Voting Machines Used Between 2002 and 2014 Found Trivial to Hack Remotely

[shira]

The irony of this situation is that righties - on the one hand - fall all over themselves to "secure the integrity of elections" by passing laws that everyone knows prevent essentially 0 votes cast via voter-ID fraud (because such fraud is nonexistent) while suppressing hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of legitimate votes, AND YET - on the other hand - do exactly nothing to ACTUALLY "secure the integrity of elections" by putting in place strict regulations that require that voting machines pass strict security testing before they're used during elections.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't know. You still need humans to read the paper and perform counts, or build a machine that reads and counts, and you have no way to verify that those humans are being honest.

The critical difference is that with paper trails and human counting etc, it is still possible for their to be fraud, but for it to occur on a large scale (enough to affect outcomes) is much more difficult, and when it does occur there's the possibility of detecting it.

 

[PokerGuy]

The irony of this situation is that righties - on the one hand - fall all over themselves to "secure the integrity of elections" by passing laws that everyone knows prevent essentially 0 votes cast via voter-ID fraud (because such fraud is nonexistent) while suppressing hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of legitimate votes, AND YET - on the other hand - do exactly nothing to ACTUALLY "secure the integrity of elections" by putting in place strict regulations that require that voting machines pass strict security testing before they're used during elections.

You can drop the BS about "suppressing" votes, requiring basic ID doesn't suppress anything. That's been rehashed a million times, so no need in this thread. Regardless, the two are not mutually exclusive, and I'm in favor of both -- make sure the election process is legit from all perspectives (including places where fraud is most likely to occur, absentee ballots and electronic polling).

 

[dank69]

The critical difference is that with paper trails and human counting etc, it is still possible for their to be fraud, but for it to occur on a large scale (enough to affect outcomes) is much more difficult, and when it does occur there's the possibility of detecting it.

Really? How many people typically count officially for any group of votes. People in here are worried about paying millions of voters for their votes but aren't worried about people paying the few counters to make up numbers?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yeah, because you of all people are trusting when it comes to paper,....

hahha your just too much.....crawl back under your rock!!

 

[PokerGuy]

Really? How many people typically count officially for any group of votes. People in here are worried about paying millions of voters for their votes but aren't worried about people paying the few counters to make up numbers?

If numbers from a particular precinct are completely out of wack with polling and/or historical expectations, they can (and do) go back and do a recount. I'm not saying it's flawless, but with it being so decentralized, you'd need a pretty large conspiracy involving a lot of people (and those watching them) to accomplish much. With a pure electronic system, you'd need access and maybe a small number of conspirators.

 

[dank69]

If numbers from a particular precinct are completely out of wack with polling and/or historical expectations, they can (and do) go back and do a recount. I'm not saying it's flawless, but with it being so decentralized, you'd need a pretty large conspiracy involving a lot of people (and those watching them) to accomplish much. With a pure electronic system, you'd need access and maybe a small number of conspirators.

Not with my proposed system. A single person finding his data does not match would expose any tampering.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is that really a problem? I only ask because people could buy votes now they just can't verify. What percentage of people would take the money and vote the opposite way they are being paid? I dunno. Hell, if someone wanted verification people could wear a body camera to the poll as it is now.

Please. The possibilities are endless. Get paid in bitcoin via the darknet after you send in the pic of your receipt.

 

[dank69]

Please. The possibilities are endless. Get paid in bitcoin via the darknet after you send in the pic of your receipt.

But how do you prove you were going to vote for the other guy if not paid? On top of that, you could send in the pic of your ballot right now.

 

[Jhhnn]

But how do you prove you were going to vote for the other guy if not paid? On top of that, you could send in the pic of your ballot right now.

Now you're just dodging. It doesn't matter who you might have voted for if you're paid to vote a certain way & can prove it. Hell, crooked candidates or their handlers could have bidding wars. OTOH, there's probably a lot more trickle down in that than in the biannual advertising feeding frenzy for political hacks & flacks we have now.

 

[chucky2]

This is so embarrassing it's unreal. If there is one thing the US should excel at, it's legit elections - what could be more fundamental to our way of government? (well, except money in Politician pockets of course)

I cannot believe we cannot pioneer a modern electronic secure voting system that not only can be used as a benchmark for voting, but even such a system given to the UN for UN monitored elections in other countries.

I'd say something like 'It is just amazing we don't have this', but then I remember we're dealing with Gov here, and just shake my head disgustedly... :'(

 

[PokerGuy]

I cannot believe we cannot pioneer a modern electronic secure voting system that not only can be used as a benchmark for voting, but even such a system given to the UN for UN monitored elections in other countries.

I'd say something like 'It is just amazing we don't have this', but then I remember we're dealing with Gov here, and just shake my head disgustedly... :'(

This would be an awesome GoogleVote project, build such a system and make it available to any country that wants to use it. The NSA would have their backdoors into the system, a win for everyone!

 

[chucky2]

Such a system would have to be open and managed by the UN (code check-ins supervised by multiple countries, etc.) but would really be great. What a novelty that elections could be considered free, at least from the actual voting and vote counting aspect, of fraud, unlike now. You can have a blue thumb but that doesn't mean the guys in the back aren't forging ballots/counts...

 

[dank69]

Now you're just dodging. It doesn't matter who you might have voted for if you're paid to vote a certain way & can prove it. Hell, crooked candidates or their handlers could have bidding wars. OTOH, there's probably a lot more trickle down in that than in the biannual advertising feeding frenzy for political hacks & flacks we have now.

I'm not dodging. It wouldn't make financial sense to throw money at people that were already going to vote for you anyway. You actually dodged my counter that people could take a pic of their ballot now to prove how they voted, yet we don't see any candidates paying for votes, do we?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not dodging. It wouldn't make financial sense to throw money at people that were already going to vote for you anyway. You actually dodged my counter that people could take a pic of their ballot now to prove how they voted, yet we don't see any candidates paying for votes, do we?

It's not the same. I could take a pic of my absentee ballot, never mail it, go vote in person.

I know you think you have a great idea, but I suggest you think it through a little further.

Mega billionaires spend hundreds of millions to keep the teatard base frothed up anyway with bullshit nobody else could possibly believe.

 

[dank69]

It's not the same. I could take a pic of my absentee ballot, never mail it, go vote in person.

I know you think you have a great idea, but I suggest you think it through a little further.

Mega billionaires spend hundreds of millions to keep the teatard base frothed up anyway with bullshit nobody else could possibly believe.

I could wear a body camera and film myself filling out the ballot and a close up of it as I feed it into the reader. I understand you want to poke holes in my idea and I invite you to do so, but please, let's keep it honest. Yes, it would make it easier to prove who you voted for, but my counters are that you could prove who you voted for in the current system yet we don't have rampant vote buying, it would be impossible to figure out who needs to be paid to switch their vote so you'd just have to pay everyone which is incredibly inefficient, and finally, since paying for votes is illegal, how are you going to set up a system for paying out and more importantly, advertising the fact that you are paying, without getting caught?

 

[sportage]

Rigged voting machines are so.... 1990's.
A much better system exists today for rigging elections far far beyond hacking machines.
And this new flawless system eliminates the middleman, programming nerd, hardware tampering.
It's called.... district gerrymandering.
The once applied little system that goes on giving election after election.
Who needs a hack when we have gerrymandering?

 

[DrDoug]

The only thing about this that surprises me is that some people are surprised about this. It's as if people are not aware that there is a long tradition in America of politicians doing whatever they can to win. Local, state, federal, it doesn't matter, politicians will do anything to get or stay in power. Anything. Unless they are in a safe seat, winning a fair election is the last thing a seated politician wants to have if they will end up losing. Nothing will change because the foxes run the hen house and the chickens are too busy squawking amongst themselves about the pecking order.

Divide and conquer, it works.

 

[Sooper Trololo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5VZjT0JE70

 

[PokerGuy]

I could wear a body camera and film myself filling out the ballot and a close up of it as I feed it into the reader.

You keep mentioning this example, but it's an example that actually reinforces the opposite point you're trying to make. How many people are going to have body cams, film stuff, upload it for someone else to verify etc etc. It simply isn't practical on a large scale. A system like the one you proposed would make it easy and practical to implement a large scale vote buying system.

Also, paying someone who was already going to vote for that party/candidate is not an issue. The "buyer" would simply offer whatever amount is needed to buy enough votes to ensure the desired outcome. How the "sellers" were going to vote doesn't really matter a whole lot, what matters is that the buyer can get enough sellers and verify that indeed they voted the way the buyer wanted.

 

[blankslate]

Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98frqrKFnQ8

Anonymous warns Karl Rove that they are watching him during the 2012 election.


Then Karl Rove refuses to believe even Fox News election analysts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLV7nqD3CA


it's fun to think about conspiracy theories....

but regardless the security of voting machines has been brought up before and unless the source code for them is open sourced I am not willing to trust them.


.....

 

[nickqt]

I could wear a body camera and film myself filling out the ballot and a close up of it as I feed it into the reader. I understand you want to poke holes in my idea and I invite you to do so, but please, let's keep it honest. Yes, it would make it easier to prove who you voted for, but my counters are that you could prove who you voted for in the current system yet we don't have rampant vote buying, it would be impossible to figure out who needs to be paid to switch their vote so you'd just have to pay everyone which is incredibly inefficient, and finally, since paying for votes is illegal, how are you going to set up a system for paying out and more importantly, advertising the fact that you are paying, without getting caught?

I get what you're saying, and I think it would be awesome to have some accountability to make sure that our votes are actually counted.

Here's what I believe is important in regard to "selling votes".

Why the hell would someone buy individual votes when their money can be more effectively spent ensuring that:

1. Candidates are going to do what they want them to do through lobbying/campaign contributions

2. Bills brought up and voted on are influenced/written by the people with money

3. The media (that they own) speaks out for/against the legislation they want.

If I were a billionaire and wanted to influence elections to get what I wanted, the last thing I'd do is attempt to buy votes, thereby putting myself at risk for tens/hundreds/thousands/millions of felony counts.

What I'd do instead if legally give money to Think Tanks to get them to push Agenda X. I'd legally give money to candidates through lobbying/campaign contributions so that they see the "sense" in Agenda X. And I'd legally use the media apparatus to argue for/against something, or at least create confusion on the matter by claiming that there are "two sides" to everything.

Trying to purchase an individual voter's vote is time consuming, ineffective, and outright illegal. Only a complete idiot would do that, when you can be infinitely more effective while not breaking laws by simply handing a politician, Think Tank, or PAC money. Literally handing various organizations money is legal, whereas even trying to buy/sell/trade a vote is illegal and ineffective.

 

[dank69]

You keep mentioning this example, but it's an example that actually reinforces the opposite point you're trying to make. How many people are going to have body cams, film stuff, upload it for someone else to verify etc etc. It simply isn't practical on a large scale. A system like the one you proposed would make it easy and practical to implement a large scale vote buying system.

First of all, how many people have smartphones that take video? Let's not pretend this is some huge barrier.

Also, paying someone who was already going to vote for that party/candidate is not an issue. The "buyer" would simply offer whatever amount is needed to buy enough votes to ensure the desired outcome. How the "sellers" were going to vote doesn't really matter a whole lot, what matters is that the buyer can get enough sellers and verify that indeed they voted the way the buyer wanted.

It is incredibly inefficient. Read nickqt's post above for a better way to buy elections. Or for you GOP guys, a better way to spread freedom.