From an outside perspective the voting system in the US is insane.
The GW Bush administration made voter fraud a point of emphasis with the US attorneys in the early 2000s and they didn't find squat.
Simply put, Slashdot is the Donald Trump Forum, and if you're not advocating for him to be president and demanding imprisonment for Clinton, you're going to pay. I'm going to be honest, after being here since 2003, I'm just about ready to leave simply because mod points are being handed out to some of the most regressive people around, the very same kind of people that endlessly whine about how they're being censored for their views.
I actually keep track of the sentiment on Slashdot, both from the responses to my posts and general mood for certain topics. One topic I keep track of is the Clinton/Trump thing.
Firstly, don't feel like you need to leave because of the Trump/Clinton thing. In prior presidential election years, Slashdot goes to hell starting about 6 weeks before the election, and becomes unbearably dumb about 2 weeks before. Partisan sock puppets from both camps do nothing but carp and snipe and insult anyone who tries to post a political view.
It's happened before, and it's happening right now as well.
It's worse this year, probably a combination of a) this particular election is especially contentious, b) a lot of people are hurting and want to see change(*), and c) internet attendance is higher now than it was 4 or 8 years ago (and will probably be even higher 4 years from now).
Whiplash asked for suggestions when he took over, and I mentioned this specific point in a response.
Secondly, I monitor my own style and set goals for my posts. I'm currently working controversial posts, and this fits in well with my support of Trump.
What I've found is that all of the posts on either side are simple blind insults. Clinton is dirty and corrupt, Trump is a racist and bigot, there's not much else to see here. I've even called out the readership, asking for any *rational* reason to vote for Clinton over Trump (my particular choice - it would work as well the other way). No one has ever put forth a reasonable and rational reason for one candidate over the other(**).
Thirdly, it's easy to get around the mod point system simply by posting actual content. Make an insightful post--a way of looking at things that make sense and that someone else may have missed--and back it up with some links.
I've found that there are enough people here who still appreciate an interesting point, than there are partisans who will automatically down-vote something they don't like. I know this because my own posts get voted up *and* down (yes, I monitor my posts over time), and the up votes always win out eventually. It sometimes takes a couple of hours, but it almost always happens.
I believe that there are more intelligent and mature people reading this forum than there are partisan hacks, but these same people aren't interested in getting involved(***), or are too busy with life, or don't like getting insulted.
Lastly, note that Trump has the support of a fair slice of American voters right now. You can claim that he doesn't have enough support to win, but that's not the point: if 30% of the electorate is pro Trump, you'll see a lot of support here. Just like there was for Sanders, just like there was for Romney.
Take the trouble to think through your opinion (it helps if you come to your own opinion, rather than use someone else's (****)), post links to support your position, and don't insult and snipe people.
When you do this, the mature and honest readers will support you.
(*) In prior elections, both D and R were still "more of the same".
(**) One anonymous exception, I tried to encourage them to get an account and continue, and haven't heard from them since.
(***) I want to improve my public writing skills, and I use Slashdot as my practice range.
(****) Years ago I saw a clip of Christopher Hitchens, who comes to his own views on things, and it really stuck with me.
You think he's calling for "neutral" observers?
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Note that the form to become one of these Trump observers takes you directly to a Trump fundraising site.
International observers occasional show up in the US for elections, and they are astounded by how weak and untrustworthy our elections are. No ID required? No marking of hands or fingers? Ballots left alone, but still counted?
It's embarrassing when the Somali elections were more robust than the US ones.
No I'm upset because anyone with an axe to grind uses the moderation system on Slashdot to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them.
FTFY. The idea that Trump and Sanders supporters are in any way unique in their moderation tactics is spurious at best.
A driver's license gives you the priviledge to drive. It is voluntary, no one can be forced to get one. I didn't have a driver's license until the age of 27, because it wasn't necessary. But not exercising a priviledge shall never lead to the forfeiture of a right, which is not even connected to the priviledge. People are allowed to drive in the U.S. who are not allowed to vote (any non-citizen with a driver's license), and there are people allowed to vote which don't have a driver's license.
Those pesky activist judges always tell you that simple fact, but you continue to ignore it. Might it be because the judges are right and supported by the constitution, while your ideas are not?
There's also the issue that the "nominal fee" for the ID used to be called a poll tax. That's unconstitutional, also.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Is it an outrage? Did he say something besides if he doesn't win it's because the system is rigged? I must have missed the "outrage" on that one. Maybe on some left-wing blog it's an "outrage", but Trump, in my opinion, just looks silly saying that. Some of his supporters will no doubt be outraged when he loses. I believe he's pre-making excuses for it.
Heads I win. Tails, you cheated.
And it seems to resonate well with you since you're already complaining that people are saying it's an outrage when I have seen no evidence of that.
People were outraged by his 2nd Amendment comment. People were rightly outraged by his comments about the Khans. People were outraged by his comments about Russia and Clinton's emails. People were outraged by his idea to use religion as a litmus test for entering the country.
I have yet to see any outrage over this remark.