Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine • Hacker News Board

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#141

Post by jasonlotito » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 1:20 AM UTC

cwisecarver wrote: post #107

Procrastes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Hacker_9. In Texas, where I vote, the machines don't even print paper. We just have to trust that the machine correctly recorded our vote. The reasons for the machines are, 1. cost cutting over manual counts, 2. profiteering by well connected companies, 3. And potentially making sure only the "right" votes count, although that part isn't proven. In California we were able to vote at home with a mail-in, paper ball…

If we have to use machines why wouldn't we just source two machines from rival vendors. One machine takes the vote from the voter through whatever method, records the vote and prints a receipt that clearly states that voters choices. Machine two reads the receipt in front of the voter and keeps a second tally of votes. The two tallies are then compared at the end of the night.

For starters, cost. Now you have to buy two machines for every single machine you buy. It also means taking up more room. Now, instead of fitting 10 machines in a single space, you can only fit 5, creating even longer lines. This also increase the chances of failures. A single machine failing means both machines in the pair fail. So, you've gone from 10 machines to 5 pairs of machines for twice the cost. You guy from a single machine putting you down to 90% original capacity (assuming 10 machines) where as a single machine brings you down to 80% capacity (40% of original capacity).

Not to mention the additional level of confusion and potential for errors. All of this so you can buy two machines from two different vendors who might, in the end, still have ties via investors.

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#142

Post by grzm » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 1:22 AM UTC

lisivka wrote: post #138

naasking wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yep, you can recount fake paper votes, but how you will distinguish fake votes from real ones? You already have a log of who showed up to vote. Compare the number of shows S with the number of ballots V which must be Edit: and this all statistically correlates with exit polls. It's very, very hard to fake all three of these in order to rig an election.

So yes, you have log, you have votes. How to distinguish real votes from fake ones? State can start election again from scratch, when it will find a problem, but people will vote very differently at this next election, because whole story will affect their minds and votes. Brave fakers can raise stakes and win.

It's not necessary for a subsequent vote to have the same outcome as the first. The issue is whether the election is secure and people have trust in the system.

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#143

Post by agumonkey » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 1:35 AM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #141

cwisecarver wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we have to use machines why wouldn't we just source two machines from rival vendors. One machine takes the vote from the voter through whatever method, records the vote and prints a receipt that clearly states that voters choices. Machine two reads the receipt in front of the voter and keeps a second tally of votes. The two tallies are then compared at the end of the night.

For starters, cost. Now you have to buy two machines for every single machine you buy. It also means taking up more room. Now, instead of fitting 10 machines in a single space, you can only fit 5, creating even longer lines. This also increase the chances of failures. A single machine failing means both machines in the pair fail. So, you've gone from 10 machines to 5 pairs of machines for twice the cost. You guy from…

All good points, maybe there could be one testing machine per area or zipcode instead of one per room. People wouldn't know which voting booth would be tested. If the test pass potential false positive are still there, but you at least a quantifiable bit of error catching and restricted scoping. Cost still up for sure, but maybe people wouldn't mind paying a bit more instead of 100% for trust in the system. Would probably even motivate some to vote.

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#144

Post by lisivka » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 1:40 AM UTC

grzm wrote: post #142

lisivka wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So yes, you have log, you have votes. How to distinguish real votes from fake ones? State can start election again from scratch, when it will find a problem, but people will vote very differently at this next election, because whole story will affect their minds and votes. Brave fakers can raise stakes and win.

It's not necessary for a subsequent vote to have the same outcome as the first. The issue is whether the election is secure and people have trust in the system.

So first goal of fakers is to ruin that. It even written as one of main goals in Russian trolls goal books. Find a copy of such book and read it: you will learn a lot.

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#145

Post by bsznjyewgd » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 1:48 AM UTC

Zombieball wrote: post #33

hacker_9 wrote: post #3

Why do Americans use voting machines exactly? I mean, it just prints out their choice at the end right? What benefit do they actually gain from having pressed buttons instead of using a pen? It just seems to fuel the hacking conspiracy every time a president is elected. In the UK we turn up, go into the booth with the paper slip, and tick our choice with a pen. Then we fold it and post it into a container which later…

A former co-worker of mine wrote software for voting machines in Brazil. He described to me a few reasons why electronic voting machines are important. To be honest I forget the majority, but one story that stuck with me: One common scheme electronic voting machines help prevent is forced votes. A bad guy gets their hand on a single empty ballot and writes the name of the candidate he wants to win on it. He then come…

In Canada, after you fill out your ballot in secret, you fold it up and hand it to the poll worker, who tears off a stub and then hands the ballot back to you, and then you insert it into the ballot box yourself in plain view.

I don't know if this is the current case (or perhaps your scenario is one of the reasons for the current procedure), but they can just put a serial number on the stub so that the poll worker can verify that the ballot that was handed out was the one just filled out.

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#146

Post by Zombieball » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 1:53 AM UTC

grzm wrote: post #118

Zombieball wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would an electronic voting machine improve upon this? I am just theorizing here: Someone now takes the box of paper votes and runs it through the scanner machine. And passes this number along to someone. What is stopping them from tampering at this step? I think this is precisely what my co-worker was describing. There is an inherent trust that your paper ballot is scanned and recorded in a fashion that matches…

There are many steps along the chain that have to be secured in both electronic voting (which has a variety of meanings) and paper ballots. Paper ballots enable audibility, which is a separate issue that's also important for voting. Given the number of comments you've made on this thread, it seems this is an area of interest to you. I encourage you to look though the previous HN discussions on this topic. Here's a li…

Thanks!

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#147

Post by grzm » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 2:03 AM UTC

lisivka wrote: post #144

grzm wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessary for a subsequent vote to have the same outcome as the first. The issue is whether the election is secure and people have trust in the system.

So first goal of fakers is to ruin that. It even written as one of main goals in Russian trolls goal books. Find a copy of such book and read it: you will learn a lot.

Once there's no longer trust in the system, you're right, secure voting is no longer a problem.

Which is why it's important to fix this earlier rather than later.

If it's your goal to cast more FUD on the issue, that's your choice. I can't even ask to you be honest about it because that wouldn't be congruent with spreading FUD.

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#148

Post by Zombieball » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 2:11 AM UTC

bsznjyewgd wrote: post #145

Zombieball wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A former co-worker of mine wrote software for voting machines in Brazil. He described to me a few reasons why electronic voting machines are important. To be honest I forget the majority, but one story that stuck with me: One common scheme electronic voting machines help prevent is forced votes. A bad guy gets their hand on a single empty ballot and writes the name of the candidate he wants to win on it. He then come…

In Canada, after you fill out your ballot in secret, you fold it up and hand it to the poll worker, who tears off a stub and then hands the ballot back to you, and then you insert it into the ballot box yourself in plain view. I don't know if this is the current case (or perhaps your scenario is one of the reasons for the current procedure), but they can just put a serial number on the stub so that the poll worker ca…

This is a good low-tech solution!

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#149

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

gedy wrote: post #45

[deleted] wrote: post #23

[deleted]

Why exactly would Putin prefer Trump? Honest question as both Hillary (as SoS) and Bill Clinton have been rather soft on Russia - Trump favoring domestic oil production, etc seems would be less preferred. Look how aggressive Russia has become in the past 8 years.

I think you're missing the point. Cute and Russia already benefited from the results of this election. A more divided Europe, check? A United States. that is looking to lessen its global role, check. A contentious, divisive circus of an election where a significant number of people have some doubts on the results, check. A splintering EU, check. A less unified NATO alliance with a weaker US role, under even more threat with surging populist movements rising, check. All this without one single bullet fired and probably nit that much money spent. Putin may be a lot of things, but i cant help but respect how he operates. He's a bad man.

This election has been cyber warfare's coming out party. Even The greatest military and economic force in the world is susceptible to major attacks and that will not change for a while. Recruiting hackers or obtaining assets otherwise must more cost effective diplomatic tool than some over budget multi billion dollar weapons system. I guess thats progress that we have one more tool to use before going to a hot war, but its asymmetrical nature gives regimes like NK a more level playing field.

The rhetoric bloviated by Trumpf has alreafy caused a great amount of concern and in uncertainty. What kind of asshole just casually mentions that yeah, we might not honor treaties that were signed in good faith With Trump in office, you also have a United States much more likely to make a deal in Syria and accept Assad and also accept a new reality in Crimea/Ukraine. IMO, the US is too fixated on Assad leaving. So fucking stupid. How many more times do we need to see what happens when you remove a strong man from that area of the world. Getting rid of Saddam and Qaddafi for "moderate" rebels sure worked out great /s.

Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How Easy It Is to Hack a Voting Machine

#150

Post by lisivka » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 2:18 AM UTC

grzm wrote: post #147

lisivka wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So first goal of fakers is to ruin that. It even written as one of main goals in Russian trolls goal books. Find a copy of such book and read it: you will learn a lot.

Once there's no longer trust in the system, you're right, secure voting is no longer a problem. Which is why it's important to fix this earlier rather than later. If it's your goal to cast more FUD on the issue, that's your choice. I can't even ask to you be honest about it because that wouldn't be congruent with spreading FUD.

Just trust your leaders and FUD will not work.