"These voting machines are the most accurate way to count the votes in the history of mankind."
Perhaps. But only if everyone involved has the best of intentions.
If you think anyone is capable of foul play, these machines are far more vulnerable than traditional mechanical or paper based systems.
This is simply because your typical poll worker is not capable of recognizing fraud on an electronic machine that would be obvious to anyone with older techniques of voting.
I have programmed computers professionally for 30 years. I have no faith in these machines. You will find that the faith in these machines is inversely proportional to the amount someone knows about computers, computer security and the validation of software.
Try it yourself. Find someone with even ten years experience in programming computers (not in voting machines) and ask them what they think about the machines we have today.
This is a case where "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." does not apply. Just because Dems suspect it should not make you reflexively support it.
Elections require even more transparency than criminal trials. Yet we tolerate proprietary and secret software on our voting machines. People should rightly be skeptical of such an arrangement even without the numerous exploits that have already been discovered and documented.
Current systems do not even use code signing for the executables (allowing the software to be changed without notice to anyone, compare that to installing a driver on Windows) nor do they encrypt and protect the data that is transferred as well as the browser you are using right now when you pay for a pizza on the web.
Don't take a politician's (of any stripe) word for it. Ask someone who might know.
No system is totally foolproof.
Current systems do not even use code signing for the executables (allowing the software to be changed without notice to anyone, compare that to installing a driver on Windows) nor do they encrypt and protect the data that is transferred as well as the browser you are using right now when you pay for a pizza on the web.
Oh, why don't we implement code signing that you have mentioned, and here's other ways to protect the integrity of these systems from being compromised:
- You can treat them like nuclear weapon systems by having 'No Lone Zones' when not in use, and locked them in secure storage with 'Intrusion Detection Equipment' as safeguards.
- When in use or moving them out of storage, implement procedures and documentation for a chain-of-custody and provide security.
- Have coding and voting machine experts from all parties, impartial parties, go over ALL the software code line-by-line, to include hardwired code, before each elections so to be certified. Repeat this procedure before every election.
- After the code and machine is certified, use a MD-5 Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) to ensure software tamper detection.
- Setup federal or state agencies to oversee computer voting machines.
- make new laws to punish machine voting fraud.
I doubt systematic safeguards are going to happen because it would take big buck to implement. And we don't need more bloated bureaucracies. So lets complain some more because it's not totally fool proof.
I have programmed computers professionally for 30 years. I have no faith in these machines. You will find that the faith in these machines is inversely proportional to the amount someone knows about computers, computer security and the validation of software.
And how many programming experts are there that have time and access to these machines that are willing hack them to swing elections? I think not so many.
Yes, lets go back to punching and marking illegal ballots to be stuffed in election boxes - why that's easy to do...
This is a case where "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." does not apply. Just because Dems suspect it should not make you reflexively support it.
I do not. What I do see from the otherside is that they make wild-eyed accusations without 1 iota of proof - ie Bev Harris and the DU'ers.
I started programming on Zylog Z-80's. If humans have access to a "reset" button, and the only notification is a "beep"; it will be compromised. Period. Until there is a standardized platform, "features" and fraud will be rampant. I do not claim that older balloting was any more secure or fraud proof. Only that private companies will get to make the rules.
In the early 1980's I compromised the TACC-II cash controller where I worked simply by sequencing keystrokes. It opened the main depository. I notified the employer of the feature and received a $50.00 reward. 3 years later, the software was changed.