Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
actually, a lot of those things you list as problems, are NOTJust 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.
#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
The people with the most ready access to the machines is the county election board...
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 so called "hacks" that you have seen, those individuals had complete access with NO ONE watching them or attempting to stop themactually, a lot of those things you list as problems, are NOTJust 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.
#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 themactually, 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.
they also had the security keys and codes
how hard is it for you to "hack" your own computer when you know the passwords?????
the point she is making is if you cant trust the election workers, then you cant trust the electionWhether everyone cheats or not is no reason to remain ignorant of it, or to try to improve the system. You sound like a defeatist!
thats not REALY hacking, now is itthe so called "hacks" that you have seen, those individuals had complete access with NO ONE watching them or attempting to stop themDoesn'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.
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.
the point she is making is if you cant trust the election workers, then you cant trust the electionWhether everyone cheats or not is no reason to remain ignorant of it, or to try to improve the system. You sound like a defeatist!
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 trustworthythe point she is making is if you cant trust the election workers, then you cant trust the electionWhether everyone cheats or not is no reason to remain ignorant of it, or to try to improve the system. You sound like a defeatist!
Thanks, I am a bit wordy today for some reason.
and they would have to be able to do that to clear the machines for the next electionThe original story was that you could delete votes from the machine without there being any record of the occurence. County should have been precinct.
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
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.