momoese

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

Richard

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.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

momoese

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.

[YT]6CfgIbYeabg[/YT]

Richard

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.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

momoese

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

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.

This is false.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

momoese

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

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.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

momoese

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

Your welcome!

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.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

momoese

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

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!

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

turtile

They still can be "hacked". Someone can intercept the data without physically opening the machine or tampering with the software.

__________________
http://www.unusualplants.net/

Richard

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!

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

momoese

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

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

One other point regarding secure transmissions of "transaction data". There are two concerns:

1. privacy. Data is encrypted so that the users (e.g., voters) personal responses are not exposed to malicious interceptors
2. 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.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

lorax

[YT]vtwZSF7uQLw[/YT]

(

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

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.

__________________
http://www.unusualplants.net/

Richard

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.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

lt_eggbeater

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!