Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian Hacker Conspiracy Theory is Weak, But the Case For Paper Ballots is Strong (facebook.com)

Posted by msmash on from the stranger-things dept.

On Wednesday, J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's Center for Computer Security & Society and a respected voice in computer science and information society, said that the Clinton Campaign should ask for a recount of the vote for the U.S. Presidential election. Later he wrote, "Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don't believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other." The Outline, a new publication by a dozen of respected journalists, has published a post (on Facebook for now, since their website is still in the works), in which former Motherboard's reporter Adrianne Jeffries makes it clear that we still don't have concrete evidence that the vote was tampered with, but why still the case for paper ballots is strong. From the article: Halderman also repeats the erroneous claim that federal agencies have publicly said that senior officials in Russia commissioned attacks on voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In October, federal agencies attributed the Democratic National Committee email hack to Russia, but specifically said they could not attribute the state hacks. Claims to the contrary seem to have spread due to anonymous sourcing and the conflation of Russian hackers with Russian state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr, who published his own response to Halderman on Medium. "It's fear and ignorance that's fueling that." The urgency comes from deadlines for recount petitions, which start kicking in on Friday in Wisconsin, Monday in Pennsylvania, and the following Wednesday in Michigan. There is disagreement about how likely it is that the Russian government interfered with election results. There is little disagreement, however, that our voting system could be more robust -- namely, by requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting and mandating that all results be audited, as they already are in some states including California. Despite the 150,000 signatures collected on a Change.org petition, what happens next really comes down to the Clinton team's decision.

12 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. In the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    We have paper ballots in the UK still. It's made somewhat more interesting by the counts racing each other to see who can finish first. All the counts have TV crews, observers and so on. They're kind-of public. Why screw up a system that's worked so well for so long? Electronic voting is asking for trouble.

    1. Re: In the UK by Entrope · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The usual motivations are accessibility and some idea of cost savings. Accessibility because blind people need Braille or spoken ballots, and people are worried about improper influence if a living person helps. Cost savings because they know how much printed ballots cost, and can be buffaloed about how much computerized systems will cost (and about the security concerns).

    2. Re:In the UK by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Paper is certainly better than any currently used electronic method, but it seems like we could do better than that. I'd like to see someone investigate the idea of using blockchain technology to create a read-only database of the election results. The entire point of a blockchain is to create a cryptographically signed set of transactions which can't be altered without compromising the database. Banks are investing in this technology, where trillions of dollars are at stake, and in which every penny must be accounted for. Why not voting data as well?

      This doesn't preclude the paper ballot backup as well, which I'd also agree is important. Computers are too easy to compromise, so I'd say filling out a paper ballot and having a locked down system scan it would be best. You then have the original form, as well as the convenience of computers to count the data, and finally, the blockchain to ensure no tampering of the digital database.

      Are there any obvious downsides I'm missing? We'd need to ensure privacy, but I don't think this is an insurmountable problem. And done correctly, you could even build a verification system for people to check and make sure their individual votes were cast and tallied properly.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:In the UK by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why not both? You vote electronically, it prints your ballot, you verify it, put it in the ballot box. You get the best of both worlds, you get fast results, and you can go back and check the paper ballots later to make sure the electronic results were accurate.

    4. Re:In the UK by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The final referendum polls showed it was a very close race, and the final result was largely within the error margin. Let's be clear here, Leave won by a very small majority. They may act like they had a profound and unassailable majority, but the reality was that it was a close thing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re: In the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Printed ballots run through a scanner is the best system. It's much cheaper than electronic ballots, but just like our tests in high school and college you can tabulate the results electronically AND the paper ballot is filled out by the person directly which also creates the audit trail in their own hand.

      Paper is universally easier, cheaper and more secure. There is no reason to use computerized automation for filling out the ballot, just tabulating the results on-site.

      Poorer areas may not want to afford to switch back to paper and scanners after they just wasted money on electronic ballots, but at the end of the day electronic ballots are nothing but trouble and added costs.

      I don't see how paper is not accessible and a computer screen is. It's going to be 100 times easier to print out some braille ballots than it would be to make and upkeep electronic voting for a tiny tiny percentage of voters. The fact is electronic ballots were just a scam pushed on states to generate money. Any smart district would move back to paper and scanners.

  2. Audit the results? But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Trump already admitted to knowing the election was rigged. Who knew he meant it as a confession.

    The first thing he is going to do is pardon himself for everything so he can't be impeached. Then he'll legally declare himself President for life, and appoint his son Barron as his heir and co-Emperor.

    Bringing the glory back to the Imperial Rome.

    And to think the black guy just handed him the keys. What a maroon!

  3. The media lied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everything was rigged to make Hillary look better than reality, and it turned into one big liberal circle jerk. Just like when all the liberals read their Mother Jones / Upworthy articles, got so fired up, shared them amongst themselves, then wrongly presumed all Americans felt the same way. Nope, far from it.

    Any of my non-liberal friends are afraid to speak up because most liberals have extremely vile personalities, and they think you are Satan's Little Helper if you aren't on the same page as them. The vast majority of them won't even listen to reason, just spouting off the rhetoric they read from their left-wing propaganda rags.

    Nationalism is back in a big way. First was Brexit, Second was Trump, Next will be Le Pen.

  4. Re:yea... by Jhon · · Score: 4, Informative

    "we proved many times before the election that many elections machines could be hacked. the election"

    The three states in question (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) -- where it's claimed evoting had suspicious results:

    Michigan is all paper ballots -- no evoting machines.
    Pennsylviania -- evoting machines so old they aren't on any network and couldn't possibility be hacked
    Wisconsin -- Evoting machines were only present in rural areas -- where Trump (and republicans in general) do better anyway.
    (source: Business insider -- cited in the story summary from yesterday)

    This really looks like a non-story.

  5. It's the new old thing by zifn4b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You young whipper snappers are talking about this like it's a new thing. 16 years ago when the same EXACT thing happened between Al Gore and George W. Bush and the same exact call for a recount happened after Al Gore conceded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... That's the thing, Hillary ALREADY conceded. It's done and on the books. Why people keep ruminating about this is beyond me. Life goes on.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  6. Re:yea... by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "By the way, this is how you "cite" sources. Not some vague reference to something from yesteryear."

    A: Was posting from my phone. My reference was more than adequate for my post.
    B: Article was easily found as it's the most active post since the election and was less than 24 hours ago and was bumped up to the top at least once
    C: Yesterday is not "yesteryear" It's still on the front page of slashdot!

    Slashdot article I cited that is STILL on the front page: https://politics.slashdot.org/...
    Business Insider article references in that article summary: http://www.businessinsider.com...
    Relevant text: "And Michigan uses only paper ballots."

    And "scantrons" are not evoting machines. They read paper ballots.

    Lastly, why do you feel the need to be an ass? Fake news? How about your impotent indignation?

  7. Re: No, you're right, that wasn't the message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, the reaction in 2008 and 2012 was screaming about a stolen election, about how America only elected Obama because he was black, that America was doomed, and even claims of a divided country. So he barely got anything done, despite all the frenzied accusations of tyranny, he even gave conservatives what they wanted on health insurance reform. So Democrats paid the price in 2010 because they didn't do the left wing option, and you wouldn't know that in 2012, House Democrats were ahead, and in 2014, the real story should have been the plummeting turnout. It was abysmal.

    Meanwhile, this year, with Trump actually behind Clinton in the popular vote, Republicans are already insisting that they clearly won, that America is behind them, that they have a mandate, and grumbling over an imaginary group of illegal immigrants voting. Not that they have evidence, mind you, but believe them, it is true.

    But don't worry, Trump clearly has America's best interests at heart.

    Watch him do nothing, take credit for things he never did, and ignore all the fuckups.

    You need to start paying attention to more than just your navel, HBI, you've got a blindspot.