Security research vid shows "virus" infecting e-voting machines


17 Responses to “Security research vid shows "virus" infecting e-voting machines”

  1. Howdy says:

    Why didn’t the California Secretary of State read the report after the review and decertify the DRE’s or at the very least, re certify with conditions for use, storage and handling and allow one per voting place to be used for accessibility and paper ballots for those who can hold a pencil?

  2. mdh says:

    Yeah, those voting machines will make terrible barricades if the fix is in.

  3. igpajo says:

    Sounds a bit like what happened in the movie “Man of the Year” where Robin Williams playing as a Jon Stewart like political TV satirist runs for President and wins after a computer bug in the e-voting machines favors him over the other candidates.

  4. Phikus says:

    Pay no attention to the virus behind the curtain…

  5. Phikus says:

    IGPAJO@1: Except that Robin steps down when found out.

  6. SC_Wolf says:

    Obligatory link to appropriate XKCD strip:

  7. Baldhead says:

    Can we just go back to hand counting bits of paper? Seriously at least when you use that system you need a proper conspiracy to rig things. Not just a single hacker.

  8. codesuidae says:

    Anyone know if this movie available in another format?

  9. stealthisbook says:

    Much of the trouble in gaining any sort of transparency in the vote process with these machines is probably also why this video was delayed for so long. The companies that build these hold on tightly to every design and code detail as a trade secret.

  10. justONEguy says:

    Democracy is dead. Long live the corporate kleptocracy.

  11. Burz says:

    PHIKUS@11: Yet the use of those physical ballots is what enabled you to make that conclusion.

    Note that what happened in Ohio, 2004 is much less clear because of computerized voting.

    Digital electronic information can’t be verified where anonymous transactions are involved; the goal in designing digital equipment is to create and alter information as effortlessly and cleanly as possible.

    This is accomplished through many layers of abstraction which most people (99.999%) can’t audit (or often even detect). Electronic “ballots” cannot be viewed directly with the human eye (nor otherwise directly sensed) because the bits that show a “vote” on the screen are not the same bits that comprise the record. They are un-auditable.

    Even where digital signatures of poll workers are used, they will only indicate very generally a problem in a batch of votes in a given precinct… the discrepancies cannot be traced to individual ballots to figure out what went wrong.

  12. flup says:

    Presumably these machines are being used in an attempt to save money (I can’t think of any other reason). However, given the amount of money that’s been spent on certification, re-certification, purchasing (and disposal), is it really worth it?

  13. ivan256 says:

    Might as well just make Obama president *now*. If he loses nobody is going to believe it anyway.

  14. Phikus says:

    FLUP@6: It is worth it to those who want to control the outcome of an election, and thereby the country.

    BALDHEAD@9: Even when we were counting bits of paper, they managed to steal an election. Remember 2000? What can be done when the Supreme Court stops a recount, which by any measure would have shown Gore as the winner, and not just of the popular vote?

  15. Phikus says:

    BURZ@14: Indeed. I was just attempting to point out that this is but one item on the playbook of voter disenfranchisement. We need greater transparency, accountability, and re-countability installed into the voting system if we hope to have a fair election ever again.

    JUSTONEGUY@13: Kleptocracy indeed!

Leave a Reply