Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say

The New York Times ^ | JOHN SCHWARTZ

[Theyknow]

The software that runs many high-tech voting machines contains serious flaws that would allow voters to cast extra votes and permit poll workers to alter ballots without being detected, computer security researchers said yesterday.

"We found some stunning, stunning flaws," said Aviel D. Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, who led a team that examined the software from Diebold Election Systems, which has about 33,000 voting machines operating in the United States." -------- Since we can't copy a whole article from there I've only used the first paragraphs.

[Theyknow]

Maryland just adopted this system, think about what they tried to pull in Florida, and then think about what they would do if there was no way to get caught? The RATS seem worried too, which is a riot, isn’t it?

[Theyknow]

You don’t think that a system that can be compromised in a RAT state like Maryland is cause for concern. At very least why isn’t there a paper trail?

[centurion316]

Since when are we enjoined from posting full articles from the New York Times? I thought that the court ruling only applied to the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. Some of use refuse to comply with the New York Times silly requirement to register in order to visit their site.

[bedolido]

You don’t think that a system that can be compromised in a RAT state like Maryland is cause for concern. At very least why isn’t there a paper trail?

I'm a boomer and remember when the Chicago mortuaries had more voters than dead people. Cheating is nothing new. I just hope they can fix the bugs.

[camle]

this technology infusion into the voting process is highly dangerous and no person should ever have any confidence whatsoever in the integrity of the voting process ever again.

if I get to write the software that runs these voting machines, I guarantee you that whomever I decide will win, will end up with the most votes. Guaranteed. And nobody will ever know. who carea about any other candidate. MY friends and pals will win every election. not might, will.

And I will retire very soon, very rich.

is this what we want for our electoral process?

[Theyknow]

You are probably right; they are all the same in my mind, so pardon my confusion.

[js1138]

think about what they tried to pull in Florida

Florida has mostly gone to optical readers, meaning the ballots are sheets of paper that can be easily hand audited. Guess which counties went for the computer systems?

[camle]

As a software writer, I can give you whatever you want in a paper trail. or whatever I want. I don't care what the actual votes are, the results will be what the programmer decides. And the "paper trail" will support whatever that desired result will be. Truth? ferget it.

[Theyknow]

“I'm a boomer and remember when the Chicago mortuaries had more voters than dead people. Cheating is nothing new. I just hope they can fix the bugs”

Well, if they don’t fix the bugs then we should all be worried. How about at very least a paper redundancy? This is a real worry to me. We all know what they do, how are we letting this happen. Chicago is just the tip of the iceberg.

[centurion316]

use = us

In my mind as well, the journalistic axis of evil.

[The Westerner]

"If the Republicans have any brains, which is doubtful, their National Committee Chairman would educate the public against computerized voting. I've thought this since the debacle in 2000. But the Party never raised a pinky to address this major problem. Obviously, they think only of how to raise money and how to distribute taxes in numerous vote buying schemes. Democrats are much smarter at creating weakness to exploit in the system. It's as though the Republicans lack drive."

I wrote this in another thread yesterday. It's time for the Republicans to start using agit-prop against computerized voting. Why the NY Times is picking up the ball is beyond me?

[Theyknow]

"this technology infusion into the voting process is highly dangerous and no person should ever have any confidence whatsoever in the integrity of the voting process ever again."

"if I get to write the software that runs these voting machines, I guarantee you that whomever I decide will win, will end up with the most votes. Guaranteed. And nobody will ever know. who carea about any other candidate. MY friends and pals will win every election. not might, will."

"And I will retire very soon, very rich."

"is this what we want for our electoral process?"

It sure isn’t what I want. Why is this just coming out now? Did any of you know about this? They snuck it in, like everything else. This is a grave danger.

[bedolido]

As a software writer, I can give you whatever you want in a paper trail. or whatever I want. I don't care what the actual votes are, the results will be what the programmer decides. And the "paper trail" will support whatever that desired result will be. Truth? ferget it.

That's where EDP Auditors and Quality Assurance departments come in. I am also a software programmer... but from way back in the old Mainframe days. You are correct, the programmer can do most anything and I've done what I've wanted for years. I usually ignore the specs and do it my way. The user just sees the results. Only another programmer (like an EDP Auditor) will know what you did.

It can be beaten by most good programmers, but it can be usuable as well if QA'd.

[Final Authority]

I think the novel approach should be that one paper ballot is cast by a person who presents a proper ID issued by the supervisor of the checklist. I also believe that only US citizens should be allowed to vote. Nah, the Democrats would never go for that.

[Theyknow]

"Why the NY Times is picking up the ball is beyond me?"

They can say they covered it without really covering it. It is buried in the bowels that no one reads. Why is this not a big deal? Does anyone know anyone at Fox? Maybe we can get some real coverage. It might be worth it to just email them anyway, but that never works.

[camle]

I can get by any QA/QC barrier you can erect. this whole thing is an exercise in futility - the higher the technology, the easier to commit fraud. if it isn't done right away, then it will be done in the future.
People are mesmerized by the video touch screens, but have absolutely no idea what goes on inside the box. Unless you can read machine code (1's and 0's) fluently, then you won't catch anything amiss. The entire election process will be coopeted, and nobody will know.

that's the problem. this rush to technological nirvana is going to cost us our electoral process.

[Theyknow]

"I think the novel approach should be that one paper ballot is cast by a person who presents a proper ID issued by the supervisor of the checklist. I also believe that only US citizens should be allowed to vote. Nah, the Democrats would never go for that."

Yes! This just can't happen, we have come too far.