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

Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

cse.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

#31

Post by jacquesm »

aristus wrote: post #23
yummyfajitas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also fairly easy for us techies to grasp the hacking of computer systems. But we often forget how insecure and error prone paper systems can also be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJfj9ySYg0Q Massive voter fraud could be happening every election - it's pretty easy to vote fraudulently and there is almost no way to find out after the fact (I've done it unintentionally). For whatever reason, we are insanely afrai…

We're more concerned about electronic voting because it lowers the effort and manpower needed to defraud immensely .

And more likely, in a close election the election can be stolen by a minimal change, which will probably go undetected.

Re: Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

#33

Post by JoachimSchipper »

russell wrote: post #25
reitzensteinm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, a 1 minute quiz on the constitution and/or your countries system of governance. Get all the answers right and you can vote!

Half a century ago, literacy tests and trick questions were widely used to keep blacks from voting. That's why it's illegal to do so now.

Nowadays, the US repeals voting rights from those who have committed a felony, have a similar name to someone who's committed a felony, or live in the same neighborhood as people who conflict felonies. And who "just happen" to be black.

Civilization has advanced - this is no longer widely accepted - but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen in, say, Florida.

Re: Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

#34

Post by JoachimSchipper »

seldo wrote: post #8

It is one of the curious facts of modern culture that the people who love technology the most also seem to be the most opposed to electronic voting. I think it's because the people who most understand how computers work also understand that no data can be considered trustworthy if somebody else has been in possession of the hardware. Yet governments continue to trust the impossible promises of the people who make vot…

As a counterpoint, cryptographers (including Rivest of _R_SA fame) are quite interested in voting. Of course, they generally don't trust the machines at all...

Re: Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

#35

Post by reitzensteinm »

russell wrote: post #25
reitzensteinm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, a 1 minute quiz on the constitution and/or your countries system of governance. Get all the answers right and you can vote!

Half a century ago, literacy tests and trick questions were widely used to keep blacks from voting. That's why it's illegal to do so now.

I should point out that it wasn't a serious suggestion! I was just trying to think of practical uses for the hack. I didn't think my other idea of networked street fighter, were the victor was able cast the vote on behalf of the loser, would hold much water on HN.

Re: Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

#36

Post by JacobAldridge »

tvon wrote: post #16

I suspect the only way to get the public's attention on voting machine security would be for a group (Anonymous?) to hack a major election in favor of a joke write-in candidate (Mickey Mouse, "None of the Above", Bill Murray).

Definitely 'None of the Above' - I ran for student union president on a None of the Above ticket.

The irony was lost (magnified?) when I drew top of the ballot paper, but ultimately my preferences (was a preferential style not first-past-the-post ballot) tipped the victorious president over in a cliffhanger election.

Re: Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

#37

Post by cubicle67 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #13
dandelany wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that we're opposed to it in theory, it's just that every single implementation thus far has been terrifically bad. Making the code open source would go a long way, I think, as would establishing open working groups to establish security standards. I may be an optimist, but I do believe that theoretically (at least information-theoretically[1]), it can be done well. [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q…

It's also fairly easy for us techies to grasp the hacking of computer systems. But we often forget how insecure and error prone paper systems can also be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJfj9ySYg0Q Massive voter fraud could be happening every election - it's pretty easy to vote fraudulently and there is almost no way to find out after the fact (I've done it unintentionally). For whatever reason, we are insanely afrai…

I voted on Saturday (Australian election). No id required, 100% paper votes, all counted by hand (as far as I'm aware) and we normally have a result within a few hours of polls in the West closing.

Seems to work very well, but I guess one advantage we have is that none of the parties here are worth cheating for.

Re: Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

#38

Post by michaelneale »

seldo wrote: post #8

It is one of the curious facts of modern culture that the people who love technology the most also seem to be the most opposed to electronic voting. I think it's because the people who most understand how computers work also understand that no data can be considered trustworthy if somebody else has been in possession of the hardware. Yet governments continue to trust the impossible promises of the people who make vot…

So here in Australia we use plain old paper and pencil ballots (it is the same in every state - it's Federal). How does electronic security compare to pencil on (anonymous) paper ? I am sure paper fraud happens - as would manual counting (it is manual but overseen of course). Is it perhaps that with electronic both the scale can be increased and the chance of detection decreased?

Re: Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

#39

Post by ams6110 »

biafra wrote: post #24
dandelany wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that any method will ever be 100% foolproof, but I think it can be improved immensely, and if we could limit the inaccuracies/fraud to always be less than those incurred by a traditional paper ballot[1], I think I'd approve. In regards to your comment regarding untrusted parties handling the hardware, here are a few counterpoints: - We already trust polling place workers with paper ballots, the poss…

"We already trust polling place workers with paper ballots, the possibility for fraud already exists." I don't know about the US, but here in Germany _anyone_ can watch the whole process including the counting of the votes. So it is possible for me to check up on my polling place. With the current paper ballot system you need a lot of people to cheat significantly. With voting computers you need only a really tiny nu…

Is it not the case in the US that representatives of each party supervise the counting of the ballots? Pretty sure that's how it works locally; though elections are state-governed so I guess there could be some variation.

Having representatives of each party overseeing the process should serve to keep any monkey business in check. Though when people are involved, there's always a chance for corruption.

Re: Install PAC-MAN on Sequoia voting machine w/o breaking tamper-evident seals

#40

Post by arghnoname »

dandelany wrote: post #19
seldo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not. As long as the hardware has been in possession of untrusted parties (and polling place workers do not count as trusted) any software solution can be compromised.

I'm not convinced that any method will ever be 100% foolproof, but I think it can be improved immensely, and if we could limit the inaccuracies/fraud to always be less than those incurred by a traditional paper ballot[1], I think I'd approve. In regards to your comment regarding untrusted parties handling the hardware, here are a few counterpoints: - We already trust polling place workers with paper ballots, the poss…

You can't let people look up their vote or their employers, spouse, etc, could force them to vote for preferred candidates. Ron Rivest has a system to make it verifiable and deniable (Three ballot system). There are others.
Post reply on HN