Electronic Voting Firm Has Site Hacked

AP ^ | 12-29-03 | TED BRIDIS

[Ingtar]

Makes me feel safe!

[facedown]

Bump; ping.

[NMFXSTC]

I sense the essence of Al Gore smewhere in this scandal!

[BigSkyFreeper]

I knew this was bound to happen, and you can bet this will also happen if/when we all are able to stay home in front of the TV and cast our votes online.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Anybody surprised? Show of hands? Didn't think so.

[Paul Ross]

Bump.

"I have no problem debating the merits of electronic voting with anyone, but breaking and entering is not an appropriate forum for technology debate," Adler said.

Gee, I thought the technology was to be 'fool-proof'. This is PRECISELY what we have been claiming IS a major weakness. And this is why it is SO INSANE for these companies to refuse to have simultaneous anonymous date-stamped hard-copy paper printout/'receipt' for votes cast... It means that the fraud which could easily be perpetrated by a hacker...will go undetected...or if detected, uncorrectable.

[TankerKC]

In other news:

Gore Wins 2000 Election by a Landslide!

[Bernard Marx]

It means that the fraud which could easily be perpetrated by a hacker...will go undetected...or if detected, uncorrectable.

Liberal Democrat Heaven. They've been pushing toward this for years.

[CedarDave]

Nothing to see here. Just the DemocRATS practicing for next November. Move along...

[COEXERJ145]

There is a difference in hacking a website and hacking thousands of voting machines. Unless they're all connected to a network which is also linked to the outside, someone would have to go to each and every machine and alter the programs.

[supercat]

There is a difference in hacking a website and hacking thousands of voting machines. Unless they're all connected to a network which is also linked to the outside, someone would have to go to each and every machine and alter the programs.

Not necessarily. All one would have to do would be to insert a 'backdoor' into the firmware that's going to be put into the machines.

[CedarDave]

There is a difference in hacking a website and hacking thousands of voting machines.

Of course there is, and most of us here understand that. However, when their website is hacked (and there are security protocols that will prevent that if followed), it certainly does not instill confidence in their ability to prevent software/machine manipulation during actual voting.

[Indy Pendance]

Depends, does it harm democrats? Then it's political.

[Darksheare]

A dry run for Election 2004?

[Focault's Pendulum]

"We caught the intruder, identified him by name. We know where he lives," Adler said. "We think this is political. There have been break-ins around election companies over the last several months, and we think this is related."

Sure you did guys!

You think you know where I live.....Start looking under rocks!!

We exist...despite your puny attempts to silence us !! We shall prevail...regardless of any methods used to silence us in the media.

All of you are doomed!!!

...until we swear in the rightful President of the United states...Pat Paulsen.

[hoosierham]

That there is even a debate considering the ease with which massive,untraceable fraud can be carried out in a system with no physical tallys or ballots shows Americans don't understand the limits of technologies.

[fightu4it]

Electronic voting makes mass fraud eaiser than the existing methods of voting. The people promoting it are suspect as far as I am concerned.

[supercat]

Electronic voting makes mass fraud eaiser than the existing methods of voting. The people promoting it are suspect as far as I am concerned.

There are means by which the use of automation in combination with physical ballots could make elections more fraud-resistant than hand-counted paper ballots, but for some reason such means haven't been used. Perhaps some haven't been considered because nobody thought of them, but there does seem to be a preference for means that allow insider fraud.