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

My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

portal.drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 358 posts

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#331

Post by jakelazaroff »

thedream wrote: post #320
jakelazaroff wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn’t deviate from the stated rules. The rules are open to interpretation, and they interpreted them to the best of their abilities. There are poll workers of both major parties; presumably if they interpreted the rules in a flagrantly partisan way, poll workers from the other party would have objected.

> they interpreted them to the best of their abilities Oh wow that settles it, then! Case closed. By the way, got any tips on how to learn mind-reading? You seem really good at it.

> By the way, got any tips on how to learn mind-reading? You seem really good at it.

This is a particularly funny response given that your entire argument hinges on inferring someone’s motive for interpreting the rules in a particular way.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#332

Post by ebg13 »

Shared404 wrote: post #327
u801e wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't even secure computers when the fate of the entire world _doesn't_ depend on it. This is hyperbole at best. In most cases, international policy does not change all that much regardless of what major party member happens to be president of the US. > I'm not terribly worried about the consequences of someone filing my taxes for me. Unless you have taken the time to fine tune your payments such that you don't…

The problem is voting has to be simple enough that the average citizen can verify it. That is impossible to do with computers with the current average level of computer literacy.

That's a small problem, but not _the_ problem. _The_ problem is that, in our entire history of making networked computers, we have never successfully produced one capable of guaranteeing end-to-end security once someone starts poking at it.

The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever.

They further keep equating property theft scenarios, where you would easily notice that your money went to someone else, or personal harrassment scenarios, where your first consequence is a human individual audit not a national election outcome, with scenarios where you'd have no idea that your vote was changed unless you start implementing policies that would allow people to sell their votes, which is something that we don't allow for a reason. Paper ballots kept in small batches distributed among thousands of precincts that are counted by hand with opposition observers are hard to systematically rig. Bits in a cloud machine somewhere that lose all connection to your action are not.

They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#333

Post by valarauko »

nomercy400 wrote: post #298
tptacek wrote: post #92

This squares with my experience in Illinois after a couple of elections. * As a security/integrity issue, the ballots themselves are much less scary than the pollbooks, which are what we use to match voters against the voting rolls. * Everything's ultimately on paper; there are bar codes, which nobody loves, but they're auditable against the readable printed ballot. * Most of the security is physical/human; for us, e…

In my country we have a simple rule to prevent electioneering on election day: electioneering on election day is forbidden. Not 100ft, not 100m, simply nowhere.

In my country election campaigning has to stop 72 hours before the polls. No ads, no speeches, no nothing.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#334

Post by voxl »

nemo44x wrote: post #262
andrewem wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of not being allowed to enter a polling place wearing curtain clothes: "Since Tuesday, she has become known as the “Topless Voter.” The woman, who ripped off her T-shirt after objections that it was too political to wear inside the Exeter polls, said she has no regrets. “I said, ‘Well then, can I vote naked?’ He turned to me and said, ‘If you want to.’ So I took off my shirt,” she said. She said she kept on…

Depressing how uncivilized and obnoxious people can be. We may want to reevaluate why we used to tech our children shame. It’s about mutual respect. Without that, we continue a downward spiral.

Because God forbid a women be topless... So disrespectful. We need to start shaming people who comment online again, remove all anonymity so we can publicly shame them for saying something stupid like a women voting topless should be shamed.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#335

Post by u801e »

ebg13 wrote: post #332
Shared404 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is voting has to be simple enough that the average citizen can verify it. That is impossible to do with computers with the current average level of computer literacy.

That's a small problem, but not _the_ problem. _The_ problem is that, in our entire history of making networked computers, we have never successfully produced one capable of guaranteeing end-to-end security once someone starts poking at it. The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practi…

> The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever.

Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the server can verify the client though the client cert.

This also assumes that those who want to vote online have the knowledge to properly secure their private key.

> They further handwave away the significance of stealing an election because catastrophic harm would only happen _sometimes_.

Has our foreign policy towards Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, to name a few countries, changed significantly depending on whether someone from the Democratic or Republican Party is president?

I would say that gerrymandering has done far more to disenfranchise voters compared to theoretical attacks against the personal devices of those who choose to vote online.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#336

Post by thedream »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #331
thedream wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they interpreted them to the best of their abilities Oh wow that settles it, then! Case closed. By the way, got any tips on how to learn mind-reading? You seem really good at it.

> By the way, got any tips on how to learn mind-reading? You seem really good at it. This is a particularly funny response given that your entire argument hinges on inferring someone’s motive for interpreting the rules in a particular way.

> your entire argument hinges on inferring someone’s motive

Where did that happen? Or do your psychic abilities allow you to bend time and space as well?

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#337

Post by [deleted] »

u801e wrote: post #335
ebg13 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a small problem, but not _the_ problem. _The_ problem is that, in our entire history of making networked computers, we have never successfully produced one capable of guaranteeing end-to-end security once someone starts poking at it. The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practi…

> The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever. Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the serv…

[deleted]

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#338

Post by ebg13 »

u801e wrote: post #335
ebg13 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a small problem, but not _the_ problem. _The_ problem is that, in our entire history of making networked computers, we have never successfully produced one capable of guaranteeing end-to-end security once someone starts poking at it. The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practi…

> The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever. Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the serv…

> Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the server can verify the client though the client cert.

"Software has no flaws" is not a strong position historically. I mean, the very fact that we're on TLS version 1.3 and not SSL 1.0 should be clue enough.

> Has our foreign policy towards Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, to name a few countries, changed significantly depending on whether someone from the Democratic or Republican Party is president?

This is a strawman meant to distract. You should instead ask "Are there significant benefits and incentives to set up a puppet government?" The answer to that is a very obvious yes. You can then ask "Is doing that easier if you can flip votes easily?" The answer to that is a very obvious yes.

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#339

Post by jakelazaroff »

thedream wrote: post #336
jakelazaroff wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By the way, got any tips on how to learn mind-reading? You seem really good at it. This is a particularly funny response given that your entire argument hinges on inferring someone’s motive for interpreting the rules in a particular way.

> your entire argument hinges on inferring someone’s motive Where did that happen? Or do your psychic abilities allow you to bend time and space as well?

Yes, they allow me to mentally travel back and recall past events. Behold:

> So when a poll worker deviates from the stated rules, it necessitates investigating why that happened (and deciding if such a deviation was proper).

> What an amazing coincidence it is that this poll worker just so happened to deviate from the guidelines in a way that aligns with their admitted personal opinions and biases!

Re: My experience as a poll worker in Pennsylvania

#340

Post by u801e »

ebg13 wrote: post #338
u801e wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The person you're replying to is wishfully handwaving away electronic attacks like we haven't been facing an endless cascading catastrophe of device security breaches since practically forever. Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the serv…

> Which is why I mentioned using certificate based authentication (AKA, client-side TLS certificates). Not only does the client verify that they're connecting to the correct server via the server side TLS certificate, the server can verify the client though the client cert. "Software has no flaws" is not a strong position historically. I mean, the very fact that we're on TLS version 1.3 and not SSL 1.0 should be clue…

> I mean, the very fact that we're on TLS version 1.3 and not SSL 1.0 should be clue enough.

But we still conduct a lot of business online without issue. If we followed the line of reasoning that you're suggesting, then we would still be doing things as they were done prior to 1995. The fact that we're not is testament that these systems largely work. Voting is not a special case that requires us to not make use of tried and tested technology.

> Are there significant benefits and incentives to set up a puppet government?

This is an example of the "begging the question" logical fallacy. You're just assuming the conclusion is true when that's not necessarily the case.

Post reply on HN