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

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

ijr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 207 posts

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

#171

Post by caf »

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.

Indeed, here is a recent example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_special_elec...

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

#173

Post by caf »

dmfdmf wrote: post #46
[deleted] wrote: post #23

[deleted]

Should this be classified as "fake news" and banned from Facebook, Reddit, HN, Hufpo, etc?

Well, that depends: did Krugman actually say those things? That's the objectively measurable fact that matters in this case, because the "news" being reported is that fact that a well-known person said something newsworthy.

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

#174

Post by boomboomsubban »

onewaystreet wrote: post #117
ThomPete wrote: post #35

This is missing the point though. The american voting system is actually very secure. 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. 75% of them have paper trails which would require an even bigger achievement to change enough off as it'…

Beyond the actual security of the voting machines, the other challenge in any hack is making it match the demographic make up of a state. People talk about "red" and "blue" states but the reality is that states are not homogeneous. It would stand out if a traditionally red county suddenly went blue and vice versa.

You would never flip a county. You would increase the percentage your candidate wins by or the percentage of the population that voted. It's raw votes that matter in states, and it's much safer to set up in your home turf.

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

#175

Post by parent5446 »

plaguuuuuu wrote: post #97
dmfdmf wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forget the statistical term but after the fact, you can't go back and say "look at this, only 107K votes determined the outcome" because you can always find such explanations post hoc. I tried to search but couldn't find the discussion but one example is how couples use this type of fallacy to "prove" their love was fated. Typically on the day the fated couple met there were a number of unusual events or circumstan…

So perhaps one can only practicably rig close elections.

Indeed, but the real fix would be a voting method that has defenses against it, as opposed to the electoral college, which is a lot easier to affect than more advanced systems that have been developed in more recent years.

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

#176

Post by [deleted] »

plaguuuuuu wrote: post #97
dmfdmf wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forget the statistical term but after the fact, you can't go back and say "look at this, only 107K votes determined the outcome" because you can always find such explanations post hoc. I tried to search but couldn't find the discussion but one example is how couples use this type of fallacy to "prove" their love was fated. Typically on the day the fated couple met there were a number of unusual events or circumstan…

So perhaps one can only practicably rig close elections.

[deleted]

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

#177

Post by onion2k »

asp_hornet wrote: post #116
grzm wrote: post #37

Looks like we're about to have the same voting/election discussion we've had at least 5 times over the past month or so. If anyone's interested in reading what's already been discussed, here are links to the previous threads: "American Elections Will Be Hacked" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12921967 "Maryland will audit all votes cast in general election" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12885396 "Cylance…

I remember the discussions of Bush rigging the 2004 elections (not on HN).

Diebold, how people hacked their voting machines, and their campaign against said hackers was mentioned on Slashdot practically weekly back then. I think http://blackboxvoting.org/ was started as a direct result.

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

#178

Post by adrianN »

agumonkey wrote: post #154
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.

Some suggest each party should have a set of machines, so that the interest tension would cancel errors a lot.

Make the number of machines inversely proportional to the number of votes in the last election. Suddenly the next president is from the green party.

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

#179

Post by hvidgaard »

agumonkey wrote: post #143
jasonlotito wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

I don't think we can prevent fraud, the best we can do is source voting machines according to a spec from multiple vendors, and source software from multiple vendors as well, and do independent inspections of both by multiple 3rd parties. It would be a significant undertaking to compromise everything.

With a paper vote, you place trust in those who collect, store and, count, and you can always recount if needed. With electronic voting you place that trust in those that produce the hardware and software.

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

#180

Post by _pdp_ »

E-Voting can be easily solved with ID cards combined with something similar to the blockchain so that you can verify your vote if you need to.

The technology is there but I don't think there is any incentive to make it happen.

The only problem that I can see is that we cannot be certain that any e-voting technology will survive future information security research and as a result the design needs to factor continuous upgrades.

Post reply on HN