Slashdot Mirror


Senators Demand Voting Machine Vendor Explain Why It Dismisses Researchers Prodding Its Devices (bleepingcomputer.com)

Four US senators, members of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter on Wednesday to Election Systems and Software (ES&S), the largest voting machine vendor in the US, asking for clarifications on why the vendor is trying to discourage independent security reviews of its products. From a report: The four senators who signed the letter are Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Susan Collins (R-ME), and James Lankford (R-OK). The senators sent the letter to ES&S following the conclusion of the Voting Village at the DEF CON 26 security conference held in Las Vegas at the start of the month, where security researchers found several security vulnerabilities in the company's products. "We are disheartened that ES&S chose to dismiss these demonstrations as unrealistic and that your company is not supportive of independent testing," the letter reads. "Many of the world's leading electronics and software companies have opened their arms to the research community, maintaining active presences at the largest security research conferences and inviting 'white hat' hackers to probe their products to identify how they can improve product security," the letter continued. At DEF CON, security researchers found vulnerabilities in the voting machines of other vendors. Only ES&S is mentioned in the senators' letter because of the company's dismissive approach to external security research.

62 comments

  1. food for thought by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fruit machines in casinos have to be state certified as honest with their code vetted regularly. Voting machines are largely unregulated.

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
    1. Re:food for thought by Noodles · · Score: 2

      What are you basing this statement on? The same testing authorities that certify gambling machines also certify voting machines.

    2. Re: Re:food for thought by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

      What are you basing this statement on? The same testing authorities that certify gambling machines also certify voting machines.

      And what are you basing *that* statement on?

    3. Re:food for thought by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are you basing this statement on? The same testing authorities that certify gambling machines also certify voting machines.

      And they're both equally fair.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:food for thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And even that's pointless (ie certification).

      Slot machines in casinos have cameras on them, security personelle, and the ability to see if the machine is 'paying out' too much. Why? They know what the odds SHOULD be, therefore, know if the machine is "off".

      Contrast that with voting, which even the best pollsters, and political scientists are often wrong about. There's no camera above you watching you vote, and no security guard hovering over you as you do so either.

      My point in all of this? NO computer is secure. None. Nada. No software, either. Anyone on /. can see the litany of vulnerabilities that exist, and anyone on /. can see how these clearly exist for years, DECADES sometimes prior to being discovered/made public. Pre-0day is what the NSA, and what foreign governments spend countless cash focusing on.

      There is NO way, EVER one can make a voting machine secure or make hardware secure. Every piece of software in use is riddled with bugs, every piece of hardware, everywhere, right now.

      You know what's safe? Paper. Manual counts. Systems of counting that have worked for democracies for centuries.

      THERE IS NO NEED FOR VOTING MACHINES!

      It is *not* worth the risk, and it certainly isn't worth the cost.

    5. Re:food for thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO computer is secure. None. Nada.

      That's an overstatement. If you place the computer in a Faraday cage, encase it in concrete without ever having turned it on, and drop it into the Mariana Trench, I'm pretty sure it's secure. Not good for much, but secure.

    6. Re: Re:food for thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/system-certification-process-s/

    7. Re: Re:food for thought by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quote from the first page of your link: ".... states are not required to participate in the program..." In other words, they can be tested, but most states don't.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:food for thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not ones in Indian run casinos.

    9. Re:food for thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting machines are called "voting machines" for a reason...

    10. Re: Re:food for thought by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Republican't quotemine fail!!

    11. Re: Re:food for thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded this up is an idiot and didn't read it. Typical slashdot. If you were a real man you'd admit you were wrong and log in and post to undo the mod. But you won't. Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

    12. Re: Re:food for thought by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The summary I gave is completely accurate. The quoted part strips off the spin.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:food for thought by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      What are you basing this statement on? The same testing authorities that certify gambling machines also certify voting machines

      .

      And they're both equally fair.

      Actually, payout rates are heavily regulated. The loosest machines actually are gambling machines. The tightest machines generally are arcade machines.

      Arcade machines? Yes, those "claw" machines, or "key master" machines or other machines "of skill" actually are gaming machines with payout rates. They will never let you win a prize if they aren't ready to pay out. Typically the operator sets the payour rate to be around 25-33% or so (i.e., the machine will take in 3-4x the cost of the product).

      Claw machines do it by lowering the "claw" power - the claw will not grasp as hard so if you do "get lucky" the item will simply slip from the fingers. Keymaster type games will "lag" the control a bit (notably the up/down control) to intentionally skip over the winning count (the machine knows exactly how high the grabber is and it knows to simply run the motor a bit longer so you're always going to be "just a bit high" if it's not ready to payout. The other machines of skill again will simply do something - the "pile" style machine (the one with the LED back that you have to create a tower) again skips over the winning position by reacting a bit slow so even if you time it perfectly you will always miss.

      They're really games of skill, only once the payout rate has been met.

    14. Re: Re:food for thought by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Like I said, quotemine fail, ignoring the fact in favor of YOUR claim that facts are spin

    15. Re: Re:food for thought by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And you only speak in vague generalities. Either learn to speak concretely, figure out how to support your ideas, or be gone back to the pool of ignorance you came from. Making a good argument is something you can do.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re: Re:food for thought by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Your "Strip the spin" proves you failed to address the issue.
      Quotemine fail

  2. because their russian investors told them not to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just a guess.

  3. I just wrote them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based off of this line from their website:

    "We hold ourselves to a higher standard, knowing that our products and services help maintain democracy in the jurisdictions we service."

    I flat out told them I hope I never see their equipment in use when I vote, and if I do I'll demand a paper ballot. I also stated I'll be writing my state representative demanding this company's products NOT be used in my state until their atitude towards security changes in such a way as to support the security minded folks.

    1. Re:I just wrote them... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "We hold ourselves to a higher standard, knowing that our products and services help maintain democracy in the jurisdictions we service."

      Yeah, right. This is Diebold of former infamy, first changing their name to Premier Election Solutions, and then again merging with Election Systems & Software (ESS).
      Same shit, different wrapper. Why would any state give them a third chance after the first screw-ups? The canapés must be very tall and the drinks very big.

  4. Isn't it Ironic? by DatbeDank · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How back in the early 2000s here on Slashdot we all were complaining how these electronic voting machines were the work of the devil in how easy they were to hack?

    Fast forward to 2018, they're now viewed as Russian hacking devices.

    Seems like we're on a collision course to return to the old style paper ballots.

    Shame no one listens to us. It seems most tech crises would be avoided! Thankfully we get to bill $300/hr when Mr. Executive's screw up comes to roost!

    1. Re:Isn't it Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things have flipped. Back then it was people from all over the globe claiming that e-voting was the future and America is stuck in the past. Now it's the opposite.

      Groupthink will say whatever makes America look bad. Keep that principle in mind and most websites make sense.

      Makes for easy predictions to scientifically test the hypothesis: Right now the US government can't get to space on it's own and that's bad. Space is the future of humanity! Wait until NASA get's its act together. Then people will say that the US government going to space is a waste of resources.

    2. Re: Isn't it Ironic? by jd · · Score: 0

      Voting machines can be made to work, but that requires a lot of money, very careful regulation, extremely high (Orange Book A1+ is your starting point) standards, extremely thorough security and sufficient will to live. It also requires you to forget almost everything you think an electronic voting machine would do, AKA everything Diebold said.

      No private enterprise will attempt such a thing, the return for them is too low and they don't have the mad skills needed anyway.

      Government can't do it, GOTS software is banned in the name of free enterprise. Besides, they don't have the staff either, and won't offer the budget needed.

      But it could be done.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Isn't it Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "Fast forward to 2018, and now half+ of Slashdot utterly refuses to discuss electronic voting security seriously because they think it's a pinko commie liberal SJW conspiracy to destroy The Greatest President in American History, Donald Trump"

      Back in the early 2000s, people here regardless of politics could agree that electronic voting machines were a significant security threat and that the lack of oversight/transparency for these machines was god damn ridiculous. Now, whether it's because of changes in American culture or changes in Slashdot's demographics, it is impossible to discuss the issue without it being viewed through the lens of partisan politics -- if one side says voting machines need more security, the other side *has* to deride it, because the Other Side is never right about anything remotely connected to politics.

      (And, well I'm certainly a liberal, I sadly have no doubt that if 2018 or 2020 shows suspicious electoral results favoring Democrats, the vast majority of liberals will suddenly decide that electronic voting security is a non-issue.)

    4. Re: Isn't it Ironic? by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about the other piece of electronic voting, namely that the average (and less then average) person can understand the security?
      It's just as important that everyone trusts the voting as it being secure and it's hard to imagine a trustworthy electronic voting machine that most people understand.
      When I vote with paper and pencil and watch the whole procedure, it is very understandable.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re: Isn't it Ironic? by jd · · Score: 0

      The design I would prefer would provide that in three layers.

      1. There should be a formal set of openly published theorems (similar to those used by SEL4) that show that all the key functions meet a specification a logician could understand. The average MITS won't understand these theorems, but they know other people, people not in the company, can and that those other people include celebrity geniuses like BiaSciLab. People they can trust to bluntly tell them if there's a problem.

      2. There should be complete compliance with the Rainbow Series to A1 and Common Criteria to EAL7 or modern equivalent. The MITS won't understand this, either, but if it's the best of the best for spook stuff by the spookiest of spooks, it's stuff the experts on keeping secrets and keeping them untainted hold in awe.

      3. In addition to the electronic ballot, a physical one should be printed with highly stable indelible ink on parchment-grade paper. There's your pen and pencil. Since it would be hard to lose both electronic and physical copies, you've stronger security than either alone. That, the MITS can understand easily.

      So, two independent groups of two independent types of experts, plus their own judgement on what they can see with their own eyes. I don't see you can improve much on that.

      (Electronic ballots should be encrypted copies of what is on the paper. Parchment paper is important because it lasts 800-1,000 years and is a harder challenge for opportunistic criminals. A lot of election issues suggest spur of the moment disorganised crime. This makes this sort of crime easy to detect.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Isn't it Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "Fast forward to 2018, and now half+ of Slashdot utterly refuses to discuss electronic voting security seriously because they think it's a pinko commie liberal SJW conspiracy to destroy The Greatest President in American History, Donald Trump"

      Except no one is thinking that.

    7. Re: Isn't it Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She lost, get over it /s

    8. Re: Isn't it Ironic? by dryeo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OK, number 3 helps a lot, throw in some random recounts as well as any statutory (eg when things are close) recounts of the physical copy and the fact that I have a hard time with numbers 1&2 would go a long way.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  5. Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You effectively hold the purse, Senator. Advise your state level officials not to contract with ES&S if they are dismissive.

  6. nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've given Trump blind tax-free trust this whole time, and at no time has he viola... oh.

  7. Has anyone checked the Money Trail? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they don't care because they're being paid not to care?
    I think perhaps these companies need to be thoroughly investigated. In the meantime DUMP THEM and go back to tried-and-true methods.

    1. Re: Has anyone checked the Money Trail? by jd · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are tried methods, but few of them true. In paper elections, it was common for officials to discover ballot boxes or misplaced ballot papers after the election. Party workers were also routinely accused of falsely claiming authority to collect absentee ballots and destroying ones for rival parties.

      Voting stations were also suspect, with election officials accused of tampering.

      In other words, an awful lot of institutionalised vote fraud by the parties.

      It got so bad, countries were planning on sending in international election monitors after the 2000 election. America avoided it by refusing them visas.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  8. I am an election officer and I am dismissive by davide+marney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless you've spent time running an election, it's hard to appreciate just how distributed the process is. Virginia, where I am an officer, has 2,400+ separate voting precincts.

    None of our voting equipment is networked, not even locally within the precinct. None of the equipment even have the hardware necessary to be networked.

    Nearly 4 million people voted in the last Presidential race. The recount margin is 1%, so the winner and the loser must be within 1% of each other for a recount to be called.

    Thus for a hack to be effective and not be scrutinized by a recount, you'd have to win 1% of 4 million, or 40,000 votes.

    How likely is it that you will be able to hack your way into enough precincts, defeat the chain of custody, get your hands on the machines to do your dirty work -- UNDETECTED -- for EACH and every election (each election has a different ballot, and the order is chosen randomly), and change 40,000 votes? Otherwise, what would be the point of the attack?

    Local elections are secure, disconnected facilities. Anytime I see some hacker "fair" where they've got the covers off and people are probing the equipment, I just laugh. As if. We run a tight ship, and in 238 years of doing this job, we've learned a thing or two about how people try to cheat.

    It's not VOTING you have to worry about, it's REGISTRATION. Registration has many times more attack vectors.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by AlanBDee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are truly an election officer then first let me commend you for coming to slashdot and taking the time to share your perspective. May I suggest you spend a little more time reading what many of us here have to say. You may be an expert in the election process but we are experts in hardware and software.

      We are not skeptical of the security of voting machines because we wear tin foil hats; it's because we've seen what can and has happened. You're far too confident that those systems can't be hacked undetected. I suggest you get on youtube and look up videos of people placing skimmers on credit card terminals and explain to me why that can't happen to a voting machine?

    2. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by bussdriver · · Score: 2

      Means nothing. This is like a security guard at the bank saying they run a tight ship and will never be robbed. Then that whole bank bailout mess happens... or the bank gets caught laundering or they are caught doing fake loans and false fees etc...

      Just because your looking in 1 place for 1 kind of threat doesn't mean that is all there is or that it is safe. An organized attack would be a different game... and do you watch... can you verify the machines were completely untouched since last use? Who does IT on them?

      What about totals at the county? I know my county had a ton of issues until I raised them - we had paper but the totals at the county were running on a personal office laptop with insecure internet access and without recounts nobody would notice. It's the 2nd biggest county so there were enough to flip every state race within 8 points. Some old FTP server sent it out to TV but hack that and you'd be into the crap Access DB powering the thing... running on Windoze 98 too. Fixed now; but that is the kind of stuff that went on with a secure PAPER optical scan system.

    3. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you have paper records in your machines to verify the votes?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think you're overlooking his broader point, which is that the distributed architecture of the system (both machines and people) makes it extremely difficult to even plot a coordinated attack much less carry one out.

      The question therefore isn't so much whether one individual machine can be hacked -- it's how many would have to be hacked to make a material difference in the outcome, and how many layers of human security would have to be defeated over how wide of an area to get physical access to hack them.

      For decades we've faced the same question with non-electronic voting -- bad apples have hacked counters on mechanical voting machines, stuffed ballot boxes, and so on. And that's OP's point: the system has evolved in recognition of the temptation to cheat, and has a ton of checks and balances in place to minimize the fallout.

      I suggest you get on youtube and look up videos of people placing skimmers on credit card terminals and explain to me why that can't happen to a voting machine?

      What in the world would a skimmer on a voting machine skim?

    5. Re: I am an election officer and I am dismissive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not being a dick, but anything prior to the use of computerized voting machines means jack shit towards the "years of experience."
      All it needs is one person in the right precincts to swing a close election if they have a way to tamper with the votes. A paper ballot which can be verified by each voter and then locked securely away would expose the fraud even if the hack was 100% reliable and 100% undetectable.
      So spend the extra effort to make a proper paper trail, and it will make it even less likely that someone would bother trying a hack.

    6. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have gone to defcon then for a live demo. If you think you the whole "but its all disconnected" thing will prevent any wrongdoing, I have news for you. There have already been plenty of distributed attacks, voting machines are not unique in that respect. Remember the $45 million dollar ATM hack of 2013? Ah right, that was done in 24 different COUNTRIES simultaneously. New York alone had 3,000 ATMs hacked. Those 2,500 voting machines of yours look rather small now, don't they?

    7. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Neither of you are thinking critically. If they know how to corrupt one or a series of vendors, doing so IS TRIVIAL for a funded conspiracy to pull off locally. They don't need to win "all votes" 1%-5% boost is HUGE. Think harder.

    8. Re: I am an election officer and I am dismissive by jd · · Score: 2

      Unnetworked is part of the problem. It means voting machines tally and store, the source of most of the defects.

      Second, that's not a high number. Machines that tally just store a number. It's long past the point where ID is checked. All you need is to preload 40,000 votes in a test (corrupt official) - and that has happened in the past - or you have ten people load in 4,000 votes at the time in precincts with low turnout, OR you hack the election database where the tallies are stored.

      Any of those will work and you know they will because you will have been instructed on this.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why wait the day of the vote when the machines are distributed everywhere? Why not do it two weeks prior when they are in some warehouse, or from an usb key when somebody plugs in to update, diagnostic or whatever?
      It happened to the Iranians with their uranium centrifuges, it could happen to the Ohioans with their machines...

    10. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull. Complete, utter bull of the "millions of illegal voters on busses" kind.

      The entire Accuvote fleet can be hacked pretty much simultaneously at the point of the ballot-definition-file download, which is done through internet access prior to the election. ANYTHING named fboot.nb0 will automatically replace the default bootloader if downloaded, whether it's placed on cartridge along with the ballot definition files or simply in the directory when it's downloaded off the internet prior to the election. Such bootloaders have been shown to be capable of adjusting the election in almost any way imaginable, of avoiding the pre-election testing modes, and can be made to automatically disappear, replaced by the clean default, when mode is switched out from voting afterwards.

      Accuvote-TS, WinVote and iVotronic are all hackable remotely in this way, and none of them offer paper ballots to allow for a recount at all.
      ES&S Model 100 and DS200 are just as vulnerable, but at least do offer a paper ballot for recount purposes, so long as a recount is authorized and no physical local access to the machines occurred. The earliest iVotronics were local-only, having no internet connection, though the cartridge trick and lack of VVPAT ensured that whomever had the ballot definition files could pull it off by simply doing their job of setting machines up.

      Lack of accountability, recount difficulties and ease of hacking are the VERY DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS which Diebold promised would allow the GWB Campaign a victory.

    11. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      I think the tinfoil hat version of election tampering centers on the part that is centralized. At some point all those distributed components of the voting system log on electronically to a central system to tabulate the statewide vote. And the real life event that convinced at least some that hacking this central tabulation was Karl Rove's on-air meltdown in 2008 over Ohio calling the state for Obama. It sure looked like he 'knew' that that was not supposed to happen, and to the conspiracy minded, that sure looked like he thought the fix was in somewhere along the chain of custody. Who knows? But to assume that the distributed nature of the system renders it invulnerable is a bit naive...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    12. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      At some point all those distributed components of the voting system log on electronically to a central system to tabulate the statewide vote.

      Really? Where are you getting your information? How do you know the precincts don't, for example, report by telephone? And regardless of how the data is aggregated, today you and I can drill down and see the vote tallies on a precinct-by-precinct basis. Do do you really think the precincts themselves aren't watching those numbers like hawks against the ones they reported?

      And the real life event that convinced at least some that hacking this central tabulation was Karl Rove's on-air meltdown in 2008 over Ohio calling the state for Obama. It sure looked like he 'knew' that that was not supposed to happen, and to the conspiracy minded, that sure looked like he thought the fix was in somewhere along the chain of custody.

      So the evidence for hacking is that hacking didn't happen but somebody acted in a way people say we should interpret as him thinking that hacking was going to happen? Oh dear. I suppose these people also want us to believe that the hacking that he supposedly was so confident was going to happen but didn't somehow mysteriously failed without anyone outside the conspiracy detecting it?

      But to assume that the distributed nature of the system renders it invulnerable is a bit naive...

      Nothing in life is invulnerable, but the distributed nature of the system, along with the multiple layers of checks and balances, dramatically reduces the odds of broad-scale issues.

      I'd suggest the real naivety lies with those sitting around blindly conjecturing about how electronic voting machines could be used to swing elections without factoring in or caring to understand the safeguards in the broader system in which the EVMs operate.

    13. Re:I am an election officer and I am dismissive by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      I said it was a tinfoil hat conspiracy, didn't I?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  9. Why do you even need to use a machine anyways? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    There's a limited number of people that are going to be at any single voting station, so manual counts of paper ballots wouldn't take that long, happening in parallel all over the country. The ballots can even be kept for a little while, in case recounts are necessary.

    1. Re:Why do you even need to use a machine anyways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To you the vulnerabilities are drawbacks
      To the GOP the vulnerabilities are key to winning even in non-gerrymandered areas.

  10. The Dems keep wining popular votes by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and losing elections. It's one thing when that happens with the presidency. Our electoral college was designed to do exactly that. But they've lost the House two or three times now but won more votes. I want to see stuff like this because if nothing else I want to see an end to our sham Democracy. Maybe if enough people recognize there's a problem we'll start seeing changes.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The Dems keep wining popular votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post quite spectacularly exemplifies that you have no idea what you're discussing.

    2. Re: The Dems keep wining popular votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your post explemifies the exact same fucking thing. Did you dispute what he said? No? Did you bring some facts or sources? No? Oh well shit. You are just an idiot troll.

    3. Re: The Dems keep wining popular votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the consecutive string of long words that don't add anything. First class.

    4. Re: The Dems keep wining popular votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least he didn't say shit and fucking. Klassy!

  11. Well Senator by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    I would be happy to answer that right after you explain why you and your colleagues have been ignoring everyone and their fucking brother telling you your electronic voting machines are susceptible to manipulation for the past GD decade or more.

    NOW it's a big deal ? :facepalm:

     

  12. Feature, not Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're promising an election to a group the majority will vote against, and you want plausible deniability in the form of external foreign agents changing the numbers, security in your paperless Accuvote-TS models is the LAST thing you want to focus on, but outright admitting that would probably have your family shot for treason (and rightly so). Well, second-to-last. Paper Ballots would kill your plan quite hard.

    So you do what the party you're helping always does: You deny there's anything wrong, try to have the whistleblowers jailed, and pretend the GRU could never get into the systems it controls.

  13. Even a broken clock is right every once in a while by jroysdon · · Score: 0

    Kamala D. Harris is a horrible legislator and I'm embarrassed to have her a senator from California. But, like a broken clock, she is right every once in a while. Unfortunately, the clock is right probably 729 times more per year than her.

  14. Every time there's a thread like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will post this. It should be mandatory viewing.

    Why electronic voting is a terrible idea:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

  15. Re:Even a broken clock is right every once in a wh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's be fair: She's just looking for publicity,and can probably play it up as a money move to get donations from the tech firms.