[POLL] Are you leery of Electronic Voting?

[sillymofo]

I mean, if people can cheat with paper and hanging chads, what's stoping them from stealing the election electronically.

Note: Poll might not be accurate due to the potential poll being hax0r

 

[preslove]

There just needs to be a paper record. Personally i think that the actual touchscreen should print out your votes, and the you could put it in the ballot box. The paper and bytes could then be compared.

 

[dmcowen674]

It's pretty simple.

Since when has the old adage "Garbage In Garbage Out" been eliminated from what can happen with Computers which are only as perfect or imperfect as the humans that program them?

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: preslove
There just needs to be a paper record. Personally i think that the actual touchscreen should print out your votes, and the you could put it in the ballot box. The paper and bytes could then be compared.

So you mean like double the work? Man, talking about lots of wasted resources.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: preslove
There just needs to be a paper record. Personally i think that the actual touchscreen should print out your votes, and the you could put it in the ballot box. The paper and bytes could then be compared.

of course, if one is off, which is the correct one? the stuffed ballot box (which happens all the time, btw) or the stuffed electonic count?

 

[Tripleshot]

Only paranoid weenies would fear electronic ballots. Hell, 2/3's of the American public drool over getting their tax refunds electronically. I can see much more profit for a criminal intercepting fund transfers between banks and re routing them than messing with an election that would have tons of scrutiny and redundancy built in.

This is a non issue. (at least for the educated):disgust:

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Only paranoid weenies would fear electronic ballots. Hell, 2/3's of the American public drool over getting their tax refunds electronically. I can see much more profit for a criminal intercepting fund transfers between banks and re routing them than messing with an election that would have tons of scrutiny and redundancy built in.

This is a non issue. (at least for the educated):disgust:

Personally I find that my vote is a more valuable item than some IRS fund transfer or bank payment. We know that banks have learned hard lessons in the early years of computers and wire transfers that I have yet to see reflected on the question of electronic voting.

Electronic voting must not be bleeding edge technology.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Only paranoid weenies would fear electronic ballots. Hell, 2/3's of the American public drool over getting their tax refunds electronically. I can see much more profit for a criminal intercepting fund transfers between banks and re routing them than messing with an election that would have tons of scrutiny and redundancy built in.

This is a non issue. (at least for the educated):disgust:

I am well educated, especially about technology issues, and I assure you it is a major issue. The current generation of U.S. electonic voting systems as typified by Diebold are ripe for wholesale fraud. Qualified studies have repeatedly shown these systems have laughable security, far less than you find on your average cash register, let alone ATM.

A paper audit trail, already included in other, more advanced countries -- not to mention on the aforementioned cash registers and ATMs -- is the simple, obvious, and inexpensive solution to this problem. Yet companies like Diebold actively oppose such measures, even to the point of waging an expensive marketing campaign to convince buyers and the public their systems are secure. Any time a company is willing to invest more in concealing problems than it would take to fix them, one has to question why.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Only paranoid weenies would fear electronic ballots. Hell, 2/3's of the American public drool over getting their tax refunds electronically. I can see much more profit for a criminal intercepting fund transfers between banks and re routing them than messing with an election that would have tons of scrutiny and redundancy built in.

This is a non issue. (at least for the educated):disgust:

Is today a full moon? A blue moon?

I tend to agree with 3shot on this. I would however like printed ballots so people can double check them before actually "casting" their vote.

I'm still waiting for the contract to roll in. I'm sure I(with the help of a few people at work) could have a secure machine(system) rolled out in enough time for this falls election that would satisfy the tinfoilies.

CkG

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Only paranoid weenies would fear electronic ballots. Hell, 2/3's of the American public drool over getting their tax refunds electronically. I can see much more profit for a criminal intercepting fund transfers between banks and re routing them than messing with an election that would have tons of scrutiny and redundancy built in.

This is a non issue. (at least for the educated):disgust:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60563,00.html?tw=wn_polihead_10

http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/

Personally, I'm all for e-voting but the way it's being handled by companies like Diebold is disconcerting.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Only paranoid weenies would fear electronic ballots. Hell, 2/3's of the American public drool over getting their tax refunds electronically. I can see much more profit for a criminal intercepting fund transfers between banks and re routing them than messing with an election that would have tons of scrutiny and redundancy built in.

This is a non issue. (at least for the educated):disgust:

Which explains why more .gov sites are hax0r than any financial institutions

Just out of curiosity, what were your educational emphasis, third grade deductive reasonings?

 

[Kadarin]

I wonder at the political agendas of the people who are most responsible for promoting this.

 

[glugglug]

Not only can this poll be easily hacked, but your choices make no sense.

Here, I'll add a little bit of campaining to the process: CLICK HERE TO VOTE

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: glugglug
Not only can this poll be easily hacked, but your choices make no sense.

Here, I'll add a little bit of campaining to the process: CLICK HERE TO VOTE

I'm sorry, everything I post from now on will be spelled out in their literal sense, that way, people don't have to think about what I post. Bad assumption on my part that people do actually look at things differently than what's presented to them.

EDIT: Oh, it's that time of the month when people need a fresh set of batteries in their sarcarsm meter, don't forget the wit meter also.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I wonder at the political agendas of the people who are most responsible for promoting this.

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Walden O'Dell
CEO, Diebold

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Only paranoid weenies would fear electronic ballots. Hell, 2/3's of the American public drool over getting their tax refunds electronically. I can see much more profit for a criminal intercepting fund transfers between banks and re routing them than messing with an election that would have tons of scrutiny and redundancy built in.

This is a non issue. (at least for the educated):disgust:

Is today a full moon? A blue moon?

I tend to agree with 3shot on this. I would however like printed ballots so people can double check them before actually "casting" their vote.

I'm still waiting for the contract to roll in. I'm sure I(with the help of a few people at work) could have a secure machine(system) rolled out in enough time for this falls election that would satisfy the tinfoilies.

CkG

Its extremely hard to have a completely secure machine and already the online voting booths have a number of vulnerabilities discovered. I too want a paper trail to prevent tampering of results to prevent a "Our computers never make a mistake" scenario.

 

[BDawg]

I wasn't worried untiil the guy from diebold made his comments.

 

[Nietzscheusw]

<< Con Job at Diebold Subsidiary

Associated Press Page 1 of 1

10:05 AM Dec. 17, 2003 PT

SAN FRANCISCO -- At least five convicted felons secured management positions at a manufacturer of electronic voting machines, according to critics demanding more stringent background checks for people responsible for voting machine software.

Voter advocate Bev Harris alleged Tuesday that managers of a subsidiary of Diebold, one of the country's largest voting equipment vendors, included a cocaine trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock transactions and a programmer jailed for falsifying computer records.

The programmer, Jeffrey Dean, wrote and maintained proprietary code used to count hundreds of thousands of votes as senior vice president of Global Election Systems, or GES. Diebold purchased GES in January 2002.

According to a public court document released before GES hired him, Dean served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that "involved a high degree of sophistication and planning." >>

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3

 

[burnedout]

Are you leery of Electronic Voting?

Now that I've become more informed about the issue, yes.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Only paranoid weenies would fear electronic ballots. Hell, 2/3's of the American public drool over getting their tax refunds electronically. I can see much more profit for a criminal intercepting fund transfers between banks and re routing them than messing with an election that would have tons of scrutiny and redundancy built in.

This is a non issue. (at least for the educated):disgust:

Is today a full moon? A blue moon?

I tend to agree with 3shot on this. I would however like printed ballots so people can double check them before actually "casting" their vote.

I'm still waiting for the contract to roll in. I'm sure I(with the help of a few people at work) could have a secure machine(system) rolled out in enough time for this falls election that would satisfy the tinfoilies.

CkG

Its extremely hard to have a completely secure machine and already the online voting booths have a number of vulnerabilities discovered. I too want a paper trail to prevent tampering of results to prevent a "Our computers never make a mistake" scenario.

It is easy to make a secure voting machine just have it print to a ballot which can be read by both humans and computer easly. Voter uses the stupid pointless touch screen to print on thier ballot then they take their ballot and stick in a box in plan sight after they are done. After the election said box is opened with who ever wanting to watch and the votes get scanned by another machine.

their is no way to have voting be secure if the box that does the talling is hiden from view.

 

[lozina]

My opinion on this matter in order to have secure e-voting is...

firstly, to have a computer specifically designed for e-voting purposes, instead of using Windows which is what Diebold does. Windows is a gigantic operating system and therefore susceptible to flaws. If they don't have the resoruces to create their own bare-bones operating system, it would be wiser to use Linux which is proven more secure than Windows, and has much less "junk".

secondly, I believe the software should be developed as a open-source project. I know many would disagree but I'd like to hear exactly why. My reasoning is, open source projects tend to be more secure as the code is available to anyone who wants to scrutinize it, again just compare the secretive Windows to the open source Linux. If the source was open to millions of programmers nation-wide, and the company responsible for the software is receptive to input, then the final product is bound to be extremely solid and secure.

thirdly, the certification process must be air-tight. It should be impossible for the machine to be patched before use without being recertified- something which occurred in Georgia. a single patch can dramatically alter the way software works.

and finally, I'd like a paper trail of course, but also a unique identification key generated possibly by a one-way hash of your social security number which is printed on a receipt you take home. A simple database stores each of these unique numbers by voting district, and also stores their vote. This is the audit for the people, they can access this database online to double check their vote and see the final vote tallies for their district. I think this would make it very difficult for anyone to falsify votes, since people can audit their votes and compare totals to the amount of voters registered in their district.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Only paranoid weenies would fear electronic ballots. Hell, 2/3's of the American public drool over getting their tax refunds electronically. I can see much more profit for a criminal intercepting fund transfers between banks and re routing them than messing with an election that would have tons of scrutiny and redundancy built in.

This is a non issue. (at least for the educated):disgust:

Is today a full moon? A blue moon?

I tend to agree with 3shot on this. I would however like printed ballots so people can double check them before actually "casting" their vote.

I'm still waiting for the contract to roll in. I'm sure I(with the help of a few people at work) could have a secure machine(system) rolled out in enough time for this falls election that would satisfy the tinfoilies.

CkG

Its extremely hard to have a completely secure machine and already the online voting booths have a number of vulnerabilities discovered. I too want a paper trail to prevent tampering of results to prevent a "Our computers never make a mistake" scenario.

I'm not talking about internet voting. THAT is a whole different issue and something that should be looked at with caution. "online"(internet) creates a host of other problems- namely identity issues. But then again in some places you don't need to show any sort of ID to vote <shrugs>

CkG

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: lozina
My opinion on this matter in order to have secure e-voting is...

firstly, to have a computer specifically designed for e-voting purposes, instead of using Windows which is what Diebold does. Windows is a gigantic operating system and therefore susceptible to flaws. If they don't have the resoruces to create their own bare-bones operating system, it would be wiser to use Linux which is proven more secure than Windows, and has much less "junk".

secondly, I believe the software should be developed as a open-source project. I know many would disagree but I'd like to hear exactly why. My reasoning is, open source projects tend to be more secure as the code is available to anyone who wants to scrutinize it, again just compare the secretive Windows to the open source Linux. If the source was open to millions of programmers nation-wide, and the company responsible for the software is receptive to input, then the final product is bound to be extremely solid and secure.

thirdly, the certification process must be air-tight. It should be impossible for the machine to be patched before use without being recertified- something which occurred in Georgia. a single patch can dramatically alter the way software works.

and finally, I'd like a paper trail of course, but also a unique identification key generated possibly by a one-way hash of your social security number which is printed on a receipt you take home. A simple database stores each of these unique numbers by voting district, and also stores their vote. This is the audit for the people, they can access this database online to double check their vote and see the final vote tallies for their district. I think this would make it very difficult for anyone to falsify votes, since people can audit their votes and compare totals to the amount of voters registered in their district.

You can't allow people proff of the way they voted because they it would allow some one to take 200 million dollars and out right buy votes because they could use there paper slip to verifiy who you voted for.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: preslove
There just needs to be a paper record. Personally i think that the actual touchscreen should print out your votes, and the you could put it in the ballot box. The paper and bytes could then be compared.

of course, if one is off, which is the correct one? the stuffed ballot box (which happens all the time, btw) or the stuffed electonic count?

i think this bears asking again

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: preslove There just needs to be a paper record. Personally i think that the actual touchscreen should print out your votes, and the you could put it in the ballot box. The paper and bytes could then be compared.

of course, if one is off, which is the correct one? the stuffed ballot box (which happens all the time, btw) or the stuffed electonic count?

i think this bears asking again

Well, if things does come down to having to count, then it wouldn't matter then, does it? I mean, the hands that be would make the stuff box ballots to coincide with the electronic ones.