Philly leaders object to voting monitors - Page 2

Kytro · 10-27-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Of course it is. It's computer software. Once the source code is available it makes it very easy to write a hack for it to exploit on election day.

Then how come much open source software is more secure than it's closed source counterparts?

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's like developing a custom built safe to be used in a high class casino and then publishing the CAD files for it online. Makes it a tad easier to crack.

Only if the design flaws are not pointed out. Generally open source works by getting many people to look at the design and the flaws can be more easily eliminated.

There is no proof whatsoever that open source is less secure regardless of how it may appear.

motivez · 10-27-2006, 11:50 PM

Uhm, open source doesn't mean less secure. It means the opposite.

It means that coders from around the world who are white hat can look at it and discover potential flaws ahead of time and a coding team can apply patches written by people that are verifiable as good.

Whereas, with closed source applications.. the code could be shoddy and easily exploitable and no one would ever know it. The Diebold code received by certain people via anonymous sources appeared to be very ametuerish and even used encryption ciphers that had been broken many years ago, as well as using them incorrectly (according to one of the people who recieved the code who was on NPR today).

7960 · 10-28-2006, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why does it always seem like the Democrats are always the ones against some sort of way to make sure the voting places aren't tampered or messed with? They are against ID cards, they are against monitors; they are against basically anything that will keep voters honest.

There's only one reason I can think of why this would be...

......people who vote illegally vote for democrats.

(there, I said it, now let others hate me for it)

7960 · 10-28-2006, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

So viruses (aka election-hijacking software) are spread nearly instantly.

evidence of "election-hijacking software" spreading instantly from machine to machine?

avsp · 10-28-2006, 04:20 AM

I still dont see the advantage of machines, electronic or otherwise, over pen & paper

multiple voting will be possible under both systems without id checks

equally opening the machine & replacing hardwired chips is not really any different than the more traditional 'ballot box stuffing', ..., however the later is probably easier to spot

its all a question of ceasars wife IMO

its to do with the perce[tion that machines can be interfered with

thus the resulting arguments, regardless of the merits of anyones case, damage the credibility of the process

Aside
LBJ 'cheated in every election he ever entered' apparently
I believe one case ran thru the courts for arround 50 years before it was proved, ..., i'll search for a link later, possibly

Nonphixion · 10-28-2006, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

evidence of "election-hijacking software" spreading instantly from machine to machine?

Princeton Diebold Studies - et al

WickedLou9 · 10-28-2006, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by avsp

I still dont see the advantage of machines, electronic or otherwise, over pen & paper

multiple voting will be possible under both systems without id checks

equally opening the machine & replacing hardwired chips is not really any different than the more traditional 'ballot box stuffing', ..., however the later is probably easier to spot

its all a question of ceasars wife IMO

its to do with the perce[tion that machines can be interfered with

thus the resulting arguments, regardless of the merits of anyones case, damage the credibility of the process

Aside
LBJ 'cheated in every election he ever entered' apparently
I believe one case ran thru the courts for arround 50 years before it was proved, ..., i'll search for a link later, possibly

remember the election in 2000? FLorida specificaly.

Two words..

Hanging Chads

Voting machines remove any ambiguity as to your intent. In close elections this can be a big deal.

WickedLou9 · 10-28-2006, 10:24 AM

you can't hijack an election machine by hacking into it. You'd have to be able to get the actual physical machine ahead of election time and substitute your own code for thiers by replacing the actual chip where the software is burned in, in which case getting the code ahead of time wouldn't really help you.

7960 · 10-28-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by willis

holy shit, this whole thread is beyond wrong in both fact and theory.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ars

is a decent summary of the weaknesses of these voting machines. keeping them closed source is not making them any safer, and yes it is theoretically possible to infect a whole room of machines from one infected machine, networked or not.

it's theoretically possible for me to use my pc to infect my phone and then use that to infect your phone and have it infect your pc the next time you sync...so it's theoretically possible for me to make a virus that will result in me printing on your printer even if your pc isn't on a network..........theoretically.

avsp · 10-28-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

remember the election in 2000? FLorida specificaly.

Two words..

Hanging Chads

Voting machines remove any ambiguity as to your intent. In close elections this can be a big deal.

Arent 'hanging chads' an artifact of some non-electronic machine?

In the UK its a cross on a box on a ballot paper

Though there have been personation, (as it bizarely called) problems & proven cases of postal vote fraud

WickedLou9 · 10-28-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

Arent 'hanging chads' an artifact of some non-electronic machine?

In the UK its a cross on a box on a ballot paper

Though there have been personation, (as it bizarely called) problems & proven cases of postal vote fraud

Yes, it was a machine where you pulled a lever to select your vote and it punched a hole in the card.

I think the idea is to remove the factor of human error. putting an X in a box is a little bit archaic and requires someone to physically look at the ballot and record it. IT would be too easy for someone to record the wrong vote or to mis-count.
I would rather have an electronic system with some sort of printed receipt.

Diesel66 · 10-28-2006, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Bullshit.

And it's nothing like a security code for a house. Nice try though.

Give me the blueprints and I can find a weak spot to attack.

How is this not comparable ?

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Diebold Machines were designed to steal elections, you can't possibly beleive what you're saying with any moral conviction.

yet you trust their atm's on a daily basis ?

Scrum · 10-29-2006, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Give me the blueprints and I can find a weak spot to attack.

How is this not comparable ?

Because we are trusting the integrity of our voting system on something that has little oversight and is not even close to secure. If it's not going to be secure, then it needs to be transparent.

This is not like someone breaking into your house. It's like trusting a company to install a security system in your house without telling you anything about it.

7960 · 10-29-2006, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think the idea is to remove the factor of human error. putting an X in a box is a little bit archaic and requires someone to physically look at the ballot and record it. IT would be too easy for someone to record the wrong vote or to mis-count.

Putting an X runs into the same problems as the chad punch. If someone puts an X in one box and then changes his mind and erases it and put it in another, which do you count? If someone leans the pencil on the paper and it happens to land in a square, is it an X to be counted or just a random mark? If someone puts a check mark instead of an X, does it count? Are the people who count the votes allowed to interpret intent??

I would rather have an electronic system with some sort of printed receipt.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

This is not like someone breaking into your house. It's like trusting a company to install a security system in your house without telling you anything about it.

I'm sure there's a security system in my bank, and I trust it without knowing anything about it.

motivez · 10-29-2006, 03:12 AM

The guy they had on NPR a few days ago brought up a good point.

If you use the software to record and count the votes, you're never going to trust them because the possibility will always be there.

What he advocated was using computers to allow voters to select their choice of candidate, but rather than having it do anything relating to vote tabulation with that information, it would be used to print out the voters information, giving them a copy -- as well as the people who tabulate the votes.

That way it's all verifiable and there's no worry about chads or erase marks, or any of that.. The votes could be tested easily with a random sample of ballots that were hand counted ahead of time, 50x50 of each to determine if whatever did the actual counting was accurate, etc..

I think that's probably the way to go, because he's right.. as long as you can't see what's going on with your vote, you're never going to trust it fully.

willis · 10-29-2006, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Princeton Diebold Studies - et al

only rebuttal needed.

read it, it's disturbing...

7960 · 10-29-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

The guy they had on NPR a few days ago brought up a good point.

If you use the software to record and count the votes, you're never going to trust them because the possibility will always be there.

What he advocated was using computers to allow voters to select their choice of candidate, but rather than having it do anything relating to vote tabulation with that information, it would be used to print out the voters information, giving them a copy -- as well as the people who tabulate the votes.

That way it's all verifiable and there's no worry about chads or erase marks, or any of that.. The votes could be tested easily with a random sample of ballots that were hand counted ahead of time, 50x50 of each to determine if whatever did the actual counting was accurate, etc..

I think that's probably the way to go, because he's right.. as long as you can't see what's going on with your vote, you're never going to trust it fully.

yes.

have a touch-screen print a receipt with a bar code, leave the voting booth and feed the receipt into a machine that counts the vote.

Scrum · 10-30-2006, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm sure there's a security system in my bank, and I trust it without knowing anything about it.

They are also federally insured so it wouldn't matter to you.

nbiggershaft · 10-30-2006, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why does it always seem like the Democrats are always the ones against some sort of way to make sure the voting places aren't tampered or messed with? They are against ID cards, they are against monitors; they are against basically anything that will keep voters honest.

There's only one reason I can think of why this would be...

For once I agree with you. Preventing voter fraud is not big brother and I don't know why so many democrats oppose it. The only legitamit defense is that it should be a state right issue, so federal officials have no place there.