Voting Machine Flaws Easy To Fix: So Why Aren't They Fixed?
from the just-wondering dept
If you read Techdirt regularly, you should be well aware of the problems concerning electronic voting machines. They're not secure. They're easily hackable. There's usually no verifiable paper trail for a recount. Yet another study has come out listing out all the problems with e-voting machines. That's not a surprise. However, the report also notes that many of the problems are easily fixable, but e-voting machine providers haven't bothered and election officials haven't pushed for the fixes. It's the same old story. Every time one of these flaws is pointed out, the companies make excuses or jokes, and say there's nothing at all to worry about. The evidence clearly shows that's false -- and the fact that many (though, not all) of the problems are easily fixable, why won't the companies make their voting machines more secure? Update: The report also found that it could just take one single hacker to change the outcome of an election.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
doors to open doors
The only rational answer is, so that the result can be called into question.
We all assume the obvious "conspiracy theory" (sorry I have to call it that to stay on a familiar tone) scenario, in which sinister organisation S , in league with party P1creates backdoors and loopholes in the system Y so that party P1 can can have it's votes rigged to beat party P2.
Nonsense. That would be blatent fraud.
System Y is full of flaws and backdoors so that when party P2 wins by a legitimate margin, S on the behest of P1 can claim there are irregularities. The pro rigour lobby (that's us) will be jumping up and down shouting "Told you so. Investigate. Investigate." Whereupon it turns out (from the easily manufactured and non-deniable evidence trail) that the irregularities favour P2 and the election decision goes to the judge already bought by P1.
Just a conjecture mind you. I don't think anybody intends to use these back doors. But their presence opens up many other "politically useful" doors.
In simple words, if the process was written in Z and VDM, run through theorem provers, implemented in ADA to the same military specifications that one might write, say a ballistic missile guidance system, published as open source and everyone including the independent computer scientists agreed upon its correctness and invulnerability.... well then nobody could dispute who won the election fair and square this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well put!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Move on boys and girls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Cares?
Move on boys and girls."
If you seriously believe that, then you're fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Cares
And that's the scary part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupidly stupid
That's almost an acknowledgement that it's not impossible.
Not to mention the "hasn't happened yet" attitude is a major lure to those looking for a challenge. "It hasn't happened yet? Let's make it happen!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US democracy is dying, and nobody's doing anything. Oh, well, same ol', it's the same in other countries (France, Italy, England...) as well, so move on everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mickey Mouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voting Conspriacy
And, let's say there were no electronic voting allowed in this country. Would elections be safe and secure then? I would postulate that in any process where human intervention is required, the process is flawed. Politicians have bought votes for as long as there has been people voting, no matter on what type of device that vote was cast.
All the crap about how insecure electronic voting is doing nothing to make it better. How about doing something positive and being part of the solution rather than part of the probem???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voting Conspriacy
Um... because anybody who posts specific details on their vulnerabilities will immediately get sued.
I assume "Sometimes I Wonder" is a troll from Diebold or a flunky who works for Ohio's Secretary of State, because nobody else could possibly be stupid enough to make that post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voting Conspriacy
this is a video of a CHIMP hacking a Diebold voting machine.
Is that proof enough for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voting Conspriacy
I think there was proof. At least proof of a discrepency. I believe a machine card from the crucial Florida election didn't tally, which is kinda what set this whole chain of investigation in motion. No link. Anyone back me up here?
"And, let's say there were no electronic voting allowed in this country. Would elections be safe and secure then?"
No. But they would be safer because they would be more accountable.
"I would postulate that in any process where human intervention is required, the process is flawed."
You would be correct. Democracy is process that requires human intervention and is flawed. However an imperfect system is better than having an appointed dictator, or so many people believe.
"Politicians have bought votes for as long as there has been people voting, no matter on what type of device that vote was cast. "
Also true, However in the past it was more difficult. With real people there are witnesses. Only in 3rd world villages can you burst into the polling station with guns and threaten the lives of everybody and their families to silence them. With electronic voting fraud there are no witnesses.
"All the crap about how insecure electronic voting is doing nothing to make it better."
On what do you base that hypothesis? Do you have no faith in your fellows to act on their knowledge and suspicions? Do you believe that the people of your country are powerless?
"How about doing something positive and being part of the solution rather than part of the probem???"
That's an empty rhetorical question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy to Fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not just stick with paper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they HAVE you retard
anyone who steps up to say 'there could be a problem' is jailed/sued/ run out of town on a rail and NOTHING is done to fix the problem
the diebold CEO (who quit amid several other indictments) personally garenteed bush the election if he used his machines...
our country was taken over while we were all busy watching fox, and american idol..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Single [blank]
Can the machines be better? Yes.
But that does not change the fact that since the first vote was cast millennia ago that physical security is the #1 concern against fraud. Anyone with unlimited access to ANY voting machine can cause problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacking machines
Think of it - if only a few people know how to hack these things than we are vulnerable - if we all know something will get done.
It's one way to fight the neocon terroists!
TT
"I wan my country back"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]