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

71–80 of 207 posts

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

#71

Post by theoh »

dmfdmf wrote: post #54
theoh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that an electoral poll incorporates a random error (and maybe a systematic one too) is alien to the discussion about recounts etc.

Yes, this was one of my questions. What is the accuracy and error margin of the voting system itself (and each state seems to have different methods so its not even uniform). Of roughly 126 million votes cast, 1% accuracy would be 1.26 million votes which would be of the same order of magnitude of Clinton's "win" of the popular vote. I have no idea if 1% accuracy is close or wildly too high or too low but we can't ha…

Don't hold your breath.

Consider the case, in the technology of proportional representation, of the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagenbach-Bischoff_quota

It's (it seems to me) obviously arithmetically unfit for purpose compared to the Droop quota. In some cases more candidates can meet the quota than seats are available. Yet it remains in use/part of the credible discussion.

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

#72

Post by sandworm101 »

NumberCruncher wrote: post #16
Procrastes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Hacker_9. In Texas, where I vote, the machines don't even print paper. We just have to trust that the machine correctly recorded our vote. The reasons for the machines are, 1. cost cutting over manual counts, 2. profiteering by well connected companies, 3. And potentially making sure only the "right" votes count, although that part isn't proven. In California we were able to vote at home with a mail-in, paper ball…

>> In Texas, where I vote, the machines don't even print paper. We just have to trust that the machine correctly recorded our vote. This system just begs for being manipulated.

>> This system just begs for being manipulated.

Paper ballots are not immune from such concerns. The concept of votes being added or removed from a count isn't a new phenomena. So the standard should be whether or not the electronic means are better, rather than them being a perfect counting method.

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

#73

Post by ThomPete »

rpearl wrote: post #59
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'…

The election was decided in its totality by 107k votes in WI, MI, and PA (the sum total margin of victory in those three states). You don't have to manipulate many votes to have an election-deciding effect.

You would have to know where and it's still quite a big decentralized system even if you knew for certain it would be those 3 states. It's simply not that easy.

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

#74

Post by mwfunk »

nindalf wrote: post #44
strathmeyer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America we prefer the Clinton "walking around money" type of vote buying?

> In America we prefer the Clinton "walking around money" type of vote buying? Is it just me or does this sentence not make sense?

It doesn't, it sounds like something that a Markov chain would say. It sounds vaguely critical of Clinton, but doesn't quite parse as English and is devoid of actual information or analysis. I fear that Markov chains aren't just a way to replicate things that people might say, but might actually model human cognitive processes in some way. :(

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

#75

Post by NumberCruncher »

sandworm101 wrote: post #72
NumberCruncher wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> In Texas, where I vote, the machines don't even print paper. We just have to trust that the machine correctly recorded our vote. This system just begs for being manipulated.

>> This system just begs for being manipulated. Paper ballots are not immune from such concerns. The concept of votes being added or removed from a count isn't a new phenomena. So the standard should be whether or not the electronic means are better, rather than them being a perfect counting method.

Using paper ballots you can at least re-count the votes and validate the results of the election. With the electronic system like this you can not validate the results. Does it use an open source firmware? How can you make sure that there is no

IF vote = Clinton AND random line in the code?

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

#76

Post by semi-extrinsic »

sandworm101 wrote: post #72
NumberCruncher wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> In Texas, where I vote, the machines don't even print paper. We just have to trust that the machine correctly recorded our vote. This system just begs for being manipulated.

>> This system just begs for being manipulated. Paper ballots are not immune from such concerns. The concept of votes being added or removed from a count isn't a new phenomena. So the standard should be whether or not the electronic means are better, rather than them being a perfect counting method.

As is frequently attributed to Stalin:

What counts is not who votes, but who counts the votes.

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

#77

Post by adamsea »

sandworm101 wrote: post #72
NumberCruncher wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> In Texas, where I vote, the machines don't even print paper. We just have to trust that the machine correctly recorded our vote. This system just begs for being manipulated.

>> This system just begs for being manipulated. Paper ballots are not immune from such concerns. The concept of votes being added or removed from a count isn't a new phenomena. So the standard should be whether or not the electronic means are better, rather than them being a perfect counting method.

Paper ballots at least leave a paper-trail.

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

#78

Post by patall »

sandworm101 wrote: post #72
NumberCruncher wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> In Texas, where I vote, the machines don't even print paper. We just have to trust that the machine correctly recorded our vote. This system just begs for being manipulated.

>> This system just begs for being manipulated. Paper ballots are not immune from such concerns. The concept of votes being added or removed from a count isn't a new phenomena. So the standard should be whether or not the electronic means are better, rather than them being a perfect counting method.

Yes but that is not the point. You can also add votes to electronic voting by just allowing someone to cast more votes at it. But the difference is that with paper voting, you as a single actor can only influence one voting booth, while as a hacker, you can manipulated thousands of voting machines. So the influence of a single actor could be much bigger. Furthermore, while you can manipulate a paper ballot, you can only do so so long as an investigator is not looking. If he keeps the booth in view the whole time, you cannot add anything or change votes or whatever. A computer can not be surveyed that way because I do not see what happens inside as long as its not open source code and hardware which is signed etc.

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

#79

Post by Aldo_MX »

hacker_9 wrote: post #3

Why do Americans use voting machines exactly? I mean, it just prints out their choice at the end right? What benefit do they actually gain from having pressed buttons instead of using a pen? It just seems to fuel the hacking conspiracy every time a president is elected. In the UK we turn up, go into the booth with the paper slip, and tick our choice with a pen. Then we fold it and post it into a container which later…

This reminds me about the Russian pencil hoax.

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

#80

Post by espadrine »

gedy wrote: post #45
[deleted] wrote: post #23

[deleted]

Why exactly would Putin prefer Trump? Honest question as both Hillary (as SoS) and Bill Clinton have been rather soft on Russia - Trump favoring domestic oil production, etc seems would be less preferred. Look how aggressive Russia has become in the past 8 years.

Mr Putin knows a certain way of performing politics and excels in this environment. It involves oligarchy, control of the media, nationalism and intrigue over political opponents.

Mr Trump offers that environment on a platter. Mrs Clinton maintains a different style of politics, involving red tape, careful processes, observance of laws. Mr Putin does not work that way.

Post reply on HN