HBO to air special, "Hacking Democracy" Thurs, Nov 2nd

[Queasy]

I don't know. I'm kind of skeptical about the HBO special. Yeah, the electronic voting machines aren't perfect but where is the coverage on the traditional ways to "Hack Democracy"? Four workers from an outfit called ACORN were indicted recently for fraudulent voter registrations. ACORN is also under investigation for telling people who to vote for while trying to register them. Then there is all the dead that vote. Then there are instances where more people vote in some cities than actually live there (Pittsburgh and Seattle in 2004). What about all the fuss for IDs so that voters can prove who they say they are when they vote. Why isn't more coverage beyond "Taking us back to the days of Jim Crow and literacy tests" spent on that?

 

[drinkmorejava]

lol oh snap

 

[Ryan]

Interesting documentary. My local ACLU chapter wants members to go out tomorrow and watch polling sites for possible voter tampering - with this kind of tampering, I don't see their point - lol.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
They need to change the voting system. It's really easy, fill sporting stadiums with voters. On the jumbo-tron you put up a picture of the candidate. Then you just use a decible meter to determine who gets booed the most. Do this until everyone has had a chance to boo, then tabulate it that way. It's about as accurate as the current system, but it allows the 30-40 thousand people that are there to know the outcome of their vote. When you leave you get a ticket with the winner of that session.

I actually liked this idea - I could see it working haha

 

[TripleAAA]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
They need to change the voting system. It's really easy, fill sporting stadiums with voters. On the jumbo-tron you put up a picture of the candidate. Then you just use a decible meter to determine who gets booed the most. Do this until everyone has had a chance to boo, then tabulate it that way. It's about as accurate as the current system, but it allows the 30-40 thousand people that are there to know the outcome of their vote. When you leave you get a ticket with the winner of that session.

I actually liked this idea - I could see it working haha

Ya I can picture some elderly dude with emphysema, with an oxygen tank, screaming at the top of his lungs.

 

[pcnerd37]

This is why I am an open source advocate. If the software like what Diebold was open, you could have lots of independant testing for security and have the security problems quickly and easily fixed where as this is just a black box that nobody can know whats going on inside. If you allow the process to become transparent, if there are flaws, they can be easily identified and fixed. If there is one thing i have learned from working with computers is just because it works right in a controlled circumstance, doesnt mean it will out in the field. Although I am now 19, I have yet to register to vote, and until the voting systems have been opened up, i will not vote. My vote cant be hacked or miscounted if i dont vote.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: pcnerd37
This is why I am an open source advocate. If the software like what Diebold was open, you could have lots of independant testing for security and have the security problems quickly and easily fixed where as this is just a black box that nobody can know whats going on inside. If you allow the process to become transparent, if there are flaws, they can be easily identified and fixed. If there is one thing i have learned from working with computers is just because it works right in a controlled circumstance, doesnt mean it will out in the field. Although I am now 19, I have yet to register to vote, and until the voting systems have been opened up, i will not vote. My vote cant be hacked or miscounted if i dont vote.

Interesting logic

 

[pcnerd37]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: pcnerd37
This is why I am an open source advocate. If the software like what Diebold was open, you could have lots of independant testing for security and have the security problems quickly and easily fixed where as this is just a black box that nobody can know whats going on inside. If you allow the process to become transparent, if there are flaws, they can be easily identified and fixed. If there is one thing i have learned from working with computers is just because it works right in a controlled circumstance, doesnt mean it will out in the field. Although I am now 19, I have yet to register to vote, and until the voting systems have been opened up, i will not vote. My vote cant be hacked or miscounted if i dont vote.

Interesting logic

If you dont do anything, you cant do the wrong thing.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: pcnerd37

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: pcnerd37
This is why I am an open source advocate. If the software like what Diebold was open, you could have lots of independant testing for security and have the security problems quickly and easily fixed where as this is just a black box that nobody can know whats going on inside. If you allow the process to become transparent, if there are flaws, they can be easily identified and fixed. If there is one thing i have learned from working with computers is just because it works right in a controlled circumstance, doesnt mean it will out in the field. Although I am now 19, I have yet to register to vote, and until the voting systems have been opened up, i will not vote. My vote cant be hacked or miscounted if i dont vote.

Interesting logic

If you dont do anything, you cant do the wrong thing.

The counter argument is that if you were to open it up, "hackers" would invariably find an insanely easy way to hack the machines.

 

[pcnerd37]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: pcnerd37

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: pcnerd37
This is why I am an open source advocate. If the software like what Diebold was open, you could have lots of independant testing for security and have the security problems quickly and easily fixed where as this is just a black box that nobody can know whats going on inside. If you allow the process to become transparent, if there are flaws, they can be easily identified and fixed. If there is one thing i have learned from working with computers is just because it works right in a controlled circumstance, doesnt mean it will out in the field. Although I am now 19, I have yet to register to vote, and until the voting systems have been opened up, i will not vote. My vote cant be hacked or miscounted if i dont vote.

Interesting logic

If you dont do anything, you cant do the wrong thing.

The counter argument is that if you were to open it up, "hackers" would invariably find an insanely easy way to hack the machines.

If you open it up for any security expert to look at and lock down, the odds of having an easy exploit that isnt fixed by election time is quite small.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: pcnerd37

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: pcnerd37

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: pcnerd37
This is why I am an open source advocate. If the software like what Diebold was open, you could have lots of independant testing for security and have the security problems quickly and easily fixed where as this is just a black box that nobody can know whats going on inside. If you allow the process to become transparent, if there are flaws, they can be easily identified and fixed. If there is one thing i have learned from working with computers is just because it works right in a controlled circumstance, doesnt mean it will out in the field. Although I am now 19, I have yet to register to vote, and until the voting systems have been opened up, i will not vote. My vote cant be hacked or miscounted if i dont vote.

Interesting logic

If you dont do anything, you cant do the wrong thing.

The counter argument is that if you were to open it up, "hackers" would invariably find an insanely easy way to hack the machines.

If you open it up for any security expert to look at and lock down, the odds of having an easy exploit that isnt fixed by election time is quite small.

I certainly agree with the security expert analogy but you must consider the fact that having a security expert inspect all Diebold machines everywhere is infeasible -- for whatever reason.
Keep in mind that you're dealing with institutional bureaucracy, here

 

[TripleAAA]

Is there really any way to completely insure that a voting machine is accurate? Even if you had a bunch of independent testers, wouldn't it still in part depend on whoever had access the machine last? In other words, the machine could be completely accurate up until the very last "independent" tester worked on it. That person could have been paid a vast sum of money by someone to hack the machine.

 

[SonnyDaze]

This was on again last night on HBO. Man, that lady doing the investigating was a vicious b|tch!! They did find some other things not related to the machines that were interesting. Like original poll tapes from the voting machines that were supposed to be kept for 24 months, being thrown into a dumpster 22 days after election. They were supposed to be shredded for destruction. They also noticed a difference in vote counts from the original poll tapes and the "copies" they were given....all from the same machine.

 

[TripleAAA]

Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
This was on again last night on HBO. Man, that lady doing the investigating was a vicious b|tch!! They did find some other things not related to the machines that were interesting. Like original poll tapes from the voting machines that were supposed to be kept for 24 months, being thrown into a dumpster 22 days after election. They were supposed to be shredded for destruction. They also noticed a difference in vote counts from the original poll tapes and the "copies" they were given....all from the same machine.

It makes you think twice about a lot of the closer elections.