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

Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#41

Post by JustSomeNobody »

linuxftw wrote: post #37
munificent wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Why does it have to taste exactly like the other?

The two biggies just overpower the others:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/76881/tragic-history-rc-cola

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#42

Post by gumby »

I think it's pretty straightforward to understand: the buyer likely has little to no expertise in the important issues. This is not in any way a slur on election officials, simply the recognition of the (statistically) likely experience of someone who is a local election official.

In addition the way the question is structured by the senators isn't really fair either: if you have n bugs to fix before the ship date, you'll prioritize them and then ship (presumably) the best product you can by the immovable target date. That is also reality.

Though voting is a local matter the Federal Government has a constitutional interest (Article 1, Sections 4 and 5) in the elections to Congress and can mandate minimal standards for voting just as the DoT mandates minimum standards for automobiles. So they could require that whatever machines used are verifiable and non-repudiatable. They could also mandate procedures although those are harder to enforce. If States need to buy equipment suitable for congressional elections they'll presumably use the same equipment for all other elections too.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#43

Post by specialist »

Bluestrike2 wrote: post #27
bshipp wrote: post #3

Criticisms 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…

In addition, there's no uniform certification process. EAC.gov made things a wee bit better, but it's an advisory role.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#44

Post by specialist »

ams6110 wrote: post #35
Bluestrike2 wrote: post #27

Earlier 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.

Scott Adams (Dilbert) coined a term that applies to the voting machine vendor certification procurement racket: confusopoly.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#46

Post by LgWoodenBadger »

linuxftw wrote: post #37
munificent wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

The formula for Coke is supposedly a trade-secret, for which there are no protections other than keeping it secret, and I guess maybe not acquiring it illegally.

So, on what basis would Coca-Cola or PepsiCo have for a suit?

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#47

Post by specialist »

gumby wrote: post #42

I think it's pretty straightforward to understand: the buyer likely has little to no expertise in the important issues. This is not in any way a slur on election officials, simply the recognition of the (statistically) likely experience of someone who is a local election official. In addition the way the question is structured by the senators isn't really fair either: if you have n bugs to fix before the ship date, y…

In my experience, the buyers (election administrators) at the state and local levels know exactly what's going on. Like every where else, there's a revolving door between govt election administrators and the private vendors & consultants.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#48

Post by jacobush »

rootusrootus wrote: post #15
burlesona wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a gross misunderstanding of the electorate. The Republicans didn't have the national majority vote this presidential election, but in Congress that's irrelevant. Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? They have overwhelming majority support. One of the worst problems in the country right now is that things have become so geographically polarized. Many people live so deep in their (red|blu…

Yes and no. I live next door to a couple (who have become our friends) that are ideologically opposed to us. Despite our houses being physically next to each other, we might as well inhabit a different world when it comes to politics. It would not be accurate to say they disagree with us on the issues, because to get to disagreement we would at least need to agree on the underlying facts. Without that structure, any…

Show them lots of love. :)

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#49

Post by ddingus »

misterprime wrote: post #38
ddingus wrote: post #32

They 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.

Precisely! I think electronic voting records are wrong. We should use paper ballots, and Counting them electronically with something simple and robust like Optical scan works really well. Let the statisticians run some Audits and we can be really confident. My state does that. Oregon.

Re: Senators ask why vendors sell voting machines with ‘known’ vulnerabilities’

#50

Post by specialist »

burlesona wrote: post #8
lisper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because one of the two political parties has only minority support and thus depends on a long list of dirty tricks to remain in power.

That's a gross misunderstanding of the electorate. The Republicans didn't have the national majority vote this presidential election, but in Congress that's irrelevant. Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? They have overwhelming majority support. One of the worst problems in the country right now is that things have become so geographically polarized. Many people live so deep in their (red|blu…

The apparent increased partisanship is the result of FPTP & gerrymandering coupled with engagement driven corporate media.

I've served as the captain in the largest precinct in the most "liberal" legislative district (LD) in one of the most "liberal" states. I've been doorbelling my precinct for 10 years. My LD's GOTV efforts is specifically credited for winning multiple statewide offices and initiatives.

The people (voters) aren't any where nearly as partisan as the election results. But if you went by media accounts, we're all treehugging socialists. The truth on the ground is there's a HUGE variety of opinions, positions.

Post reply on HN