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

DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

defcon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#131

Post by gumby »

sbov wrote: post #74
gumby wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After California Prop 8 (vote for gay marriage! Where "yes" meant "prohibit it" and "no" meant "don't prohibit it") California adopted a measure where the AG has to verify that ballot measure titles are neutral.

The name of the prop actually wasn't confusing. Initially it was called "California Marriage Protection Act", which is pretty common for anti-gay-marriage acts. Later it was called "Eliminate Rights of Same Sex Couples to Marry". Which is 100% obvious. Only people who lazily called it the "gay marriage prop" were confused.

Thanks! I looked it up and the rewriting of titles preceded prop 8, though the prop 8 folks litigated furiously (amusingly they claimed the new title was "inflammatory" when it was actually text taken from the question).

I remember people being confused about the polarity of the vote, but then again I remembered incorrectly that the title approval had been because of prop 8 so who knows.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#132

Post by int_19h »

fzeroracer wrote: post #130
int_19h wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why the vast majority of other countries do have voter ID laws then? As far as voter suppression, the whole point of what I wrote is that it's not inherent in voter ID. It only happens if the laws are deliberately designed that way. Again, look into how people vote in most European countries to see that it's not what these kinds of laws are actually about, when they're done right. BTW, my perspective…

First, comparing America to other countries in this case is a poor point. Relative to European countries Americans are spread incredibly far apart with a culture designed around driving. Keep this in mind for the rest of my argument. In many areas in America the hours for polling stations coincide with the typical workday. It can also take quite literally hours to reach your proper polling station to vote where takin…

I live in US, so yes, I'm well aware of the specifics. But also, "America is different" is a fairly used excuse by now, and frankly, I don't think it really is as different as Americans like to think it is. That "spread apart" thing and culture designed around driving is not unique, either.

All the issues you describe are, again, issues with a specific implementation. Voting day can (and should) be moved to a weekend. Government-issued IDs should be free and easy - I would even say automatic - to get. And so on, and so forth.

Voter ID does not have to make voting hard. I would not support any proposal that would do so (which is to say, any that I've seen pushed in US to date). However, I cannot in good faith support a principled opposition to voter ID as such. And - speaking as a card-carrying member of the party - I believe that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by continually misrepresenting the core idea as racist etc. They should instead come up with a comprehensive voting reform proposal that would tackle all these issues - election security (including ID), voter registration, election day timing etc. And put it on the table with great fanfare. Then let Republicans explain why they're still opposed to it.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#133

Post by auslander »

ganoushoreilly wrote: post #85
mrnobody_67 wrote: post #66

This is terrifying. Full stop.

Every electronic device is hackable with physical access. Every process that has humans involved is exploitable. I'm more alarmed at the number of people willing to complain and moan about change, yet refuse to volunteer at their local polling station. If awareness is important, we have to start somewhere, yet the vast majority of people complaining expect it to just solve itself. Sometimes to fix a broken system you…

> Every electronic device is hackable with physical access.

iOS 11+ Apple devices are pretty much not.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#135

Post by mulmen »

int_19h wrote: post #127
mulmen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voter ID laws solve a problem that does not exist. I do not support pointless laws that open us up to further abuse by partisans. Voter ID laws have been written in a way that they can be systematically (and I believe deliberately) abused to disenfranchise minorities. This is done by setting unreasonable office hours or locations to obtain voter IDs among other methods. There is no need for voter ID laws and so there…

Can you explain why the vast majority of other countries do have voter ID laws then? As far as voter suppression, the whole point of what I wrote is that it's not inherent in voter ID. It only happens if the laws are deliberately designed that way. Again, look into how people vote in most European countries to see that it's not what these kinds of laws are actually about, when they're done right. BTW, my perspective…

We don’t need symbolic laws. Adding a restriction on our most fundamental rights because it feels good is misguided and extremely dangerous.

This country has a long and well documented history of voter suppression and voter ID is just the latest example.

You’re going to have to do better than “other countries do it” to convince me voter ID laws are a good idea. Start with any evidence of necessity and a how the south won’t abuse the hell out of it. Remember that they have already abused the hell out of it.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#136

Post by mulmen »

int_19h wrote: post #132
fzeroracer wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, comparing America to other countries in this case is a poor point. Relative to European countries Americans are spread incredibly far apart with a culture designed around driving. Keep this in mind for the rest of my argument. In many areas in America the hours for polling stations coincide with the typical workday. It can also take quite literally hours to reach your proper polling station to vote where takin…

I live in US, so yes, I'm well aware of the specifics. But also, "America is different" is a fairly used excuse by now, and frankly, I don't think it really is as different as Americans like to think it is. That "spread apart" thing and culture designed around driving is not unique, either. All the issues you describe are, again, issues with a specific implementation. Voting day can (and should) be moved to a weekend…

There’s already an established history of voter ID laws being used to suppress votes. This is not a hypothetical.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#137

Post by Skrillex »

ganoushoreilly wrote: post #86
Skrillex wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If [the government, businesses, etc.] could not (or did not) find these vulnerabilities, most of which seem like things your average techie might have checked for, what evidence is there to suggest that [the government, businesses, etc.] know how to fix them either?

The same could be said for any system where a vulnerability is found. Vulnerabilities exist, it's the efforts we put into addressing them that matters. Yelling about one party or the other being responsible won't solve the problem. The first steps to a big fix would simply be locking down processes, things that can be done by volunteers joining in the efforts of their local and or state voting agencies. It's easy to…

I cannot tell from the wording of the comment, but this seems like a rebuttal. I agree that solutions should be the first thing that happens as opposed to blaming. However, the comment that I replied to seemed to be stating that the solutions should be left to the first order victims of the exploits (which I am stating is nonsense) and that the DEFCON participants had no place in offering solutions.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#138

Post by blacksmith_tb »

int_19h wrote: post #90
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another reason (along with preventing remote hacks etc.) that vote-by-mail[1] is much more reasonable. It provides you with as much time as you need to look up candidates and issues. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon

I don't know about Oregon, but in Washington you also get a thick voter pamphlet that goes over all the candidates and issues in great detail, including candidates' statements about themselves. For initiatives (referendums), it even has statements by pro and con groups, and rebuttals of each others' statements. And you get that way in advance of the election, too, so there's plenty of time to go over it and do any ad…

Yes, same in Oregon, though the pamphlet is oddly organized, with the candidates for different races jumbled together. The for/against arguments after the text of each ballot measure are very useful, as much for their arguments as to see what organizations are spending time and money to defend or defeat them.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#139

Post by blacksmith_tb »

hackandtrip wrote: post #92
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another reason (along with preventing remote hacks etc.) that vote-by-mail[1] is much more reasonable. It provides you with as much time as you need to look up candidates and issues. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon

Sure, but you lose vote secrecy.

Not so much, it shifts secrecy from flimsy booths at a polling place to the voter, who presumably fills out their ballot in the privacy of their home, and then you have the option of dropping it off directly at the county elections office dropbox instead of mailing, if you're worried.

Re: DEF CON report on vulnerabilities in US election infrastructure [pdf]

#140

Post by blacksmith_tb »

burfog wrote: post #128
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another reason (along with preventing remote hacks etc.) that vote-by-mail[1] is much more reasonable. It provides you with as much time as you need to look up candidates and issues. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by-mail_in_Oregon

That article says: "30% of respondents said they voted more often since vote-by-mail was enacted." Uh, you're only supposed to vote once. Now the ballots show up, you can fill them out for all family members, even if recently deceased, and vote for everybody. That spouse doesn't need to vote. The high-school senior is too busy to do their own voting. The truly ambitious can even grab ballots out of mailboxes, adding…

They routinely reject ballots for not matching signatures - I had one returned which I had certainly filled out myself.
Post reply on HN