Election Official: 'Vote can be very easily hacked.'

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This is a non-partisan issue. Period.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/13410061.htm

"A top election official and computer experts say computer hackers could easily change election results, after they found numerous flaws with a state-approved voting-machine in Tallahassee."

...

"Ion Sancho, Leon County's election chief, said tests by two computer experts, completed this week, showed that an insider could surreptitiously change vote results and the number of ballots cast on Diebold's optical-scan machines."



mrC

[Dexter]

Ah yes, Diebold. The company with the head honcho who promised at the republican fundraiser to 'deliver' the 2004 ohio vote in favour of the republicans.

They're helping oversee the 'free and fair' "democratic" elections currently being held in iraq, are they??

[ChadTower]

Anything can be hacked. 

Any process can be cheated.

Any person can be corrupted.

It is impossible to completely eliminate the possibility.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Ah yes, Diebold. The company with the head honcho who promised at the republican fundraiser to 'deliver' the 2004 ohio vote in favour of the republicans.

Well, not anymore. He resigned under rumors of coming "securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading." [link]

He has been replaced by former Diebold COO, new boss - same as the old boss. Isn't it nice that we trust a good portion of our electoral system to a corrupt partisan company that manufacters easily manipulated voting machines that produce absolutely no auditable paper trail?

And our country wants to lecture the world about Democracy?  Pffft...


mrC

[ChadTower]

Name a nonpartison company.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Anything can be hacked. 

So shouldn't we be working to make it more difficult, hence, less likely; rather than less difficult and more likely?




mrC

[ChadTower]

Sure we should, but the very statement "the system can be hacked" is a dumb one to make.  It will always be true no matter what the system happens to be.

What is the point of going to the media about it?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Name a nonpartison company.

That manufacters voting machines?  Once again, in your zeal to dismiss this issue, you miss the point entirely.


mrC

[ChadTower]

No, I get your point.  Your point is that the company is partisan.

MY point is that you cannot find one that is otherwise.  They are all partisan in a manner that suits their particular business.  You will be unable to find one that is completely impartial.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Sure we should, but the very statement "the system can be hacked" is a dumb one to make.  It will always be true no matter what the system happens to be.

There. Edited the paraphrased thread title.



mrC

[ChadTower]

It's all basically alarmism in preparation for the next election.  Plant the seeds of doubt about the newfangled voting machines just in case the elections don't go your way.

Sure, someone inside could hack the results with these machines.  There isn't a manner of voting where that is not a possibility.  It could be done with digital technology just like it could be done with punch cards and sticks.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Ok. Thank you Chad. You don't give a sh!t, so move along. Your apathetic apologisms are really grating. They also seem entirely naive, especially for someone who works as a software engineer (or whatever). I happen to think that the system of paperless voting on closed-source machines is highly troubling and moves us farther away from a more fair and more transparent process.

I'd gather that you don't care simpy because you see the process as favoring "your side." If Soros or Michael Moore owned Diebold, you'd be foaming at the mouth.

You have hereby been demoted from "Prince of Solutions" to "Duke of Solutions" since nothing you've posted leads to anything other than cramming one's head deeper into the sands of status quo.



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

No, I get your point.  Your point is that the company is partisan.

I care less about the partisanship, than I do about the complete lack of transparency in the system they've developed. If the machine weren't so easily hacked, I'd certainly be less troubled by the CEO's political leanings.

I don't care that this issue won't change the '04 results. This is, as you've suggested, about future votes. The GAO (Government Accountability Office) and now local election officials, have all confirmed that these Diebold systems are entirely insecure and completely lack any auditable trails. It's a WORSE system than we had, more vulnerable. Not better.



mrC

[ChadTower]

Well, there are many moons left in which to fix such issues.  Technology development is like that.

Honestly, my opinion is that technology based voting is stupid anyway.  Stick with the manual voting that can be traced in a more reliable manner.  Sometimes being able to do a thing in a paperless manner is not an improvement.

[ChadTower]

Apologism?  Who did I apologize for and what did I apologize for?

You're one tracking again.  Talking with you is like a damn Turing Test.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What is the point of going to the media about it?

Simple. Inform constituents of the insecure systems, so they can promote/support local ballot initiatives to remove Diebold machines from local elections and/or force local representatives to remove them from the process.


As was done here: California officials reject Diebold e-voting machines 

and here: Leon County Florida rejects Optical Scan Voting System



mrC

[ChadTower]

Good.  If the systems are questionable they should not be used.

Of course, if they are so questionable, they are probably not finished, and thus not actually implemented anyplace yet.

Is this preemptive rejection of an unfinished system?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Apologism?  Who did I apologize for and what did I apologize for?

You misunderstand. Apologism doesn't mean "to apologize".

Apologism is the metaphysical philosophy that argues that it is wrong for humans to attempt to alter the conditions of life in the mortal sphere of influence. It is opposed to the idea that absolute "progress" is a desirable goal for the pursuit of human endeavors.

Your comments in most political threads can be summed up as "apologism", since they basically amount to, "oh well, everything is bad. Why do something good?" If I were to be more specific, they come across as borderline Nihilist, and you only argue for the sake of argument, not because you desire any particular outcome.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Good.  If the systems are questionable they should not be used.

Why couldn't you have just said this in the beggining, rather than the other garbage?

Of course, if they are so questionable, they are probably not finished, and thus not actually implemented anyplace yet.

Is this preemptive rejection of an unfinished system?

Uh....the systems were frickin' used in a national election! Wtf? Preemptive ---my bottom---. They are considered finished, and they HAVE been implemented in the past and there are counties that plan on using them in the future even though there is every reason to remove them from the process.


mrC

[ChadTower]

Ah... yes, I misunderstood the term.  I'm not entirely sure where it comes from, though, given that Merriam-Webster has no entry for it.

[Dartful Dodger]

This is a nonissue issue.

Democrats aren't smart enough to do it, Republicans aren't out numbered enough to do it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This is a nonissue issue.

Democrats aren't smart enough to do it, Republicans aren't out numbered enough to do it.

It's a nonissue to you only if you let it be. This is a matter of transparency in elections; our most fundamental democratic right is at issue here. The right to have our vote count.

Would you allow your bank to manage your money without EVER giving you an account balance or deposit receipt?

Diebold, the same company that has built the receipt-printing ATM machines all over the U.S., has decided to build a vote tabulator WITHOUT a paper audit trail. It's absurd.




mrC

[Havok]

I would like to see an MTV deathmatch:

Chad Tower vs. Mr. Curmudgeon!

Let's get ready to rrrumble!

[markrvp]

Having seen pictures of both participants, I believe Chad would win with the first punch.  I would however like to see that.

[ChadTower]

Hey hey no need for violence.

I prefer to lure people onto trebuchets.

[markrvp]

Step right up.  Ride as many times as you like for a quarter

[hanelyp]

Those who criticise Diebold for political connections are political hacks.  Those who criticise them for producing a product of questionable quality and not allowing review of how it works, I'm one of them.

[fredster]

I always thought it was really stupid to try and get people to vote in machines like that. Or on the internet.  With all the money on the line and litterally 1000's of people willing to find a way to hack into it, there is no way it could be secure.

I really don't mind the electroinic voting machines, but they better give you a reciept. And keep one too.  If there is any question we need to know the results, and verify them.

Computers can never be totally secure from somebody who knows how to use the.  Casinos have trouble with every "safe" system they have in the electonic gaming industry, and they have a lot of cash to protect them.  Think about a bunch of non-professional politicians falling for some sales gimmick.  There are too many people involved in the security.

[AllisterFiend]

This is a non-partisan issue. Period.

http://www.Miami.com/meld/meld/news/state/13410061.HTML

"A top election official and computer experts say computer hackers could easily change election results, after they found numerous flaws with a state-approved voting-machine in Tallahassee."

...

"Ion Sancho, Leon County's election chief, said tests by two computer experts, completed this week, showed that an insider could surreptitiously change vote results and the number of ballots cast on Tiebold's optical-scan machines."



Marc

  For some reason I believe that if a democrat had been elected in the last two elections you would not be posting this post at all.

  Just my opinion. 

Allister Fiend

[DrewKaree]

This is a non-partisan issue. Period.

Let's see if you really believe this, or if you're spewing more hot air.

Isn't it nice that we trust a good portion of our electoral system to a corrupt partisan company that manufacters easily manipulated voting machines that produce absolutely no auditable paper trail?

Didn't take too long to figure that one out.  Dexter waited even less time than you did.  Have you guys thought about starting a hot-air balloon ride company?

Name a nonpartison company.

That manufacters voting machines?  Once again, in your zeal to dismiss this issue, you miss the point entirely.

What's the point he's missing on this "non-partisan issue - period"?

I'd gather that you don't care simpy because you see the process as favoring "your side." If Soros or Michael Moore owned Diebold, you'd be foaming at the mouth.

Republicans own the company.  Check.  Got the point.

Your comments in most political threads

Wait a minute, wasn't this a "non-partisan issue - period"?  This CAN'T be a political thread, since you clearly don't have an agenda.  Mebbe you're talking about something else.

Would you allow your bank to manage your money without EVER giving you an account balance or deposit receipt?

Diebold, the same company that has built the receipt-printing ATM machines all over the U.S., has decided to build a vote tabulator WITHOUT a paper audit trail. It's absurd.

Your blowhard theory might carry some weight with the people you believe should be equally as outraged as you.  IF.  You had the stones to push for a voter ID bill.  You know, start at the beginning with your paper trail?  Work your way forward?  Telling us there's a conspiracy at a company while remaining silent about the fraud that goes on at polling places around the country?  C'mon.  Continuing to spew bombastic point after bombastic point while ignoring that vote fraud was perpetrated throughout the country WITHOUT Diebold's "consent"?  One only needs to look at the thread I had pointing out vote fraud on BOTH sides and your curious silence about fraud cases brought against democrats to piece together the fact that you view this as a wholly partisan issue.  PERIOD.  Go sell crazy somewhere else.  We're all full here.

Step right up.  Ride as many times as you like for a quarter

I've got a roll of quarters.  Keep loading MrC up when he lands.

[paigeoliver]

I also agree that this is a complete non-issue.

Anything can be rigged, fixed or otherwise tampered with.

Matter of fact, I would be willing to go so far as to say that every presidential election has people cheating or attempting to cheat on both sides.

It doesn't matter because they cancel each other out and individual cheats aren't going to be able to effect anything other than the one polling place they are working at, AND they likely only have a tiny chance of succeeding.

A massive conspiracy to rig the voting machines is completely rediculous and would be uncovered before it ever came to fruition.

Or perhaps you think Diebold themselves would rig the voting machines. While this is certainly possible, it is really, really, really unlikely for many reasons.

Sure Diebold might have financial reasons for favoring one party over another, but their net gain for rigging a vote (which they might have won anyway), is not NEARLY high enough compared to the consequences if they were caught.

Secondly, I really doubt Diebold is making special edition voting machines for particular elections, so that means they are programmable by the end user where the end user inputs the candidates. It is much harder to rig in cases like that, since they would have to anticipate future elections, and hope the end user filled in the political parties in the order they wanted.

I am also all for the lack of paper trail. Because a paper trail would be much more open to manipulation AND it would make for endless recounts.

I have had the same job for over six years, after about a week I realized that 90 percent of my work was checking to see if the computer printed out the same numbers that it contained inside. I stopped checking those numbers 6 years ago.  Now I just print them up and put them in the envelope. The fact is that the computer is not going to magically print out different numbers that it contains inside, and even if it did I would have no way of knowing which one is right.

[Dexter]

They tried to bring in electronic voting machines here, but after an independent report into how easy they are to hack, plus the fact that the government refused to adapt them to print paper receipts, they were not installed. Its currently costing the irish taxpayer

[ChadTower]

Secondly, I really doubt Diebold is making special edition voting machines for particular elections, so that means they are programmable by the end user where the end user inputs the candidates. It is much harder to rig in cases like that, since they would have to anticipate future elections, and hope the end user filled in the political parties in the order they wanted.

Actually, given the infrequency of elections, I would think that they actually ARE making a new machine for each election.  Sure, the hardware may not change often, but software is CONSTANTLY cycling over with fixes and enhancements (and new bugs).  As a software developer myself, the thought that they would use the same machines with the same soft/firmware for elections that are years apart is professionally appalling.

[brophog]

You must be new to the government's computer center. They're WAY outdated in terms of hardware and software.

[ChadTower]

These are one time use, dedicated machines... the server/data storage/computation infrastructure would probably change very slowly.  The end user machines, the plug and play boxes, would be updated for every election.

Not necessarily improved, but definitely changed.  That is how diebold would make its money.  The "service contract".