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

How to Hack an Election

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: How to Hack an Election

#61

Post by peterwwillis »

cubano wrote: post #41
hackuser wrote: post #4

This shouldn't be a surprise: I think most HN members know that it's possible; we know that the rewards (incredible power, status, and everything you can get with them includig the spoils of office) are worth the investment (only $600K for this solution!); we know that there are many people, including politicians, unsavory enough to do it. The question is, why do we pretend it's not happening until there's a smoking…

The question is, why do we pretend it's not happening until there's a smoking gun? Only a fool thinks it not happening everywhere, and one thing I know for sure after reading these forums for a few years now... HN members are not fools.

HN members also write server-side code in JavaScript.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#62

Post by cortesoft »

hackuser wrote: post #4

This shouldn't be a surprise: I think most HN members know that it's possible; we know that the rewards (incredible power, status, and everything you can get with them includig the spoils of office) are worth the investment (only $600K for this solution!); we know that there are many people, including politicians, unsavory enough to do it. The question is, why do we pretend it's not happening until there's a smoking…

I think the reason is because there are easier, legal, ways to exert political control than to commit election fraud.

Why mess around with petty vote fraud when you can just make large donations to both candidates and guarantee the results you want?

Re: How to Hack an Election

#63

Post by [deleted] »

twoodfin wrote: post #47
cjslep wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem, as with most conspiracy theories, is the number of people that need to cooperate and stay silent, and the number of independent safeguards that already exist. It didn't seem like a problem for Diebold. The 2000 general election had a lot of awfully-convenient-for-Republicans scandals with their voting machines in place.

This is conspiracy-theory talk, especially without any citations. And outside of squeaking by in Florida with an assist from SCOTUS, the 2000 general election was terrible for Republicans. They lost a few extremely close Senate races (ultimately resulting in a 50-50 tie) that any competent conspiracy could have pushed the other way.

[deleted]

Re: How to Hack an Election

#64

Post by scotty79 »

More interesting for me is why hacker decided to share it all with press agency. Is this information in the article? I might have missed it. Seems like a good way to get yourself kidnapped and tortured indefinitely.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#65

Post by LoSboccacc »

peterwwillis wrote: post #61
cubano wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is, why do we pretend it's not happening until there's a smoking gun? Only a fool thinks it not happening everywhere, and one thing I know for sure after reading these forums for a few years now... HN members are not fools.

HN members also write server-side code in JavaScript.

And here is why we the techies can't have nice thing, we trow shit each other over which language we use instead of working togheter toward gaining credibility to the masses, and I say this as one whom wouldn't touch anything nodejs as that's my preference: people out there are doing very smart things with it (And some very bad stuff, but such is life of widespread tools)

Re: How to Hack an Election

#66

Post by Gratsby »

burkaman wrote: post #11
hackuser wrote: post #4

This shouldn't be a surprise: I think most HN members know that it's possible; we know that the rewards (incredible power, status, and everything you can get with them includig the spoils of office) are worth the investment (only $600K for this solution!); we know that there are many people, including politicians, unsavory enough to do it. The question is, why do we pretend it's not happening until there's a smoking…

A few reasons I can think of: 1) Hacking voting machines to a significant extent would require a team of people, not just one guy, which dramatically increases the risk of exposure. 2) The reported vote count is usually very close to the predicted vote count, and always very close to exit polling results. The hacked results would need to be very close to the real results, or be combined with control over a huge numbe…

You'd be surprised. Tight presidential elections can come down to a handful of districts. What you'd think would require a nationwide conspiracy can really be brought down to a group of 7 or 8 people.

It boils down to the fact that most states are red or blue. They are going one way or the other and nothing is going to change that. In the contested states, there are tight votes and there are ones that are "in the bag". in the states with tight elections, it will boil down to a few geographic regions within those states that carry enough weight to swing the entire state one way or the other.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#67

Post by hackuser »

burkaman wrote: post #42
hackuser wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hacking voting machines to a significant extent would require a team of people, not just one guy, which dramatically increases the risk of exposure As someone else points out, you don't need to hack the whole country, just some key locations. Also, you could hack the source; many firewalls from a major vendor had (have?) security holes because someone checked the necessary code into their revision control system. H…

Diebold-like machines are not used very much anymore, I think because of all the controversy over how easily they can be hacked. Most of the country uses paper ballots that are counted by machine. Yes, polls can be wrong, but I think exit polls are rarely wrong. Another comment pointed out these can be wrong too though, so this might not be a useful point. Yes, as I mentioned in another comment, if you want to hack a…

> Most of the country uses paper ballots that are counted by machine.

I'm not aware of this. Are you sure? Do you have any point of reference?

Re: How to Hack an Election

#68

Post by SocksCanClose »

burkaman wrote: post #42
hackuser wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hacking voting machines to a significant extent would require a team of people, not just one guy, which dramatically increases the risk of exposure As someone else points out, you don't need to hack the whole country, just some key locations. Also, you could hack the source; many firewalls from a major vendor had (have?) security holes because someone checked the necessary code into their revision control system. H…

Diebold-like machines are not used very much anymore, I think because of all the controversy over how easily they can be hacked. Most of the country uses paper ballots that are counted by machine. Yes, polls can be wrong, but I think exit polls are rarely wrong. Another comment pointed out these can be wrong too though, so this might not be a useful point. Yes, as I mentioned in another comment, if you want to hack a…

> Most of the country uses paper ballots that are counted by machine.

This machine then is the target, no?

Re: How to Hack an Election

#69

Post by jzwinck »

speeder wrote: post #59
burkaman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few reasons I can think of: 1) Hacking voting machines to a significant extent would require a team of people, not just one guy, which dramatically increases the risk of exposure. 2) The reported vote count is usually very close to the predicted vote count, and always very close to exit polling results. The hacked results would need to be very close to the real results, or be combined with control over a huge numbe…

Brazil use machines that can be very easily hacked. Also, the deviation in the last elections from the mathematically expected was about 4%... But the end results was 51% vs 49% meaning that if the result went as expected, the 49% candidate would have won (with 53%). So, in some situations is not that hard to cheat. EDIT: also even when there is blatant cheating going on, nothing much can be done about it... Example,…

It's true that a 49/51 split makes it easier to cheat undetected. But it also means the public was almost equally in favor of both candidates. When 98% of the electorate get their wish either way, it doesn't seem quite so important who wins.

Re: How to Hack an Election

#70

Post by lazaroclapp »

theophrastus wrote: post #22

Computers are flexible mutable controllable interconnected facile adaptable devices - it's why we use them and love them so. What is it we hope for as the basic property to vote collection and reporting? It's essentially the opposite of the computer's character set. So if you insist on the convenience advances to the voting process, ("I wanna be able to vote via smart-phone!") then you'll inevitably be giving up the…

Keep in mind that you can give up anonymity instead, via cryptographically verifiable voting with confirmation receipts ;) Of course, that opens its own can of worms...
Post reply on HN