Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#21

Post by bmj »

kome wrote: post #15

I participated in the experimental deployment of digital ballot box in a rich north Italian region, during regional elections. The system worked, and worked well. But overall, it was a failure. Putting the digital in something as simple as voting, just increase the risks at all levels: security, deployment, rechecking, etc. Pen and paper it's just so much better: simple, cost-effective, safe and understandable by any…

I develop software and devices used for data collection during clinical drug trials, and our single biggest "competitor" is the old paper diary. Despite evidence showing that electronic data collection for certain types of trials provides better data, people just don't "trust" anything but pen and paper (never mind the fact that patients could sit in their cars before an appointment and fill in a month's worth of data by just "remembering" how they felt two weeks ago, or how much of a particular medication they took).

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#22

Post by pepve »

The article confuses two things. First there is voting by paper ballot and manually counting them. We have been doing that for about nine years now. Second is aggregating the votes from all the polling stations, this used to be done with software, but with this decision it will be done manually. The immediate reason for this is an investigation into the security of that software which concluded that it was not safe, and the resulting media attention.

It is yet unclear what "manual aggregation" exactly means. Electronic calculators and Excel were suggested.

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#23

Post by mattnewton »

vkou wrote: post #13
mladenkovacevic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does everyone think that hacking the DNC amounted to "hacking the election". Did anyone complain when Iceland PM resigned as a result of the Panama Papers leak and the large-scale protests that ensued? You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. The truth came out and whatever happened was a natural result of that.

> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. No, you wouldn't. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the DNC hacks are all because the Democratic leadership is unwilling to accept responsibility for putting forward a bad candidate. Better blame the Russians, instead! If only the public didn't know the truth, we would have won!

You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attacks were targeting a specific party alone and seem to be motivated by foreign geopolitical interests, not in the American public's interest.

There is a reason we want equal time laws for example, because if I constantly hear one side of the argument, it doesn't matter how true those arguments are, I will come to biased conclusions.

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#24

Post by borkborkbork »

mattnewton wrote: post #23
vkou wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. No, you wouldn't. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the DNC hacks are all because the Democratic leadership is unwilling to accept responsibility for putting forward a bad candidate. Better blame the Russians, instead! If only the public didn't know the truth, we would have won!

You aren't wrong about the Democratic Party putting forth a weak candidate, but it is concerning that there weren't similar actions on the other side. The attacks were targeting a specific party alone and seem to be motivated by foreign geopolitical interests, not in the American public's interest. There is a reason we want equal time laws for example, because if I constantly hear one side of the argument, it doesn't…

Imagine all the dirt on GOP email accounts

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#25

Post by cynwoody »

stretchwithme wrote: post #11

We only every needed technology to make sure ballots get encoded correctly. We could do that with open source software, commodity PCs and card punch machines and readers. Then validating that your choices were encoded correctly would be easier. So would counting. You could count at the voting location to get fast results and recount once the ballots arrive at the central office to confirm that the reported count was…

>You also should have a unique number on each ballot that you can later use to look up how your ballot was recorded.

The standard objection to such a practice is that it facilitates vote buying / selling / coercion by giving the voter a means of proving how he voted.

However, I think it's a good idea nonetheless. All the ballots, randomly numbered, should go into a file available for download. That way, anyone can count them, and any voter can verify that his particular ballot was recorded correctly.

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#26

Post by thomask0 »

vkou wrote: post #13
mladenkovacevic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does everyone think that hacking the DNC amounted to "hacking the election". Did anyone complain when Iceland PM resigned as a result of the Panama Papers leak and the large-scale protests that ensued? You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. The truth came out and whatever happened was a natural result of that.

> You wouldn't say that that somebody hacked Iceland's democracy. No, you wouldn't. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the DNC hacks are all because the Democratic leadership is unwilling to accept responsibility for putting forward a bad candidate. Better blame the Russians, instead! If only the public didn't know the truth, we would have won!

It wasn't just the presidential race either, Guccifer 2.0 (suspected Russian front) also targeted Democractic down-ballot races in the House and Senate: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democra... with stuff taken from the DNC.

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#27

Post by nkrisc »

redether wrote: post #3

Can someone eli5 how an entire country that includes (big-fat assumption here) n > 0 computer scientist(s) is "fearful of hacking." Are we really at this point giving up on technology and becoming luddites?

The integrity of the outcome is more important than the means of the process.

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#28

Post by [deleted] »

Jraf wrote: post #18

In France we count all ballots by hand. As every ballot station count only his ballots, it's quick. For a presidential election, maybe 30 minutes. The counting is done by the citizens, so no (easy) frauds are possible. All ballots are visible, the process is transparent, no suspicion. I personally think that a 30min delay to get the election results is worth the wait.

[deleted]

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#29

Post by [deleted] »

kome wrote: post #15

I participated in the experimental deployment of digital ballot box in a rich north Italian region, during regional elections. The system worked, and worked well. But overall, it was a failure. Putting the digital in something as simple as voting, just increase the risks at all levels: security, deployment, rechecking, etc. Pen and paper it's just so much better: simple, cost-effective, safe and understandable by any…

[deleted]

Re: Fearful of Hacking, Dutch Will Count Ballots by Hand

#30

Post by detaro »

bmj wrote: post #21
kome wrote: post #15

I participated in the experimental deployment of digital ballot box in a rich north Italian region, during regional elections. The system worked, and worked well. But overall, it was a failure. Putting the digital in something as simple as voting, just increase the risks at all levels: security, deployment, rechecking, etc. Pen and paper it's just so much better: simple, cost-effective, safe and understandable by any…

I develop software and devices used for data collection during clinical drug trials, and our single biggest "competitor" is the old paper diary. Despite evidence showing that electronic data collection for certain types of trials provides better data, people just don't "trust" anything but pen and paper (never mind the fact that patients could sit in their cars before an appointment and fill in a month's worth of dat…

> people just don't "trust" anything but pen and paper

Who is people here? Participants, scientists, people in other roles?

Post reply on HN