Slashdot Mirror


Voting Machine Used in Half of US Is Vulnerable to Attack, Report Finds (wsj.com)

Election machines used in more than half of U.S. states carry a flaw disclosed more than a decade ago that makes them vulnerable to a cyberattack, WSJ reported, citing a report which will be made public Thursday on Capitol Hill. From the report: The issue was found in the widely used Model 650 high-speed ballot-counting machine made by Election Systems & Software LLC, the nation's leading manufacturer of election equipment. It is one of about seven security problems in several models of voting equipment described in the report, which is based on research conducted last month at the Def Con hacker conference. The flaw in the ES&S machine stood out because it was detailed in a security report commissioned by Ohio's secretary of state in 2007, said Harri Hursti, an election-security researcher who co-wrote both the Ohio and Def Con reports. "There has been more than plenty of time to fix it," he said.

While the Model 650 is still being sold on the ES&S website, a company spokeswoman said it stopped manufacturing the systems in 2008. The machine doesn't have the advanced security features of more-modern systems, but ES&S believes "the security protections on the M650 are strong enough to make it extraordinarily difficult to hack in a real world environment," the spokeswoman said via email. The machines process paper ballots and can therefore be reliably audited, she said. The Def Con report is the latest warning from researchers, academics and government officials who say election systems in the U.S. are at risk to tampering.

110 comments

  1. Paper ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you don't support paper ballots cross indexed with a list of citizens you don't support free and open elections.

    1. Re:Paper ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The way things are going, American needs the UN to come in and observe the election. It won't be long until the general public no longer trusts the results.

      Far from being "great again", the country is turning into a third world shit hole.

    2. Re:Paper ballots by Noodles · · Score: 1

      RTFA - it's a paper ballot scanner

    3. Re:Paper ballots by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We should use UN best practices.

      Clear ballot boxes.
      Paper ballots.
      Indelible ink thumb marking.
      Voter registration.
      Immediate public counting.
      Picture ID

      But the Ds say that would be racist.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Paper ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ds only have issue with (a) Voter registration and (b) Picture ID because, they claim that those actions are a burden on the voters from disadvantaged groups. The voter is not impacted by the rest.

      However considering that campaigns start 24 months before the election, a large majority of those who do not meet those two requirements have plenty of time to fix it. If 1% of 30% of eligible voters cannot make it, IMO, it's an acceptable cost to pay to ensure fairness and transparency in the process.

      More importantly, the voting hours and days should be extended.

    5. Re:Paper ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The issues with voter registration usually have to do with cutoff dates long before the election and people getting purged from the voter rolls for no reason. Otherwise, nobody really objects to the practice itself, which should be fast and easy; it's usually just a matter of checking a box on a form or filling out a separate paper or online form.

      ID is a bit trickier because it depends on the implementation and the resources available in the state. Believe it or not, a significant percentage of Americans live their lives without needing an ID that would satisfy some Voter ID requirements, particularly the poor and the elderly and/or people in rural areas. Make it quick and easy (and free) to get a photo ID and you'll still have countless problems. Name changes (word of advice: never change your name, it will cause you endless trouble), moves, changes in appearance, typos on official documents, etc. can all be used to disqualify people from voting. Confusion over which types of photo ID are valid also causes problems. If registered voters are being turned away because of photo ID requirements, that's a failure of the state and should not be tolerated. After all, voter turnout is bad enough as it is.

    6. Re:Paper ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way things are going, American needs the UN to come in and observe the election. It won't be long until the general public no longer trusts the results.

      Far from being "great again", the country is turning into a third world shit hole.

      Need to fix the machine of course, that goes without saying, but at least these are auditable, since there is a paper trail.

      The main thing to remember about claims of voter fraud by republicans is their goal is manipulation of results to favor them, and not honest debate. Purge the voting roles of those more likely to vote for their opponents. Close voting stations to make it harder for those likely to vote for those who are more likely to vote for their opponents to vote. Add restrictive ID requirements that add additional hoops to jump through for those more likely to vote for their opponents, since most of their voters already have drivers licenses. Redistrict so you pack most of your opponents voters in a single district, and spread your own voters to maximize your gains.

      When republicans talk about voter fraud, it is they who are committing it. They don't do it by directly fake voting. There is no proof that is going on in any significant amount, since it is hard. They do it by manipulating who actually votes, where they vote, and who they vote for.

      There are few things more evil than a politician being able to choose his or her voters. That is where we are today, so yah, fix the machine, but also make sure there is a polling place within minutes of every voter, make sure they can easily vote, and if needed get any idea or registration they need the same day. In short, make it easier not harder to vote.

  2. RUSSIANS!!! by mstrash · · Score: 0

    Must be the RUSSIANS at work again!!!!@12

  3. Reliable auditing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These work in conjunction with paper ballots and can be reliably audited. This isn't really any news

    1. Re:Reliable auditing by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I was skeptical at "about seven security problems in several models."

      But I'm not skeptical about the part where the nations voting machines are full of security holes, and are under active attack, and are being used anyways.

    2. Re:Reliable auditing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no evidence of any active attacks? There certainly was not any evidence of tampering in the last major election.

    3. Re:Reliable auditing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wouldn't tell you if there was. There is no process for invalidating an election. Even if you could prove election tampering the outcome would not change. They would never report the evidence as all it would due is erode trust in the electoral process.

    4. Re:Reliable auditing by davidwr · · Score: 1

      The tampering in 2016 was mostly "wetware attacks" - using propaganda and misleading information while pretending to be a news organization or other presumably-neutral party.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    5. Re:Reliable auditing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has absolutely nothing to do with a voting machine.

    6. Re:Reliable auditing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but your statement is wrong. Just look at the year 2000 Presidential election in Florida debacle.

  4. So in other words, business as usual by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Troll

    As far as Trump and his supporters are concerned, this isn't a bug, it's a feature.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:So in other words, business as usual by nwaack · · Score: 1

      What the hell does this have to do with Trump or his supporters? Did you just see the word "voting" and your little knee-jerk brain immediately starting vomiting "TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP" over and over again? You're clearly a complete idiot, have Trump derangement syndrome (which, as time passes, I'm starting to believe might actually be a real thing) or were trying to be a d-bag troll and forgot to check the anonymous button. Either way you suck...go away.

    2. Re:So in other words, business as usual by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > As far as Trump and his supporters are concerned, this isn't a bug, it's a feature.

      I wish I could blame Trump, but in my home state the DEMOCRATS are in control (75% majority). It was the Democrats that pushed to phase-out paper ballots (which worked perfectly) and replace them with computers (which can be hacked/miscounted).

      It was also the Democrats that turned my home state into the most gerrymandered state in the country: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      HONESTLY:

      I think both parties suck ass. I wouldn't trust any GOP or DNC politician with the key to my house.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re: So in other words, business as usual by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      Just remember not to "waste" your vote by casting it for a non-approved party.
      Be a shame if you were silenced for not carrying on with the status quo.

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    4. Re:So in other words, business as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats in some states, most probably, don't want to spend money on voting machine security any more than any CEO want to spend money on IT security.

      The GOP, on the other hand, has reason to want Russia to keep on keeping on, and that includes their supporters like the NRA (who got 30 million of Russian money in 2016) and a few congress folks and Senators, and it appears maybe a few right wing media folks.

      We as Americans share two things in common, we are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, and we choose our leaders.

      Some of our leaders are now anti-immigration for anyone not white, and Russia is a notoriously white country.

      So they don't care about Russia, or voting, they don't care if their leaders are conmen who cheat on their wives, they just want the browns out.

    5. Re: So in other words, business as usual by Type44Q · · Score: 0
      Business as usual, if for no other reason than we've been reading about blatantly-and-suspiciously-insecure voting machines here on /. for twenty years. However, far too many "idealistic progressives" (I'm one myself, albeit of the "minimal gov't" school) live in a cushy reality bubble where "government is quite benign and effective, as long as it's flying the right flag) and "good intentions naturally translate to good deeds..." as long as there's a committee that's "diverse enough."

      And as for compatibility between different cultures... well, as just one example, exactly what does happen when you throw sexually-unrepressed and open-minded Danish cultural 'into the blender' with, say, Bedouin culture and its notions??

      Then there's this whole nonsensical reaction to America finally doing something about our monstrous (and growing) trade multi-decade trade imbalance - i.e. simply doing what every other nation does. Here's a hint: the issue of America needing to protect her [few remaining industries] isn't a political or idealogical one; it's basic arithmetic.

    6. Re:So in other words, business as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can be hacked? ARE hacked.

      Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything
      - Attributed to Stalin.

    7. Re: So in other words, business as usual by Type44Q · · Score: 0
      Summary:A) Trump the person could very well be the biggest, most narcissistic douche on the planet (I wouldn't know, I've never met the guy... though apparently all the rest of you have, because I sure as fuck hear an awful lot of conviction in said claims about the guy.

      B) Trump the showman clearly makes every effort to seem like the biggest, most narcissistic douche on the planet. Regardless of the reason (whether it's because he's Evil Incarnate or a drooling moron... or because he's got everyone fooled and is actually Mother Theresa with a sex change and a sneaky plan to save us all from ourselves), it's still a fucking show.

      C) his record on 'coal and climate' is indeed nightmarish.

      D) His two most controversial actions, however (stemming illegal and legal immigration; igniting a proper trade war)... shouldn't be.

    8. Re:So in other words, business as usual by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      > As far as Trump and his supporters are concerned, this isn't a bug, it's a feature.

      I wish I could blame Trump, but in my home state the DEMOCRATS are in control (75% majority). It was the Democrats that pushed to phase-out paper ballots (which worked perfectly) and replace them with computers (which can be hacked/miscounted).

      It was also the Democrats that turned my home state into the most gerrymandered state in the country: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Well, yeah. Whichever party is in power will pretty much do anything and everything to stay that way. So of course they want election systems that can be tampered with, and want to ensure that their people are in charge of deploying them, just in case the need arises. And of course they want things to be as gerrymandered as possible in their favor. Both parties are only against those things when the other party is in power.

      And it isn't just things that affect the balance of power directly. They also pay lip service to — and occasionally pretend to try to change — certain laws only when they know they will fail — for example, the whole Roe v. Wade thing. I don't think for one minute that the Republicans will actually get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, nor limit it meaningfully, because that brings in the evangelical Christian vote. If they ever succeed in changing that in any semi-permanent way (like rebalancing a court that changes very slowly), they lose most of their leverage. This is also why they only pass laws to ban abortion when the other party has too much power to make them actually pass.

      Democrats do the same thing with gun control, passing laws that do little to solve the real problems that exist, while pretending to do something, knowing that if they ever really passed useful laws that would meaningfully reduce the number of black market guns on the streets, such as requiring guns to be locked in a gun safe that bolted to the floor when no adult member of the household is home, requiring a monitored alarm system on all homes containing guns, etc., they would gradually lose a lot of pro-gun-control voters to apathy.

      So I'm with you. Politicians make me sick. The number of Democrat politicians I respect is roughly in the single digits, and the number of Republican politicians that I respect shrank from two to one about a month ago.

      I half seriously want to run for office in the hopes of maybe, just maybe having one fewer politicians in office — except, of course, for the nagging fear that by doing so, I might become one. If I ever do, my theory of governance is simple:

      The purpose of government is to protect the powerless from the powerful.

      Any law not deriving from that is inherently a bad law. We need to reboot American politics with that theory in mind.

      For example, abortion is a hard issue because there are potentially two powerless parties: the fetus and the mother (who may fear that she won't have a job if she takes time off to give birth, who may have been gotten pregnant without her consent, or who may be too young to safely give birth).

      The solution, of course, is to pour research dollars into making artificial womb technology a reality. If the fetus doesn't depend on the mother to survive, this permanently destroys the right-to-life / right-to-choose false dichotomy, and the laws become entirely obvious: simultaneously ban abortion and pay for fetus transfers so long as the mother is giving up the child for adoption or such a transfer is deemed medically necessary.

      We also need to reboot Congress based on sound engineering principles:

      • Limit the length of all bills (except, temporarily, the budget bill) to what can be reasonably read and understood by the congresspeople who are supposed to vote on it.
      • Require eve
      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re: So in other words, business as usual by dryeo · · Score: 1

      We're talking about someone so uninformed that he is spending most of his time fighting a trade war with one of the few countries that the USA has a trade surplus with. I guess it is still true that to Americans, free trade means getting stuff for free, and then giving it to the Chinese.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re: So in other words, business as usual by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I think that's the best summary of US trade policy I've ever read.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    11. Re:So in other words, business as usual by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      There's a bunch of dicks hanging out in the men's room. Back to work, bitch, your break's over.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    12. Re:So in other words, business as usual by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It was also the Democrats that turned my home state into the most gerrymandered state in the country:

      That's beyond an exaggeration. First, the Republicans only get 37.5% of the vote. It would be trivially to give them zero seats; instead they got one. In Wisconsin, the Republicans got 47.5% of the vote. But they got over 60% of the seats. That's gerrymandered to hell and back.

      I'm not saying "Maryland has no gerrymandering", but it's not an extreme case. It's pretty similar to how in Texas, Austin is divided into 5(?) districts that each go out (kinda like pie slices) to include enough good-old-boys to offset the bright blue center.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    13. Re:So in other words, business as usual by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      I've heard Wisconsin is bad, but not as bad as Maryland. Here's the relevant quote: "The districts are among the least geographically compact in the nation."

      - There are points in Maryland where the district is only one block wide, in order to reach from 40-mile distant mountains into cities like D.C. or Baltimore (which are Democrat).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:So in other words, business as usual by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      "The districts are among the least geographically compact in the nation."

      That's actually not the best measure of gerrymandering. There are real measures, based on how extreme a change is needed to make districts flip. And Maryland looks silly, but could easily have been more gerrymandered. Republicans got 3/8 votes and 1/8 seats. That's... not super horrible. I mean, it's easy to imagine them (and partisans drew maps that did) get 0 seats with that kind of blowout. Meanwhile, Wisconsin has 37.5% democratic seats in spite of the fact that the democrats got more than 50% of the vote.

      There are points in Maryland where the district is only one block wide

      This is actually pretty common. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is.

      I'm not saying Maryland is gerrymandered. I'm saying it's not gerrymandered compared to Wisconsin. Because in Maryland, it's just the most popular party getting slightly more seats than raw vote totals would suggest, and in Wisconsin it's the losing party getting the most seats by a lot.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re:So in other words, business as usual by nwaack · · Score: 1

      Oooh, what an amazingly insightful, thought-provoking response. You must be one of those "tolerant liberals" I keep hearing so much about but have yet to actually meet. It looks like the only dick here is you.

    16. Re:So in other words, business as usual by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      > Wisconsin has 37.5% democratic seats in spite of the fact that the democrats got [49.75%] of the vote.

      I corrected you based on the actual results. So that means the Wisconsin gap between popular vote and seats in the U.S. House is about 12 and a half percent.

      The gap in Maryland is 60.4% popular vote for the majority party (DNC) and 7/8 of the seats == 27% gap.

      CONCLUSION: Maryland is still "more gerrymandered" than Wisconsin, even if I use your methodology.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:So in other words, business as usual by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      P.S. I should include the GOP too:

      The GOP in Maryland got 35.5% popular vote and only 12.5% of the house seats.... which is 23% gap (due to the GOP being gerrymandered out of two of their rural, non-urban seats).

      That still exceeds the GOP gap in Wisconsin of just 16.6%.
        Maryland is far worse (again using YOUR proposed method).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:So in other words, business as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      again using YOUR proposed method

      Except.. you didn't. You used your own method and claimed you used theirs, hoping no one would call you on your bullshit.

  5. DNC rigs elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    And the ACTUAL primary rigging was done by Hillary. I noticed you failed to mention that bit.

    1. Re:DNC rigs elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quiet you...

      The slashdotti doesn't want to see the elephant

    2. Re:DNC rigs elections by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Awww. It doesn't know the difference between primaries and elections. Isn't that cute!

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  6. You don't say by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Who could have possibly predicted this?

    What is this world coming to? Next, they'll be telling us robot lawnmowers are killing little hedgehogs.

    https://youtu.be/SgpnrOUS2BE

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:You don't say by pmgst17 · · Score: 1

      You're on slashdot referencing another slashdot article. Not an article from days or months ago, but the previous one on the front page!! Can't you link to that article? https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    2. Re:You don't say by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You're on slashdot referencing another slashdot article. Not an article from days or months ago, but the previous one on the front page!! Can't you link to that article?

      Jesus, you're a thick one, aren't you? THAT'S THE POINT. Nerds can be so bloody-minded sometimes. No wonder their idea of the height of cleverness is Dilbert.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Sounds a good enough reason by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Voting machines are vulnerable to attack?

    Sounds a good enough reason to cast a revote on the Presidential election to me. :)

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Sounds a good enough reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/index.html

  8. Let's just use paper ballots by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

    (1) The paper can be quickly scanned by machine, for a same-day tally.

    (2) However the stacks of paper ballots will provide a verifiable audit trail, which can be hand-counted if the machines' integrity is doubted.

    The main flaw with today's system is NO audit trail exists (which is probably what the political bosses want).

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Let's just use paper ballots by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      The main flaw with today's system is NO audit trail exists (which is probably what the political bosses want).

      In some states that is true. In my State, there is an audit trail.

    2. Re:Let's just use paper ballots by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Let's just use paper ballots

      Good news! They already took your advice. This article is about a problem with a voting machine which tallies paper ballots.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    3. Re:Let's just use paper ballots by Holi · · Score: 2

      "The machines process paper ballots and can therefore be reliably audited"

      Forget the article, did you even read the summary

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:Let's just use paper ballots by Holi · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed how many comments are screaming paper ballots?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    5. Re:Let's just use paper ballots by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      Yeah I read the article, but in MY state we don't use paper ballots (which is dumb). We have no audit trail.... no possibility of a handcount.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Let's just use paper ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but in MY state we don't use paper ballots

      You mean California? Because near as I can tell, you're wrong.

  9. Non-networked and paper ballots by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Look, we all know how to deal with the continual Russian hacking, the EU has demonstrated the only thing that works are paper ballots and non-networked vote counting machines with an audit trail.

    And, yes, it's Russia.

    Luckily for those of us on the West Coast, Oregon, California, and Washington State all vote by mail using paper ballots.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Non-networked and paper ballots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which leaves them susceptible to vote buying, fraud, and intimidation. Well done.

    2. Re:Non-networked and paper ballots by Strider- · · Score: 1

      Even better, in Canada, we count ballots by hand. In triplicate. With representatives from each of the involved parties fully supervising the count. The best part? results are available within an hour or two of the polls closing. Recounts are ordered automatically when results are closer than something like 1%, but rarely do the numbers change.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    3. Re:Non-networked and paper ballots by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      none of those are measurable in any significant way, as has been demonstrated by countless studies.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Non-networked and paper ballots by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know, you'll tell me you automatically register everyone to vote by knocking on their doors and when they vote, in person, you let them register on the spot and even give them a pencil to vote with ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:Non-networked and paper ballots by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The Conservative government changed that last Federal election, as well as changing the voter ID requirements in such ways as to disenfranchise people, all on the advice of Americans.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  10. Sorry this is wrong problem to solve with IT by MarkH · · Score: 4, Informative

    In good ole UK we use following system
    * Every year little form through post to register folk in household for election register ( can state if entry not public info )
    * Get card through post about next election
    * On day of election go to polling station.
    * If you have polling card fine if not any proof of id or even just name and address
    * You get ticked off on paper list
    * Given your bit of paper go into little booth
    * Make X next to candidate ( for EU and local elections may be more than 1 )
    * Fold up
    * Put in box
    * Someone outside will ask you who you vote for. I always decline ( exit poll I think it called )

    Then those boxes are taped up and sent to counting station. Lots of paid folk count them out.

    They announce vote about 8-12 hours later

    Simples

    1. Re:Sorry this is wrong problem to solve with IT by jimbobxxx · · Score: 1

      Then those boxes are taped up and sent to counting station. Lots of paid folk count them out.

      A process which is open to scrutiny as the votes are counted.

    2. Re:Sorry this is wrong problem to solve with IT by Strider- · · Score: 1

      One of the interesting bits I learned about Australian elections (don't know if it's true or not), is that the first member of the public who enters the polling station has the job of inspecting the ballot box to ensure that it's empty, then that it's properly sealed, and then signs an affidavit stating such.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    3. Re:Sorry this is wrong problem to solve with IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like the US is so huge that scaling up that system is a big part of the problem. The logistics and management is orders of magnitude more complex (read: expensive and messy).

      But, yeah, paper ballots please. It's the only answer.

  11. How incompetent are these people? by Targon · · Score: 1

    It isn't all that difficult to design a properly secured system, and all you really need to do is to isolate the stations from the outside world.

    Each voting machine should tie into a local "server", and after every vote, send up an encrypted packet with the voting choices to that server. Locally, the machine should keep a paper version of every vote, a local copy of the count, and after a given period, do a sync with the server with totals to verify that what has gone to the server from each station has not only been received, but also that the count for each person is correct. This would avoid tampering, and if there is a difference between them, an alarm could go off to indicate that there is a problem. Since there is no connection to the Internet while voting is going on, there can't be any tampering with the vote from outside.

    Now, there could be a more secure connection that only has a single UUCP type connection between the server and the outside world. At no time can there be incoming connections from the server over that link to the outside. At no time do you need wireless connections, you don't have a big footprint, so people can't just plug into the local connection(and there can be security to lock out any devices that are not authorized to be even connected to the local LAN). So, you have inside security, you have local paper trails, and you have TEMPORARY connections to the outside, initiated by the local server to upload statistics, but incoming information wouldn't work to try to change anything.

    Clean, secure, and there is a paper trail. Logging for each station would show and even have checks to verify number of people using the machines to make sure that nothing gets changed or forged.

    This basic structure is something I just put down, didn't need to really think too hard about, and yet, it is probably safer and easier to implement than the incompetent systems that are so easily hacked. You don't need everything to be connected to the Internet, or to even have local networks that are connected to the outside world, so why is security so difficult for these companies that get paid to provide a system?

    1. Re:How incompetent are these people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Above of the lowest "floor" level of nobodies at any company or organization (whether the girl flipping your burger or the sales clerk forced to offer extended warranties), you must NEVER attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.

      You don't demand, design, offer, sell, accept or implement an entirely inherently unsafe electronic voting system whose primary points of appeal are a dangerous lack of both security and audit-capabilities out of "not knowing any better".
      Ask yourself "who benefits" instead.

  12. NOTABUG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Works as intended.

  13. Remember that programmer who spilled the beans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in court and under oath he testified that he was explicitly told from the higher ups that the machines had to be made so the votes could be remotely altered. Stop blaming Russia, or Iraq or whoever is on the agenda at the moment, the culprit is your own government.

  14. Voting Software by dejavux · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Voting Software by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, blockchain based on-phone voting is now a reality in the US. And yes it's as bad as XKCD says.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  15. It can be even simpler by davidwr · · Score: 1

    At each voting location, drop ballots into the local vote-tabulating ballot box, which is sealed.

    At the end of election the box prints out a local tally. Send copies of the tally to the press if they aren't there watching the printout as it is printed.

    Take the entire sealed ballot box to the central location.

    Take all ballots to another machine that is made by a different vendor which uses totally different chips inside.

    Re-count the votes with this second machine and publish the results to the press.

    If there is a mis-match of more than +/- 1 vote in any race, hand-count the votes in that box with many people watching.

    If there is no mismatch or a small mismatch, put the ballots into a sealed container in case they need to be re-counted later. If the total of mis-matched votes plus other factors suggest a hand-count is needed for the voters to have confidence in the outcome of a particular race, do a hand-count of that entire race.

    Separate from all of the above, do a complete hand-count audit of a small random sample of all voting locations. Also to check for anomalies and deter rigging the machines, count a random sample of ballots from a large number of randomly-selected voting locations.

    All steps except that of the actual voter casting his ballot should be done under watchful eyes of representatives from any group that wants to watch. Even the actual voting should be open to poll-watchers as long as they are far enough away to not see who is voting for what.

    ----
    Note: This won't stop all bad behavior. You can still deter people likely to vote against you from voting by making it hard to vote (like Florida's felony-can't-vote rules), voter intimidation, wrecking your car on a major road thereby making it inconvenient for people to get to the polls, and other ways that have nothing to do with the vote-counting process.

    ----
    As a condition of use, all vote-related equipment that is at the "local level" - everything used to collect the votes and create the local tallies - must have a published design and implementation and it must be audit-able. This way, I can build an identical machine and compare the one I built to the one that is being used and prove they are identical. This means that the computer chips will have a simple enough design that I can remove the tops, look at them under a microscope, and see that they are identical to what I made. I'm not so concerned about equipment that creates the aggregate tallies, as any cheating at that level will be easily caught by a watchful press.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  16. Canada Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada has been using paper ballots.

    Maybe they can come in as part of a UN sanctioned team and help run fair elections.

    But that would be un-american. We get to tell other people how to do their elections, because we want our candidates installed.

    1. Re:Canada Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, like the ballots used with the ES&S Model 650 Ballot Counter?

      Seriously, you're all so triggered that you failed to even read the summary.

  17. Yes, Republicans are racists in 2018. Fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Picture ID would be unconstitutional, but using it (as Republicans are doing now, along with closing polling places and reducing hours, fake robocall info and false info mailers, etc) is intended to suppress minority voters.

    You're a cowardly cabal. Yes, Republicans are racists in 2018.

  18. Extreme misleading article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No hacking of thes systems ever happened, its all just more democrat paranoid about Russia conspiracy. Too bad Slashdot.Org has so much liberal bias they keep pushing this false narrative about totally non-existant hacking. Once more we see how liberal biased sites like Slashdot.Org are trying to sway upcoming election which is being target by Chinese hackers to give control of goverment to Democrat party. Sad.

  19. It's worse than you think... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is what you should be reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... There are so many problems with our voting system, it can't be attributed to mere greed and stupidity...

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  20. Re: Yes, Republicans are racists in 2018. Fact. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    We got us an amature lawyer.

    Everything in your post is wrong. Everything.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  21. WTF by Holi · · Score: 1

    To everyone screaming PAPER BALLOTS,

    This is the machine that counts your damn paper ballots. So what the hell are you all talking about?
    Do you guys even read anymore?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  22. Re: Yes, Republicans are racists in 2018. Fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah a photo id is really going to suppress actual citizens' rights. Bullshit.

  23. Voter Suppression & Gerrymandering by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    are much, much bigger problems than this. If we really care about democracy then we should make voting mandatory (doing so would end voter suppression), require all states to have vote by mail and apply open-source algorithms that are legally required to divide the population equitably (I don't know the algorithms off hand, but there are several that are considered fair and effective). Finally voting rights should be restored when you're done serving your prison sentence. The only reason to take voting rights away from ex-cons is to suppress their (left wing) votes.

    But, well, I don't think we really care. There's a significant number of Americans who think it's a bad idea to let the "wrong" people vote. It's funny to see the double think involved when they somehow reconcile this thought with their love of democracy...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Voter Suppression & Gerrymandering by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      If we really care about democracy then we should make voting mandatory

      A basic tenet of democracy is an informed and caring electorate making informed decisions. "Mandatory voting" is the absolute antithesis of this. Besides creating the problem of people who absolutely object to being forced to vote and decide to vote for the stupidest option just to fuck with the system, you'll have a much larger group who don't care at all and will vote based on the last sound-byte attack ad they hear.

      require all states to have vote by mail

      Yeah, because throwing ballots to the wind and counting whatever comes back is SO much democracy. Once you let the ballots out of your control, you lose control over who gets them, who votes them, and who sends them back.

      There's a significant number of Americans who think it's a bad idea to let the "wrong" people vote.

      Are there "wrong" people who we should not allow to vote? If you don't think there are, then you are in the group that thinks that anyone who walks into a polling place should be allowed to vote. Who are the "wrong" people? Non-citizens. People under the legal voting age for the state. People who don't live in that voting district. People who have already voted someplace else. You are insulting those who think the "wrong" people shouldn't vote -- and they are absolutely correct in demanding that they aren't allowed to.

      And there are those of us who think that there are "wrong" people when it comes to who SHOULD vote, even if they can. People who just don't care SHOULD NOT VOTE. Their vote is noise. They are ALLOWED to vote, but they should self-select themselves out of the process.

      And I'll go one further. For any taxation measure, anyone who isn't going to be paying the tax should not vote on it. For example, a proposal to add even more taxes to cigarettes should not be voted on by non-smokers. This is based on the old concept which I think was voiced by DeToqueville -- a free society can exist only until the majority realizes they can tax the minority to pay for their stuff. Or something like that.

      So there.

    2. Re:Voter Suppression & Gerrymandering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a significant number of Americans who think it's a bad idea to let the "wrong" people vote.

      Are you referring to the armed Black Panthers who were hanging out around polling places while Barry Soetoro was up for election?

    3. Re: Voter Suppression & Gerrymandering by Brujis · · Score: 1

      Democracy has no place deciding anything about what is mine.

    4. Re:Voter Suppression & Gerrymandering by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      When you commit a felony, you lose some of your civil rights. Gun ownership, for example, although for some strange reason you didn't cite that. You have proven you can't play well with others and the adults are going to take away your toys. A better question might be why the vast majority of our criminals are Democrats.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Voter Suppression & Gerrymandering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Ranked-choice voting would be a welcome addition as well.

    6. Re:Voter Suppression & Gerrymandering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better question might be why the vast majority of our criminals are Democrats.

      Easy: because Democrats, despite claims of the contrary, aren't actually the ones holding and corrupting government power. They're usually the victims of government oppression, not the instigators.

      Now, I'm not saying that the Republicans are the instigators, but I will say it isn't good optics when Republicans are often on the side celebrating government jailing people.

    7. Re:Voter Suppression & Gerrymandering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you told me neo-nazi's were right wing. Prison is full of them, I know from first hand experience that's why I hate nazi's. So wouldn't that be right wing voter suppression?

      --Highdude702(mods)

  24. I haven't registerd for either party in my life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I vote third party if there is an option, then toss between democrat and republican for anything there isn't a documented alternative to vote for. More recently I've been voting and just leaving positions blank as a sign of protest over the two choices, because it has been harder to find a politician I can vote for even in lesser disgust anymore.

    > I wouldn't trust any GOP or DNC politician with the key to my most hated enemy's house.

    Next election is really the time for people to organize and vote down both the democrats and republicans, even if it is for a third party candidate you're not 100 percent with. The election after that is fixing our election system, and the one after that is getting as many third parties as possible onto the ballot, into the common person's mind and in the debate on how to move the country forward. If not, you might find a fat chinese man wearing a red star lapel as your next glorious leader. Or a barechested farting russian autocrat.

  25. Republicans have been bigots for a very long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah a photo id is really going to suppress actual citizens' rights. Bullshit.

    If you're chosing between spending US$10 on a State ID, or feeding your kids, most people will feed their kids. It has been well documented for several decades that these efforts to address a non-existent problem are solely designed to place logistical and bureaucratic barriers between the economically disadvantaged and the polling place.

    In the last, arguably most polarized election in history, there were just four (4), count them, four, documented cases of voter fraud out of 135,000,000 voters who took part. Four.[1]

    This isn't about addressing any problem other than "we can't let those poor, disproportionately non-white people, vote or we'll be swept from power."

    Republicans are women hating, white-entitled racists who are fine putting accused pedophiles into office and rapists on the supreme court. They have done more in the last two years to make me ashamed of my skin color, gender, and nationality than 242 years of often dark history have managed to do (probably because these neanderthals are showing us all what scum a good 40% of our population, mostly white, really is).

    And no, I don't believe Trump is Hitler. He's more like Ferdinand Marcos to Putin's Hitler, but I digress.

    [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/

  26. The DNC rigs elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again, not a mention of Clinton rigging the primary in 2016.

    If YOU were serious you would call for those involved in rigging the primary to be held accountable as an example. Instead, since they got the "right person" to win you are fine with it.

    In other words, your opinion doesn't mean shit.

    1. Re:The DNC rigs elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah she rigged it by getting more votes!

  27. THe model 650 is a paper ballot counter by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    The model 650 is the supersized version of the precint optical scan ballot counter (model 100).

    First.. THIS IS PAPER BALLOT! so they can be recounted and recounted by hand. THew same ballots can even be counted on multiple machines. SO yeah paper ballots! The operative word here is "can". Lots of roadblocks to actually recounting. If all the machines are in use you can't just use one machine to recount another's ballots. Well you could and it wold work just fine but there lots of procedure violations in that so it won't happen. Likewise triggering a hand count is problematic in most states. But that said. the paper is there.

    Second the archaic nature of these machines is in some ways good. Look at the dot matrix printers it uses. Those are not like modern laser printers which are full up computing machines with lots of flashabvle attack vectors like font files and toner chips and stuff. These very likely have hardwired rom fonts and no perating systems at all. Many of the crazy things you can get modrn OS's so do are foreclosed bu obsolete technology that is just smart enough to do what it does. And scanning an optical ballot doesn't require too much. It's not even doing OCR or imaging processing.

    So this machine might have some attack vectors but they are if anything easier to enumerate and thus prevent than something running the very latest Windows 10 or Linux zooey zooey or whatever.

    the vendors of course love to hear that the old machines are dangerous and need to be replaced. So no matter where this story originated expaect it to get amplified

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  28. No Surprise There by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    Paper ballots with verifiable safe storage for recounting if needed is the only good way to do this. NOTHING electronic is trustworthy here....think the new "Battlestar Galactica", no networks or Wifi or any such.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    1. Re:No Surprise There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the show where they rigged a paper ballot election?

  29. Re: Yes, Republicans are racists in 2018. Fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually Wimpwuss you don't know what you're talking about. Picture ID is issued by the state. State restrictions on Federal elections are un-C unless ratified Federally. You can't even spell amateur though you demonstrate it.

    And it's patently obvious Republicans are a racist party in 2018, and that's why you try to shut down the minority vote - because you are cowards, not Americans.

  30. Canada IS American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada IS American, you insensitive clod!

    But I'll grant you, it's not 'Merkin. Thank goodness.

  31. Re: Yes, Republicans are racists in 2018. Fact. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

    States legally requiring picture ID to vote.

    I know you won't admit you're wrong, but everybody else knows.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  32. Hey Vlad, you're running low on vodka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spoken like a truly retarded, racist republican misogynist. Go back to Russa, Vlad.

    1. Re:Hey Vlad, you're running low on vodka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes I'm almost sad that I'm against abortion because I know these libtards might actually reproduce...

  33. Says BGOH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says Big Giant Orange Head:

    "If only half the US uses those voting machines, we are only half vulnerable to attack! Fake News! No Collusion!!"

  34. That's not a basic tenet democracy by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    saying it is doesn't make it so. Democracy is everybody gets to a vote, they get one vote and they get to vote in elections that concern them.

    You're straw manning when you say "anyone who walks in". Again, one vote per person and elections that concern them. I don't get to vote in California's Senate races. I have my own. The same goes for illegal immigrants. You're trying to distract from the main issue, which is the suppression of legitimate voters.

    You know perfectly well what the "wrong" people means. It means people who disagree with you. You've made it very clear you'd like very much for those people to not be allowed to vote. And in the process made it clear that you're not really into democracy. Not when it counts, anyway.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  35. whatever by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

    saying it is doesn't make it so. Democracy is everybody gets to a vote, they get one vote and they get to vote in elections that concern them.

    That is the practical application. The basic tenet -- idea behind the system -- is that the people who vote are informed and care.

    You're straw manning when you say "anyone who walks in".

    No, I'm giving you the opposite to your "wrong" people claim. You say that there are those who claim that "wrong" people should not be allowed to vote. Since "wrong" people means non-citizens, non-residents, etc. as I listed, then if you oppose the idea of not allowing the "wrong" people to vote you are supporting the idea that anyone who walks in can do so.

    I don't get to vote in California's Senate races.

    I don't care why, but obviously then you are a "wrong" person and are not allowed to vote. Why aren't you up in arms that those awful California election officials aren't letting you vote?

    You're trying to distract from the main issue, which is the suppression of legitimate voters.

    Your phrase was "wrong people". Keeping the "wrong" people from voting has nothing to do with suppressing legitimate voters, since legitimate voters are not "wrong" people.

    You know perfectly well what the "wrong" people means. It means people who disagree with you.

    That may be what you intended to say, but you did not. "Wrong people" in the sense of what many of us don't want to be allowed to vote means exactly the list I gave previously.

    You've made it very clear you'd like very much for those people to not be allowed to vote.

    Oh, now you're just making shit up. The list I gave of "wrong people" had nothing to do with whether they agree with me on anything or not.

  36. Re: Yes, Republicans are racists in 2018. Fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually I'm not wrong, there are pending cases in Federal court about it. Republicans are simply too cowardly to pick them up and decide them on the legal merits. They know they'll lose in a fair vote - proven.
    The scared inbred racist faggots like you are, wimpwuss, circling the drain. When the voting rights act is reinstated you'll see why faggots like you without a shred of integrity will never matter beyond your 1 vote.
    All your gerrymandering and voter suppression does is make you obviously treasonous faggots, nothing more. Your racist party is dying and the hole is already dug.

    You're dead already dishonest faggots. Kavanaugh was your hail mary, and it was intercepted. NOW YOU GET FUCKED IN PRISON, TRAITOR. #The system works.

  37. It's not a voting machine... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2

    It's a high speed ballot counter. Back in the day, before the great buyup and consolidation of the elections business, I designed much of a competing machine.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:It's not a voting machine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a voting machine if it counts the votes "differently"...

  38. Re: Yes, Republicans are racists in 2018. Fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol a homophobe calling someone racist

  39. Democracy :( by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Is what produces a Trump s pres.

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:Democracy :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for putting up the liberal "We need to stop voting" post.

      We now have liberals against these rights:
      - Self Defense
      - Free speech
      - Right to vote
      - Right to privacy (abusing FISA courts illegally)

      Could we get a list of acceptable rights from you guys?

  40. Not measurable by aberglas · · Score: 1

    I think that you said the right thing but did not understand what you posted.

    They are not "unmeasurable" because they are so rare. They are unmeasurable because given the system, there is no realistic way to measure them.

    The system is not auditable.

  41. UK is a terrible system. by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Who scrutineers? And why does it take 8-10 hours?

    In Australia, scrutineers are appointed by the candidate (random member of public only used if no scrutineers available). They seal the box.

    Then at the end of the day the votes are counted at the polling booth. By hand. By the same staff that manned the booth. IN FRONT OF THE SCRUTINEERs. I have done the scruitneering a couple of times, it is a quick and friendly process.

    Normally there is a quick pass in which the votes are stacked into piles. Then they are gone through one by one, to confirm, and bundled into packets of 20 with a rubber band. In the unlikely event of unresolved disputes, those votes are put into a separate pile for adjudication later, if they would make a difference to the result. All over in an hour or so.

    And we have a better system, where you write 1, 2, 3. So you do not have to vote according to how you think other people will vote. All counted quickly and efficiently by hand, including the preferences.

  42. The trouble with Vote by Mail by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    is that I can't station police in riot gear outside polling places in predominately black neighborhoods^X^X^X places that need extra security.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  43. widespread election fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Widespread election fraud is the one and only reason universally-loathed candidate Hillary Clinton "won" the popular vote.

  44. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess we're seeing lots of noise about these problems just because Trump won. And the sore losers are trying to blame everyone (Russians, Facebook etc) but themselves.

    These voting machine problems have been around for years (Slashdot has run plenty of stories on these issues over the years).