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

91–100 of 207 posts

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

#91

Post by fooker »

adamsea wrote: post #77
sandworm101 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

How do you distinguish between a real ballot and a fake ballot?

How do you know if someone decided to throw away some of them?

(While also ensuring voters remain anonymous and allowing voters to verify their votes.)

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

#92

Post by grzm »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #88
krapp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't a voting system that let people confirm that their vote is taken into account be trivial to implement? How do you verify that your vote is actually "taken into account?" You may be shown that your vote matches what you intended, but then it can be manipulated or discarded somewhere else in the process, beyond your ability to verify. It's like reading open source code without validating the operating system…

Let's start with a simple example. A spreadsheet with your name and your vote. You can be sure that your vote is taken into account by the SUM function.

If this is an area of interest to you, I encourage you to take the time to review the work that's already been done in this area. The example you provide doesn't even address the concerns in your parent, much less others that have been identified by those working in the domain.

As a starting point, you can review Rivest's slides for an overview.

Ron Rivest, "Auditability and Verifiability of Elections", March 2016. https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv16x.pdf

Edit to add: I see I've already suggested this to you earlier today.

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

#93

Post by bbcbasic »

rpearl wrote: post #66
twright0 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, any process that allows an individual to verify their vote after the fact will enable coercion over voting. For example, in your proposal, an unscrupulous boss could make a demand before the election: "You must tell me the one-time ID you're voting with. If you choose not to, or if that ID doesn't show up in the registry having cast a vote for , you're fired." I think that, no matter what the process is,…

Potentially, a canary id, "show this one and it'll claim you voted for ____ and also alert the state election board that it was accessed"

That solves the boss problem. What about the government?

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

#94

Post by sandworm101 »

patall wrote: post #78
sandworm101 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 o…

>> ...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.

That depends where the person is. The people managing the process, those doing the counting, have plenty of opportunity for large manipulations. There are safeguards, but the possibility remains and must be accounted for.

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

#95

Post by Symbiote »

Zombieball wrote: post #33
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…

A former co-worker of mine wrote software for voting machines in Brazil. He described to me a few reasons why electronic voting machines are important. To be honest I forget the majority, but one story that stuck with me: One common scheme electronic voting machines help prevent is forced votes. A bad guy gets their hand on a single empty ballot and writes the name of the candidate he wants to win on it. He then come…

In the UK, you could just go to the desk and ask for a blank ballot in exchange for your "mistake".

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

#96

Post by matwood »

nemo wrote: post #57
gedy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many, many reasons. Trump promised to be extra soft on Russia re:NATO, re:Ukraine, etc. His single contribution to the GOP platform was to soften the GOP's position on Ukraine. Some of his staff were also Russian clients. He's also expressed open admiration of Putin and Putin's style of governance, and emphasized that he wants the US to get along with Russia. His son secretly met with Russian reps before th…

I'm not sure how the US can be any softer on Russia and the Ukraine than they already have been. Trump has also publicly stated he wants to shoot down Russian warplanes that approach US assets. I think Putin just likes to see one of his rivals in a time of uncertainty.

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

#97

Post by plaguuuuuu »

dmfdmf wrote: post #84
rpearl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I forget the statistical term but after the fact, you can't go back and say "look at this, only 107K votes determined the outcome" because you can always find such explanations post hoc. I tried to search but couldn't find the discussion but one example is how couples use this type of fallacy to "prove" their love was fated. Typically on the day the fated couple met there were a number of unusual events or circumstan…

So perhaps one can only practicably rig close elections.

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

#98

Post by lisivka »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #76
sandworm101 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how."

Original in Russian:

Каменев. стараясь снизойти до уровня Сталина, говорит: "А вот по вопросу, как завоевать большинство в партии". - "Знаете, товарищи, - говорит Сталин, - что я думаю по этому поводу: я считаю, что совершенно неважно, кто и как будет в партии голосовать; но вот что чрезвычайно важно, это - кто и как будет считать голоса". Даже Каменев, который уже должен знать Сталина, выразительно откашливается.

На следующий день Сталин вызывает к себе в кабинет Назаретяна и долго с ним совещается. Назаретян выходит из кабинета довольно кислый. Но он человек послушный. В тот же день постановлением Оргбюро он назначен заведующим партийным отделом "Правды" и приступает к работе.

В "Правду" поступают отчеты о собраниях партийных организаций и результаты голосований, в особенности по Москве. Работа Назаретяна очень проста. На собрании такой-то ячейки за ЦК голосовало, скажем, 300 человек, против - 600; Назаретян переправляет: за ЦК - 600, против - 300. Так это и печатается в "Правде". И так по всем организациям. Конечно, ячейка, прочтя в "Правде" ложный отчет о результатах ее голосования, протестует, звонит в "Правду", добивается отдела партийной жизни. Назаретян вежливо отвечает, обещает немедленно проверить. По проверке оказывается, "что вы совершенно правы, произошла досадная ошибка, перепутали в типографии; знаете, они очень перегружены; редакция "Правды" приносит вам свои извинения; будет напечатано исправление". Каждая ячейка полагает, что это единичная ошибка, происшедшая только с ней, и не догадывается, что это происходит по большинству ячеек. Между тем постепенно создается общая картина, что ЦК начинает выигрывать по всей линии. Провинция становится осторожнее и начинает идти за Москвой, то есть за ЦК.

(Stalin faked election by printing reverted votes in «Pravda»).

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

#99

Post by worldsayshi »

EvilTerran wrote: post #65
sopooneo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why not scan-tron? It seems like that is the best of both worlds. Start with a simple physical paper that everyone can understand and audit as the primary record, but then have each voter feed their own directly into a scan machine that can tally and send counts in quickly? That's how we do it around me, and it seems like a strictly superior approach. What am I missing?

Scantrons are a big improvement over electronic-only counting, but they can struggle with imperfectly-filled-in ballots... another good alternative, which avoids that particular problem, is to have a machine where you make your selections by button-press - but it prints them onto a physical card, lets you verify the printout through a window, then drops it into a built-in ballotbox. The machine itself can keep count,…

Or just some kind of simple mechanical stamping or cutting machine that assures that each vote is registered in the same way but in an easily understandable and transparent format.

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

#100

Post by brassic »

dghf wrote: post #83
rhino369 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are still using a voting machine, but you've just introduced a shitty paper input that needs to be scanned into the machine. The counting machine is a voting machine. It can be hacked. The only benefit is that you have a paper record that can be corroborated if there is evidence of hacking later. But we could do a printout paper record on voting machines too. You'd be surprised how many of those paper ballots don…

> You'd be surprised how many of those paper ballots don't get recognized when they are counted. Because the checkmarks don't fill up the box enough or because of optical/scantron error. In the UK's 2014 elections for the European Parliament, a Scottish voter wrote against the four parties/candidates listed: "wank"; "wank"; "good guy"; "wank". The vote was deemed valid as the voter had expressed a clear preference. (…

There was another case where the voter drew a penis next to the conservative candidate and it counted as a vote:

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-05-08/angry-voter-...

Post reply on HN