Diebold now admits serious flaw in ALL software

[garyd]

The people with the most ready access to the machines is the county election board...

 

[Caligirl]

Just jumping in to point out the obvious, which is that we should be aware of the vulnerabilities of our election systems. Whether there has been corruption or not through the years is another issue. The issue here is that Diebold is admitting that their software, including current software, does not record wholesale deletions (any deletions) on the audit. This is the latest in a string of major concerns with the machines.

The audit does not record what many would agree is suspicious activity. The manufacturer admits this, in response to pressure from people (watchdogs) in CA who noticed the glitch last year. Earlier last year, under lawsuit in OH, Diebold admitted that votes in urban precincts may overload the system and fail to be counted. They did not admit this until they were sued in OH.

Many hacks have been demonstrated on Diebold (and other) machines, despite the strenuous objections of Diebold (etc) that their machines were safe.

None of this necessarily means that Diebold is a bunch of crooks, but it does mean, absolutely, that we can't have much trust in our voting systems. They are:

(1) proprietary, generally speaking, because they are run by private companies, so not available to scrutiny by the general public. We are asked to trust them.

(2) susceptible to many different hacks without leaving a trail

(3) flawed in that they drop votes in heavy districts

(4) flawed in that the audit logs do not record ballot deletions

... Every few months something new comes out that is bad news for electronic machines. You may wish to continue using them because of some personal baggage about FL 2000, or you may wish to keep yourself informed. I don't care, but the idea that it is a partisan issue is a complete distraction.

actually, a lot of those things you list as problems, are NOT
#1, having open source means it would be MUCH easier to make a hack

#2 is blatantly false
#3 its a flaw, not a thing that was planned

#4 if it was a flaw, how would the program be able to record it?


i still say the best way for voting is the optical scan ballot
they are able to be read both by hand and by machines

Doesn't matter if they are flaws or planned susceptibilities, they compromise your vote. If we can get a better system we shoudl demand it.

I don't believe 2 is blatantly false, I recall a few off the top of my head including the hotel minibar key thing, and another hack using a memory card. One was done at MIT I think the other was in CA. There were others.

Open source is better because they can be hacked in either case, but it is much easier to identify/prevent the hack with open source. In other words with proprietary code you have to trust the machines (and those with knowledge/access), but with open code you can trust yourself and your fellow american. I'll take number 2 but you're free to disagree.

 

[Caligirl]

The people with the most ready access to the machines is the county election board...

Yeah yeah yeah, you know, you are running around in circles trying to prove why a hack "probably wouldn't" occur.

Given the gravity of having a secret muslim terrorist elected illegally, information about the vulnerabilities in the syste(like the essential lack of a proper audit system) which WAS THE CASE in 2008 on machines across the country, may be of concern.

"Probably wouldn't occur" is nice and all, but I guess I think there are crooks out there who will game the system if they can. You're free to think otherwise.

 

[KittenKoder]

Cali ... EVERYTHING compromises our votes. Sad but true, we have to take on blind faith and hope that they don't cheat no matter what system they use. However with electronic records it's easier and faster to correct human error when we can spot it.

 

[Caligirl]

Whether everyone cheats or not is no reason to remain ignorant of it, or to try to improve the system. You sound like a defeatist!

 

[KittenKoder]

Whether everyone cheats or not is no reason to remain ignorant of it, or to try to improve the system. You sound like a defeatist!

No, a realist. Sometimes cynical sometimes optimist, but I see what is and what isn't and base all my opinions and facts on that.

Here's the thing, you can't improve anything without trying new things, and "it takes at least ten years to work the kinks out" (Bart Simpson), meaning it takes time to test and try any new system and see if it's better, just by coming up with a few possible flaws does not mean the system will fail, nor does it mean it's worse than what is currently being used. We know that right now our current system has a lot of flaws, one such flaw is how prone it is to human error. Paper ballots are more easily forged, and just as easy to stuff, if you don't think so look back on Seattles ballot problems (can't remember exactly when and where but recently there were more dead people voting than living). You are being defeatist by not being willing to even try something new.

 

[DiveCon]

Just jumping in to point out the obvious, which is that we should be aware of the vulnerabilities of our election systems. Whether there has been corruption or not through the years is another issue. The issue here is that Diebold is admitting that their software, including current software, does not record wholesale deletions (any deletions) on the audit. This is the latest in a string of major concerns with the machines.

The audit does not record what many would agree is suspicious activity. The manufacturer admits this, in response to pressure from people (watchdogs) in CA who noticed the glitch last year. Earlier last year, under lawsuit in OH, Diebold admitted that votes in urban precincts may overload the system and fail to be counted. They did not admit this until they were sued in OH.

Many hacks have been demonstrated on Diebold (and other) machines, despite the strenuous objections of Diebold (etc) that their machines were safe.

None of this necessarily means that Diebold is a bunch of crooks, but it does mean, absolutely, that we can't have much trust in our voting systems. They are:

(1) proprietary, generally speaking, because they are run by private companies, so not available to scrutiny by the general public. We are asked to trust them.

(2) susceptible to many different hacks without leaving a trail

(3) flawed in that they drop votes in heavy districts

(4) flawed in that the audit logs do not record ballot deletions

... Every few months something new comes out that is bad news for electronic machines. You may wish to continue using them because of some personal baggage about FL 2000, or you may wish to keep yourself informed. I don't care, but the idea that it is a partisan issue is a complete distraction.

actually, a lot of those things you list as problems, are NOT
#1, having open source means it would be MUCH easier to make a hack

#2 is blatantly false
#3 its a flaw, not a thing that was planned

#4 if it was a flaw, how would the program be able to record it?


i still say the best way for voting is the optical scan ballot
they are able to be read both by hand and by machines

Doesn't matter if they are flaws or planned susceptibilities, they compromise your vote. If we can get a better system we shoudl demand it.

I don't believe 2 is blatantly false, I recall a few off the top of my head including the hotel minibar key thing, and another hack using a memory card. One was done at MIT I think the other was in CA. There were others.

Open source is better because they can be hacked in either case, but it is much easier to identify/prevent the hack with open source. In other words with proprietary code you have to trust the machines (and those with knowledge/access), but with open code you can trust yourself and your fellow american. I'll take number 2 but you're free to disagree.

the so called "hacks" that you have seen, those individuals had complete access with NO ONE watching them or attempting to stop them
they also had the security keys and codes
how hard is it for you to "hack" your own computer when you know the passwords?????

 

[KittenKoder]

actually, a lot of those things you list as problems, are NOT
#1, having open source means it would be MUCH easier to make a hack

#2 is blatantly false
#3 its a flaw, not a thing that was planned

#4 if it was a flaw, how would the program be able to record it?


i still say the best way for voting is the optical scan ballot
they are able to be read both by hand and by machines

Doesn't matter if they are flaws or planned susceptibilities, they compromise your vote. If we can get a better system we shoudl demand it.

I don't believe 2 is blatantly false, I recall a few off the top of my head including the hotel minibar key thing, and another hack using a memory card. One was done at MIT I think the other was in CA. There were others.

Open source is better because they can be hacked in either case, but it is much easier to identify/prevent the hack with open source. In other words with proprietary code you have to trust the machines (and those with knowledge/access), but with open code you can trust yourself and your fellow american. I'll take number 2 but you're free to disagree.

the so called "hacks" that you have seen, those individuals had complete access with NO ONE watching them or attempting to stop them
they also had the security keys and codes
how hard is it for you to "hack" your own computer when you know the passwords?????

Hell ... I could "hack" Linux if I had a person's security passwords.

 

[DiveCon]

Whether everyone cheats or not is no reason to remain ignorant of it, or to try to improve the system. You sound like a defeatist!

the point she is making is if you cant trust the election workers, then you cant trust the election

 

[DiveCon]

Doesn't matter if they are flaws or planned susceptibilities, they compromise your vote. If we can get a better system we shoudl demand it.

I don't believe 2 is blatantly false, I recall a few off the top of my head including the hotel minibar key thing, and another hack using a memory card. One was done at MIT I think the other was in CA. There were others.

Open source is better because they can be hacked in either case, but it is much easier to identify/prevent the hack with open source. In other words with proprietary code you have to trust the machines (and those with knowledge/access), but with open code you can trust yourself and your fellow american. I'll take number 2 but you're free to disagree.

the so called "hacks" that you have seen, those individuals had complete access with NO ONE watching them or attempting to stop them
they also had the security keys and codes
how hard is it for you to "hack" your own computer when you know the passwords?????

Hell ... I could "hack" Linux if I had a person's security passwords.

thats not REALY hacking, now is it

 

[KittenKoder]

Whether everyone cheats or not is no reason to remain ignorant of it, or to try to improve the system. You sound like a defeatist!

the point she is making is if you cant trust the election workers, then you cant trust the election

Thanks, I am a bit wordy today for some reason.

 

[DiveCon]

Whether everyone cheats or not is no reason to remain ignorant of it, or to try to improve the system. You sound like a defeatist!

the point she is making is if you cant trust the election workers, then you cant trust the election

Thanks, I am a bit wordy today for some reason.

it doesn't matter if the ballots are paper marked by pencil, or a Diebold machine, if the people in control of them are not trustworthy
they could just as easily, if not more so, put in false paper ballots as tamper with a machine

 

[garyd]

Who said anything about a hack not occuring just pointing out that given what your story said any idiot counting the votes could easily choose to delete whole sale numbers of votes from any county he wished.

 

[KittenKoder]

Um ... huh?

 

[garyd]

The original story was that you could delete votes from the machine without there being any record of the occurence. County should have been precinct.

 

[DiveCon]

The original story was that you could delete votes from the machine without there being any record of the occurence. County should have been precinct.

and they would have to be able to do that to clear the machines for the next election

 

[Immanuel]

The funny thing is that I have never worried about votes being deleted from the machines, but I have always worried about votes being changed.

It wouldn't be hard to plant code that changed X number of votes after Y number of votes had been cast (Y would be inserted to overcome the standard accuracy tests) in order to sway an election or changing votes cast only between certain hours on certain days i.e. election day. I am not at all insinuating that this has happened, but it could happen. What bothers me is not the idea of someone "hacking" into the machines to effect an outcome, but rather the programmers being bought by one party or the other.

And please don't tell me one party or the other is above such criminal activity!

Immie

 

[KittenKoder]

The funny thing is that I have never worried about votes being deleted from the machines, but I have always worried about votes being changed.

It wouldn't be hard to plant code that changed X number of votes after Y number of votes had been cast (Y would be inserted to overcome the standard accuracy tests) in order to sway an election or changing votes cast only between certain hours on certain days i.e. election day. I am not at all insinuating that this has happened, but it could happen. What bothers me is not the idea of someone "hacking" into the machines to effect an outcome, but rather the programmers being bought by one party or the other.

And please don't tell me one party or the other is above such criminal activity!

Immie

Could be done with paper votes just as easily.

 

[garyd]

My whole point is that those unscrupulous enough to stuff ballot boxes -and then Dems are past masters of the art - will certainly do what they can to rig this too if they can figure out how.

 

[Immanuel]

The funny thing is that I have never worried about votes being deleted from the machines, but I have always worried about votes being changed.

It wouldn't be hard to plant code that changed X number of votes after Y number of votes had been cast (Y would be inserted to overcome the standard accuracy tests) in order to sway an election or changing votes cast only between certain hours on certain days i.e. election day. I am not at all insinuating that this has happened, but it could happen. What bothers me is not the idea of someone "hacking" into the machines to effect an outcome, but rather the programmers being bought by one party or the other.

And please don't tell me one party or the other is above such criminal activity!

Immie

Could be done with paper votes just as easily.

Could and probably has been. Gore? Franken?

For that matter how in the world can we positively know that any election results are accurate? We can't. We are supposed to rely on our trust of the election officials. Well, I am sorry to admit, that my elected officials have lost my trust.

Immie