View Full Version : Paperless voting machines swithing votes
momoese
10-20-2008, 09:40 AM
I've said it all along since the 2000 election, paperless voting machines are a bad idea! Here we go again!
The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports - News - More W.Va. voters say machines are switching votes (http://wvgazette.com/News/200810180251)
Richard
10-20-2008, 10:01 AM
Any voting system that is at high risk for single-point failure is a bad idea. When a county or state bids on voting machines and goes with the low bid, that is exactly what they will get. Paperless voting systems which are also secure require both robust machines at polling places and robust systems at the county offices. They also require a serious investment in professional labor to maintain them. There are excellent paperless voting systems available, but they are not a way to save money on elections.
momoese
10-20-2008, 11:35 AM
Richard, you and everyone else who is concerned about your vote being counted properly should spend some time at blackboxvoting.org
Here is a little video showing how a small bribe can get you access to the machines.
6CfgIbYeabg
Richard
10-20-2008, 03:32 PM
Richard, you and everyone else who is concerned about your vote being counted properly should spend some time at blackboxvoting.org
Once again, this concerns systems designed to reduce costs at state and local levels. As one engineering firm here in San Diego concluded, implementing a system that provides more security than mail-in ballots would significantly increase operational costs for an election.
momoese
10-20-2008, 04:17 PM
I don't trust any machine that has no paper trial. As we know, any machine can be hacked. But there are worries beyond just the machines. People can be corrupted as well.
Richard
10-20-2008, 05:06 PM
Mitchel, the most secure voting method we have is mail-in ballot. It is also subject to corruption.
I would agree that the paperless voting systems adopted so far in the U.S. are terrible. By stating that all paperless systems are bad, you create the impression of divisiveness and weaken your own position.
As we know, any machine can be hacked.
This is false.
momoese
10-20-2008, 06:00 PM
By stating that all paperless systems are bad, you create the impression of divisiveness and weaken your own position.
I don't think so. When someone walks out of a booth not knowing in their heart that the machine and the people who handle the information contained within are 100% accurate then you have a problem. I'll take a few human errors even with human oversight over a manipulated machine and or info any day of the week.
Can you prove that any one voting machine is 100% safe from hacking or pre programing (built in automatic virus) by someone with an agenda?
Richard
10-20-2008, 06:10 PM
Mitchel, I believe that it is possible to compromise the security of any operational computer, the easiest method being to compromise the persons responsible for the security.
You stated that any machine can be hacked -- which is simply not true. The word "hacking" is specific and involves a digital or physical attack on the device. I am aware of devices in which digital attack would not prevail and any attempt to alter the secure circuitry will result in the machine being permanently dysfunctional. You can read about them in one of the Jaynes publications.
momoese
10-20-2008, 06:16 PM
I'm unaware of any such thing. I'll look into it. Thanks. As for the information and how it's uploaded and dealt with, stored, etc, that another story.
Richard
10-20-2008, 06:39 PM
I'm unaware of any such thing. I'll look into it. Thanks. ...
Your welcome!
... As for the information and how it's uploaded and dealt with, stored, etc, that another story.
No, not really. The terms "upload" and "stored" don't really apply to some of the secure systems I'm aware of. To you they might be as alien as a bucket of water that feels sad.
momoese
10-20-2008, 07:08 PM
Well Richard, if you would like to explain just how the information moves from the voting machines to the mainframe, or whatever you wish to call it then please do so.
Richard
10-20-2008, 08:32 PM
A robust secure computer transaction system is not created by taking an existing system and putting moats, firewalls, and defense systems around it. Instead, the thinking is entirely inside out.
Here is one kind of implementation: The user of the system (for example, a voter) brings the data for the computer with them. The computer displays the information, allows for choices to be made, and then prepares them for transmission. The computer has NO built-in data about voting or anything else. It only displays menus that the user brings to it in bar-coded form. It would accept a ballot or a restaurant menu, no quibbles. Two significant functions of the machine are to (a) authenticate and (b) authorize the user. The user must authenticate themselves with two digital keys. One of the keys is unique to the user. Once a user has been authenticated, the system will check the "menu" and based on its digital signature, authorize its use. Again, the content of the menu is not an issue. Once choices are made and the user indicates to send them, the machine sends 3 things (1) the menu, usually not encrypted, the choices, usually encrypted with at least two keys, and most importantly, a digital signature of the choices (think thumbprint) made with at least two keys (the machine also has a unique key). The hardware for the transaction machine is not typical PC hardware. It is sealed board with purpose-built chips. If the seal is disturbed, the board ground-faults and the processor is permanently dysfunctional.
As I said earlier, the feasibility studies I read several years ago pointed out that for the same amount of security and validation, ballot-by-mail is far cheaper -- and the least vunerable method currently available. I was very happy to read that since I've been an absentee voter for years!
:woohoonaner:
turtile
10-20-2008, 09:29 PM
You stated that any machine can be hacked -- which is simply not true. The word "hacking" is specific and involves a digital or physical attack on the device. I am aware of devices in which digital attack would not prevail and any attempt to alter the secure circuitry will result in the machine being permanently dysfunctional. You can read about them in one of the Jaynes publications.
They still can be "hacked". Someone can intercept the data without physically opening the machine or tampering with the software.
Richard
10-20-2008, 09:36 PM
They still can be "hacked". Someone can intercept the data without physically opening the machine or tampering with the software.
Oh it can be intercepted, but without the user (voter) and machine digital key its absolutely useless. And note, there is no software to tamper with!
momoese
10-21-2008, 10:15 AM
I like the idea of removing the middle man, or men. Sounds neat, but the information still has to gathered and stored/calculated somewhere on some sort of computer. Computers can be hacked. There would still need to be public oversight and paper for me to feel safe.
Richard
10-21-2008, 11:13 AM
I like the idea of removing the middle man, or men. Sounds neat, but the information still has to gathered and stored/calculated somewhere on some sort of computer. Computers can be hacked. There would still need to be public oversight and paper for me to feel safe.
Again, on the receiving end of a robust paperless voting system there is nothing to hack -- unless you are referring to the system the county uses to tabulate votes from all sources; i.e., precincts, vote-by-mail, votes cast at registrars office, etc. That risk is the same for all methods of voting.
If you want to feel safe about voting, vote by mail.
If you are concerned about "foolish paperless voting systems" being installed in your county and thus endangering the vote:
no worries in southern california counties at the moment -- the registrars were scared to death by the vunerabilities of proposed systems and the costs of robust systems.
in other U.S. counties and states, the situation is different. For example, locations where legislators have considered a bill to fix the value of PI = 3 :eek:
One other point regarding secure transmissions of "transaction data". There are two concerns:
privacy. Data is encrypted so that the users (e.g., voters) personal responses are not exposed to malicious interceptors
authentication. Is the data authentic? One or more "signatures" of the data are created using the data itself and one or more digital keys. So if someone intercepts the data stream and manages to decrypt the responses, change the user choices (difficult), and then re-encrypt the data, they still need the digital keys to create the unique signature that matches this new data.
lorax
10-21-2008, 11:29 AM
vtwZSF7uQLw
(Direct link here if it doesn't work.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtwZSF7uQLw)
Guys, when I read the title of this thread I immediately though of this.
I am so glad that I live in a country with paper ballots that get counted by hand under UN scrutiny....
turtile
10-21-2008, 12:20 PM
Oh it can be intercepted, but without the user (voter) and machine digital key its absolutely useless. And note, there is no software to tamper with!
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. Look up man-in-the-middle attack.
A computer can't run without software.
No, not really. The terms "upload" and "stored" don't really apply to some of the secure systems I'm aware of.
If you are collecting data, it has to be stored. If you send data to another system, it has to be uploaded.
Richard
10-21-2008, 12:53 PM
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. Look up man-in-the-middle attack.
A computer can't run without software.
If you are collecting data, it has to be stored. If you send data to another system, it has to be uploaded.
I do understand what you are trying to say. Man-in-the-middle attacks do not work on securely signed transmissions as described in the previous post.
Further, analog computers run without software: I have built several in decades gone by. For this conversation though, I am referring to digital transaction processing systems that have a minimal operating system which only knows how to display menus and process selections. The operating system has no built-in logic of how the menus are formated or how responses are correlated with menu items. So, in the normal use of the word there is no "software" to hack.
A transaction processing system need not store data, and in a secure application the data is only pass-through. The processor is sealed in many senses of the word, so radio-signal listening or attack is useless.
At the receiving end, the transactions are again processed in pass-through fashion and then (in a voting scenario) sent to the system in the same computer room which tabulates votes from all sources. I agree that this latter system is vunerable to attack -- particularly by corrupted officials. However, this latter system tabulates votes from all sources and thus all voting methods are equally vunerable to this threat.
lt_eggbeater
10-21-2008, 01:16 PM
You guys should just note by Richards title of hermitian operator that he is light years ahead of 99.999% percent of the general public when it comes to mathmatics, computations and logic. I would surrender if I were you! lol!
momoese
10-21-2008, 02:20 PM
You guys should just note by Richards title of hermitian operator that he is light years ahead of 99.999% percent of the general public when it comes to mathmatics, computations and logic. I would surrender if I were you! lol!
Never! If I have learned one thing in life it's that a bit of prodding will make the teacher work harder to teach. ;)
And there is always hope of one day "snatching the pebble" from his hand.
BTW, by Richards own admission I am right in the long run. All the information does end up in a computer that is vulnerable to attacks and corruption. Like I said, if there is a paper trial then a human count is possible, without it we can't be 100% safe. Check and mate! lol
Richard
10-21-2008, 03:25 PM
Never! If I have learned one thing in life it's that a bit of prodding will make the teacher work harder to teach. ;)
Good! So in review for your upcoming test ...
Paperless voting does not save paper. It only saves the paper ballots that would be sent from the voting precinct to the registrar. This savings is lost in the extra paper and materials that must be sent to the voter.
"Foolish" Paperless voting machines have been proposed by marketeers to help counties save money on counting paper ballots. Savvy registrars of voters have rejected these after a technical review of their weaknesses.
Robust Paperless voting machines can be as trustworthy, or even more so than ballot-by-mail, which in turn is more secure than voting at your local precinct. However, a robust paperless system is very expensive compared to ballot-by-mail so I can see absolutely no reason to implement them in public elections!
modenacart
10-21-2008, 04:10 PM
Human counting can be corrupt too.
lt_eggbeater
10-21-2008, 04:23 PM
Never! If I have learned one thing in life it's that a bit of prodding will make the teacher work harder to teach. ;)
And there is always hope of one day "snatching the pebble" from his hand.
BTW, by Richards own admission I am right in the long run. All the information does end up in a computer that is vulnerable to attacks and corruption. Like I said, if there is a paper trial then a human count is possible, without it we can't be 100% safe. Check and mate! lol
Depends on the teacher... Maybe he will just get ticked and give you an F!
lt_eggbeater
10-21-2008, 04:26 PM
Never! If I have learned one thing in life it's that a bit of prodding will make the teacher work harder to teach. ;)
And there is always hope of one day "snatching the pebble" from his hand.
BTW, by Richards own admission I am right in the long run. All the information does end up in a computer that is vulnerable to attacks and corruption. Like I said, if there is a paper trial then a human count is possible, without it we can't be 100% safe. Check and mate! lol
Also, Human counting is as far as you can get from 100% safe. The same guys that are hacking could also be counting.
momoese
10-21-2008, 04:45 PM
Also, Human counting is as far as you can get from 100% safe. The same guys that are hacking could also be counting.
Exactly why public oversight is necessary!
Richard
10-21-2008, 05:15 PM
Have you ever observed ballot counting at a county registrars office?
momoese
10-21-2008, 05:28 PM
Have you ever observed ballot counting at a county registrars office?
Only on video.
lt_eggbeater
10-21-2008, 05:53 PM
Mitchel I saw on your profile you do car restoration. One of the businesses I own is classic car restoration. What types of cars do you do?
momoese
10-21-2008, 06:06 PM
Mitchel I saw on your profile you do car restoration. One of the businesses I own is classic car restoration. What types of cars do you do?
Mostly early Porsche 356 and 911's. I'm currently working on a 1956 356A Cpe. How about you?
momoese
10-21-2008, 06:07 PM
Here is another issue that needs addressing.
Vanishing Voters Video - CBSNews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4490786n)
Richard
10-21-2008, 07:15 PM
Here is another issue that needs addressing.
Vanishing Voters Video - CBSNews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4490786n)
You might start a different thread on this. BTW, CBS is not alone in reporting on the issue -- even though they'd like to think so!
lt_eggbeater
10-22-2008, 12:04 AM
Mostly early Porsche 356 and 911's. I'm currently working on a 1956 356A Cpe. How about you?
We do mostly british stuff but we do repair as well. Jags, Rolls Royce, Bentley, MG, Triumph, Austin Healey, Lotus, Aston Martin, TVR, Rover, pretty much anything british. We also mess around with diesel Mercedes for personal uses. Its my second business its much more relaxing than the other.
harveyc
10-22-2008, 01:28 AM
I'm glad my county has not switched and I can assure you my paper ballots have never had a hanging chad!
I've done mail ballots many times, especially when I wasn't going to be home during the elections (happened in 2001 and 2004 when I was in Europe). This year, however, I don't even have an option. To save money the county has required the small rural population around me to vote by mail ballot.
lorax
10-22-2008, 10:51 AM
Also, Human counting is as far as you can get from 100% safe. The same guys that are hacking could also be counting.
Momoese also makes the point for oversight....
Why not be like most other democratic countries, and ask for impartial UN oversight?
lt_eggbeater
10-22-2008, 11:22 AM
UN impartial???? Hang on while I call the ambulance! I'm in oxygen debt from laughing so hard!
Richard
10-22-2008, 11:45 AM
Mitchel's concern about oversight is related to the false conception that "paperless voting" means no paper trail. There is wide agreement that a robust secure transaction system provides the user with a receipt and also generates a real-time log of transactions at the receiving end.
momoese
10-22-2008, 11:50 AM
Mitchel's concern about oversight is related to the false conception that "paperless voting" means no paper trail. There is wide agreement that a robust secure transaction system provides the user with a receipt and also generates a real-time log of transactions at the receiving end.
And we are not using this system because......oh yeah that's right, the security of our voting system isn't worth the costs, not to mention certain people who fight against a paper trial.
Richard
10-22-2008, 12:04 PM
And we are not using this system because......oh yeah that's right, the security of our voting system isn't worth the costs, not to mention certain people who fight against a paper trial.
Actually I was just reading about early voting in several counties across the U.S. where they have electronic voting installed at the registrars' office. To use it, the registrars office first verifies who you are. The device itself is touch-screen, and allows you to view your votes before you submit. It gives you a printed record. If your printed record shows choices you didn't want, you can try again. On the receiving end, the machine just prints a ballot for the registrars office to count.
momoese
10-22-2008, 03:29 PM
We do mostly british stuff but we do repair as well. Jags, Rolls Royce, Bentley, MG, Triumph, Austin Healey, Lotus, Aston Martin, TVR, Rover, pretty much anything british. We also mess around with diesel Mercedes for personal uses. Its my second business its much more relaxing than the other.
We own a 64 MG Midget that I restored for my wife when we first met, some 15 years ago. I painted it bright silver, something they never came in. She drove the car for years until a neighbor backed into it at about 25mph. The car was a total loss but I bought it back from the insurance company and have been slowly re-restoring it over the years. It's almost done again!
momoese
10-22-2008, 03:31 PM
Actually I was just reading about early voting in several counties across the U.S. where they have electronic voting installed at the registrars' office. To use it, the registrars office first verifies who you are. The device itself is touch-screen, and allows you to view your votes before you submit. It gives you a printed record. If your printed record shows choices you didn't want, you can try again. On the receiving end, the machine just prints a ballot for the registrars office to count.
Sounds promising, we'll have to see how it works.
Richard
10-22-2008, 03:35 PM
Sounds promising, we'll have to see how it works.
Uhm, it is working -- what do you mean?
The important thing to note is that it is hardwired to a printer in the registrars office so there is no man-in-the-middle opportunity: just the same risks that dropping off your mail-in ballot at the registrars office would have.
momoese
10-22-2008, 03:40 PM
Uhm, it is working -- what do you mean?
I mean when all is said and done. Nothing is perfect.
Richard
10-22-2008, 03:55 PM
I mean when all is said and done. Nothing is perfect.
6 is perfect. So are 28, 496, and 8128.
Perfect number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_number)
.
momoese
10-22-2008, 04:23 PM
You and your numbers!
lt_eggbeater
10-22-2008, 04:35 PM
We own a 64 MG Midget that I restored for my wife when we first met, some 15 years ago. I painted it bright silver, something they never came in. She drove the car for years until a neighbor backed into it at about 25mph. The car was a total loss but I bought it back from the insurance company and have been slowly re-restoring it over the years. It's almost done again!
Cool, I have a 63 and a 65 sprite. I have a turbo charged 1275 that I'm thinking about dropping in one of them. Either that or we are thinking about putting it in a Morris Minor convertible that we are restoring. I have too many personal cars though. When we bulit our house a coule of years ago I wanted a 12 car garage and my wife wanted 4, we compromised on 8, and I am now totally out of room. When we built the house all I wanted control over was the home theater and the garage and she couldnt even give me that! lol.
momoese
10-22-2008, 05:06 PM
Cool, I wish I had a garage that big! Is it climate controlled?
lt_eggbeater
10-22-2008, 05:26 PM
Cool, I wish I had a garage that big! Is it climate controlled?
Yah but I dont actually ever cool it or heat it. The fact that its insulated means its livable and I dont actually work in it.
momoese
10-22-2008, 06:48 PM
The only thing your missing is Pacific Coast Highway! ;)
lt_eggbeater
10-22-2008, 06:55 PM
That is a problem.
momoese
10-23-2008, 06:50 PM
So Richard, even if the robust system works like you say it does, we still have an issue this election. From what I understand the central tabulator "GEMZ" is easily hackable, as are most of the E machines currently in use, therefor the basis of our democracy is in serious danger. We are not all mailing in ballots, and there is not enough of the robust in place to make a difference. If someone wants to manipulate the current system it's doable. So what do we do this election?
Watch starting at 2:45 in. This is basically the same system in place now.
Z74jIT9pJ7s
momoese
10-23-2008, 07:04 PM
More
Report: E-Voting Systems Hackable - Security Fix (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/07/report_evoting_systems_hackabl.html)
momoese
10-23-2008, 07:10 PM
Canada has gone back to pen and paper after deciding E voting didn't work for them.
Is voting in Canada with a pencil and paper secure ? | Robin Majumdar 2.0 (http://www.robinmajumdar.com/2008/10/14/is-voting-in-canada-with-a-pencil-and-paper-secure/)
modenacart
10-23-2008, 08:01 PM
I've said it all along since the 2000 election, paperless voting machines are a bad idea! Here we go again!
The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports - News - More W.Va. voters say machines are switching votes (http://wvgazette.com/News/200810180251)
I believe this turned out to be a couple of idiots that couldn't push the correct block on the screen.
momoese
10-23-2008, 11:52 PM
I believe this turned out to be a couple of idiots that couldn't push the correct block on the screen.
That wouldn't surprise me, but the point is that we have serious issues with our voting system.
modenacart
10-24-2008, 03:06 PM
Its hard to know what to do with idiots though.
I voted yesterday on an electronic voting machine and it printed a record of everything I did.
momoese
10-29-2008, 11:32 PM
So Richard, even if the robust system works like you say it does, we still have an issue this election. From what I understand the central tabulator "GEMZ" is easily hackable, as are most of the E machines currently in use, therefor the basis of our democracy is in serious danger. We are not all mailing in ballots, and there is not enough of the robust in place to make a difference. If someone wants to manipulate the current system it's doable. So what do we do this election?
Watch starting at 2:45 in. This is basically the same system in place now.
Z74jIT9pJ7s
Hmmmm
K8E_zMLCRNg
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.