151–160 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Potentially, a canary id, "show this one and it'll claim you voted for ____ and also alert the state election board that it was accessed"
That solves the boss problem. What about the government?
vote manipulation by the government the election is happening for isn't really something you can solve because in that case the election isn't the problem.
Why hasn't some state used a hash to allow trustworthy online voting? They could add a unique id on the back of your driver's license and then allow you to use your unique id to generate anonymous/one time use id's. They could then have a publicly accessible server that at all time displays a column with anonymous id, vote and every person can verify that their personal vote is correctly displayed.
In general, any process that allows an individual to verify their vote after the fact will enable coercion over voting. For example, in your proposal, an unscrupulous boss could make a demand before the election: "You must tell me the one-time ID you're voting with. If you choose not to, or if that ID doesn't show up in the registry having cast a vote for , you're fired." I think that, no matter what the process is,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In America we prefer the Clinton "walking around money" type of vote buying? Is it just me or does this sentence not make sense?
It kind of makes sense to me, I think the poster is trying to say Clinton buys votes but in a way we prefer/tolerate. That way being "walking around money" in the sense of mingling with wealthy people at expensive events funded by other wealthy people in an attempt gain favor (and votes) from the people who can afford those events. I think it's being purposely dramatic, but the English (kind of) adds up.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Mr Putin knows a certain way of performing politics and excels in this environment. It involves oligarchy, control of the media, nationalism and intrigue over political opponents. Mr Trump offers that environment on a platter. Mrs Clinton maintains a different style of politics, involving red tape, careful processes, observance of laws. Mr Putin does not work that way.
This is a joke right?
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…
It was a knee jerk reaction by Congress to the 2000 presidential election recounts in Florida. They passed a bill that funded the purchase of new voting machines called the Help America Vote Act[1]. It provided a fat pile of federal funds to states for the purpose of replacing voting equipment. Of course, throw a mountain of money in front of federal contractors, and several will rush out poorly designed systems quickly to claim the prize. Secure voting was the last thing on their minds. Diebold actually sued the state of Massachusetts for "wrongful purchase" of competitor systems.[2] Slashdot covered the fiasco generated by HAVA for years. Just search for Diebold or Sequoia in relation to their domain.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act
[2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/03/26/1431258/diebold-sues...
[3] https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=diebold%20site%3Aslashdot.org
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…
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…
I was listening to something specifically talking about California counting mail-in ballots. They said California took longer than most states because it's big, it has liberal laws about eligibility (counting provisional ballots) and citizens are pretty sloppy about filling in mail-in ballots. They described coffee and spaghetti stains obscuring the choice. They will fill out "clean" ballots in pairs with their best guess. I'm sure that's a small number of ballots.
When I've voted in person they deliberately have me feed my ballot into a machine to confirm it was valid.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's highly decentralized, machines are not connected to the internet, implemented in many different ways, which means that they would have to do many attacks many different places without being discovered to even have an effect. Or modify the program loaded on the machines before they're distributed. It's probably easier than you think.
No cause they dont even use the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 thre…
To be fair NATO/Europe have been having issues during the Obama administration. Brexit is just a symptom of a long running problem in the EU regarding national sovereignty and bail outs of poor nations (greece/spain). Obama has struggled finding partners in the middle east to provide support to fight terrorism, but even NATO allies like Turkey have refused to even let the US use their airspace.
I personally think that Trump is picking his battles. He can fight a Mexico trade/immigration battle and get an easy win. Fighting Russia over Syria has no winners. As for Assad, it's hard to see how a person responsible for the deaths of over 300K of his own people could ever really hold on to power with or without foreign support. The US has experience in supporting an unpopular foreign leader (south Vietnam) and it didn't go that well.
I think in the long run, Trump will be more of a 'domestic' president. Someone that really spends more time focusing on domestic issues rather than foreign ones. Hillary I think would have been the opposite. In some ways this may be better for foreign countries, because it means that we are more likely to stay out of their business.