Concerned about election security, oppose requiring photo ID to vote, got it.
Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
31–40 of 76 posts
Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
#32They ALL have a known vulnerability. Works like this:
Pretend the machine is a person in a secure room only they are in, and only they know the contents of.
You approach a window, tell them your vote. They say it back and optionally hand you a piece of paper.
Then, in that room, they do whatever they want, and the final tally, winner of the election is determined by whatever they did in the room.
Voters have no chain of trust between their expression of intent, and the record used for the final tally. When voters make physical expressions, and those expressions are counted, voters know the election, on a basic level, can be trusted to reflect the collective intent of the people.
When they use electronics, they have no idea. They push a button, or mash a screen, and the display will tell them something and that something could be anything. They cannot know.
None of us can without forensic level examination of the machine. Even then, we can only verify function and infer a voter intent was correctly recorded and or used for the tally.
Secondly, should there be error, or controversy, the enduring record of voter intent both walked out of the building and or is a collection of grease smears on input devices.
Useless in a court of law.
The only way around this is to make vote records personally identifiable and basically use the systems for banking. (Who gets around this problem with multiple, redundant records created at the time of transaction)
Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the many dirty tricks that the Republicans use to remain in power is to pass laws that selectively disenfranchise minorities and other likely Democratic voters. So I don't think this is disingenuous at all. The fact that fewer people vote is in no small measure because of Republican dirty tricks [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppre...
Ah, my mistake: I interpreted your comment as referring to a statistical minority, rather than a racial/ethnic one.
I deliberately chose that phraseology to be ambiguous. But what is not ambiguous is that the Republicans engage in dirty tricks (gerrymandering [1], stripping the governor of powers after an election where a Democrat is elected [2], passing laws to disenfranchise demographic minorities [3], running candidates with blatant conflicts of interest [4], and just flat-out breaking the law [5]) far more often than Democrats do.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-power-that-gerry...
[2] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/14/scott-walker-lame-...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-su...
[4] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/opinions/brian-kemp-georgia-v...
Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reprimanding and alienating state and local officials who sign contracts for voting machines without any sort of serious security, auditing or compliance provisions. What other options do these officials have? The companies have the choice to improve their security of their hardware at the possible expense of lowering their profit margins. Whenever you're deciding who to point the finger at, one simple rule is "Can…
>What other options do these officials have? Paper voting, for one. If no system is offered that is secure enough, then the default should be no electronic voting system at all and just paper voting. It's scaled fine for hundreds of years and has clear processes in place for custody of ballots. >The companies have the choice to improve their security of their hardware at the possible expense of lowering their profit…
> Paper voting, for one.
The election official's budget may simply not be able to afford that.
Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
#35Criticisms of the underlying hardware/software aside, my intuitive answer to the headline question is "because governments are buying them." Perhaps the esteemed Senators should undertake a short naval-gazing exercise and ask "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" I'm going to go out on a limb and guess at the answer to th…
They don't actually have any influence in the purchase decisions, as it's a state matter. Machines are bought by local governments, with varying state regulations on what can be purchased depending on the state in question. Most machines were paid for by local jurisdictions with a mix of federal funding (HAVA), and in some cases, state funds for part of the cost. Some states have uniform systems; others do not.[0] On…
> There's no single procedure for procuring voting machines, well, anywhere.
And that's probably a good thing. Heterogeneity in this sort of thing is desirable, as it makes large-scale fraud harder to pull off.
Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US voting machine decisions are also a very local decision. So even if it was a party decision... it really would have to be very local party decisions. Often times national party decisions in the US do not translate into local action even by folks in the same part as obviously things change on the ground.
The federal government could set certain minimum standards for voting machines used in federal elections. That would effectively set the standard for all elections since I can't imagine any local governments could justify a set of machines for federal elections and a different set for local.
[deleted]
Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
#37Criticisms of the underlying hardware/software aside, my intuitive answer to the headline question is "because governments are buying them." Perhaps the esteemed Senators should undertake a short naval-gazing exercise and ask "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" I'm going to go out on a limb and guess at the answer to th…
> "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" Because all markets tend towards cartels and consolidation unless vigilant, enforced regulation prevents it? Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Why do the largest two or three meat processing companies have the majority market share in almost every cate…
> Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market?
Well, this one is probably simple: government. I'm unsure whether it would be copyright, or trademark infringement, but if you release a product that tastes exactly like coke or pepsi, you'll probably find yourself in expensive litigation.
Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
#38They ALL have a known vulnerability. Works like this: Pretend the machine is a person in a secure room only they are in, and only they know the contents of. You approach a window, tell them your vote. They say it back and optionally hand you a piece of paper. Then, in that room, they do whatever they want, and the final tally, winner of the election is determined by whatever they did in the room. Voters have no chain…
The problem with public vote records is that people may be incentivized financially or coerced via threat to vote a certain way. The bad actor in this situation can verify with public record if the victim followed through.
Somehow I think this is less of a threat than our "black box" vote tallies, but it is valid.
Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't actually have any influence in the purchase decisions, as it's a state matter. Machines are bought by local governments, with varying state regulations on what can be purchased depending on the state in question. Most machines were paid for by local jurisdictions with a mix of federal funding (HAVA), and in some cases, state funds for part of the cost. Some states have uniform systems; others do not.[0] On…
> There's no single procedure for procuring voting machines, well, anywhere. And that's probably a good thing. Heterogeneity in this sort of thing is desirable, as it makes large-scale fraud harder to pull off.
Not if all these heterogenous procurement processes end up buying from the same 3 vendors.
Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
"because governments are buying them." The main problem in american politics is that a lot of decisions are made either to damage the "other" party or to accommodate some donor. When you look at Congress they barely think about doing something right.
Off topic question- but this is always something that interested me: do you have any blatant examples of a high level politician solely choosing a product to accommodate a donor?
There's a term for that: "Pork barrel spending".
> Pork barrel is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.
It's isn't hard to imagine who benefits from that.