I have to confess. I hate Diebald voting machines.

[Pekka]

Uhmmm?!!?!? With paper, you need a massive conspiracy. You need to turn all kinds fo people in.

With hacking, you don't need anyone but yourself.

Do you seriously claim that paper and pen is less secure in terms of rigging and fraud?

[LordShiva]

Yes. Not all electronic voting machines are like Diebold machines. They don't have to be connected to the internet, they don't need to run fancy software, they just need to store button presses and automatically upload them to a central repository when connected. They can be made fool-proof enough such that it's no easier to hack into them and change the results than it is to open up a ballot box, take out pieces of paper and put in your own.

[LordShiva]

As an aside, of all the rigged elections you can name, how many were electronic?

[Solver]

Originally posted by Pekka
SOlver, other criteria? Wow... please explain more.. ?

No, nothing totalitarian . Just that you are not a criminal convict escaped from prison, forbidden to leave the country by court as a precaution or such.

[Pekka]

"Yes. Not all electronic voting machines are like Diebold machines. "

Come on LordShiva. You are smarter than this How many electronical voting events has there been around the world?

You can't possibly make this comparison now.

Besides, you don't need but one Diebold machine to effect more results than the results of one machine, this was demonstrated in the Hursti Hack first, and then in several other hacks. And it was easy too.

The point is, you need a whole lot more effort to rig paper votes, you need lots of people to work with you. In electronical alternative, the theory is you need only one.

SOrry, from security point of view, this is trivial, electronical voting is far more dangerous when it comes to possible frauds.

"They don't have to be connected to the internet, they don't need to run fancy software, they just need to store button presses and automatically upload them to a central repository when connected."

Right And you only need to poison the memory card to poison them all. It is read in central system. This was demonstrated few years back already.

"They can be made fool-proof enough such that it's no easier to hack into them and change the results than it is to open up a ballot box"

This can't be proven. Nothing is fool-proof when it comes to computers. Except with computers, one person can do stuff, with paper, you need whole lots of people. And by saying this, you admit there is a problem right now. It is all but fool-proof, at least now.

What woudl help is to do the obvious, which is give the software to certain groups to be tested. Now it's a trade secret, propietary software. So you basically just trust this one company for the most important process of democracy? Why do you hate democracy and transparency?

The least one must do is make sure the software is as good as possible, meaning internal and external auditing, meaning all kinds of testing and algorithms that are passed on to groups, public groups to inspect it.

It does NOT make it more insecure. It is INSECURE when it is not even audited properly.

This is very basic. Also, I don't need to mention what a huge risk it is to let this improtant thing to be a trade secret of one company. That company can be hacked. Employees can be persuaeded to give up the source code or parts of the software in advance (to hack it later on). Or people can apply for the job only to turn it to other people. When stakes are this high, anything can happen.

Good security is definitely not the one this particular process is following, this is about the worst you can have. Last time (in 2004) they actualyl leaked it by accident, leaving the software on public server. Can you really trust these people? How did they ever get the new contract to begin with? Such incomptence is rare in this business. Why would you trust them now? It is YOUR votes we are discussing here.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: I have to confess. I hate Diebald voting machines.

You didn't have to "confess," we could all guess. I believe "Diebold is teh evil!" was a DNC talking point one day, that's what clued me in you would dislike them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Solver
Seems odd to me that in some countries people can live without a passport. I mean, if you have no passport, than what can you use as a valid ID and be sure that it will get accepted?

Driver's license.

[Solver]

So does almost everyone have a driver's license then?

[Kuciwalker]

Pretty much. Well, not everyone who lives in the city, but otherwise most people get driver's licenses.

[Solver]

Crazy country .

[Dinner]

Re: Re: I have to confess. I hate Diebald voting machines.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You didn't have to "confess," we could all guess. I believe "Diebold is teh evil!" was a DNC talking point one day, that's what clued me in you would dislike them.

Do you have no response to my observations? Wouldn't it be better if voters could actually see what the printed record says in order to insure that what the computer prints is actually how they want to vote?

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: I have to confess. I hate Diebald voting machines.

Originally posted by Oerdin


Do you have no response to my observations? Wouldn't it be better if voters could actually see what the printed record says in order to insure that what the computer prints is actually how they want to vote?

No.

What's ideal, IMO, is a computer screen that lets you pick your candidate (a touch screen).

Then it'll ask you to confirm. Full-screen, with a blue background for dem, red for republican, saying "You have voted for: CANDIDATE NAME - PARTY AFFILIATION. Is this correct? YES/NO"

Votes are then logged to three different data centers: a local server in the room, and two independently-operated data centers in the state.

[Solver]

By the way, for someone who has never seen an electronic voting machine, can you briefly describe how these work? I gather that they don't have a touchscreen with a list of candidates, so how do the things work?

Touch screens are good, though. For things like this.

Curiously, haven't there been problems with electronic voting machines and older people who don't know how to use such technology?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: I have to confess. I hate Diebald voting machines.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Do you have no response to my observations?

No.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Solver
By the way, for someone who has never seen an electronic voting machine, can you briefly describe how these work? I gather that they don't have a touchscreen with a list of candidates, so how do the things work?

There are many different kinds. The Diebold kind is the bad kind.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_16/b3879074.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2107388/