Clinton E. Curtis, programmer, testifies to Congress about fradulent voting machine source code(videosift.com)
videosift.com
Clinton E. Curtis, programmer, testifies to Congress about fradulent voting machine source code
http://www.videosift.com/video/From-The-Programmers-Mouth-How-The-2000-Election-Was-Fixed
22 comments
I agree with you, to a point. But lets not ignore the drawbacks of paper voting: a bunch of old ladies counting paper ballots can have error rates approaching 1%.
Better electronic systems are possible.
In NJ, we have an electronic machine which is just a bunch of buttons and lights: push a button, a light in row 1 goes on, push the commit button, and "Row a, column b" is recorded. A translucent paper ballot indicating the meaning of "Row a, columnb b" is placed on top of the lights/buttons, so the machine doesn't know which row/column corresponds to which candidate.
Using a machine like this, and physically randomizing the rows/columns machine by machine on election day (which isn't done in NJ), software fraud would be difficult.
Of course, none of this will stop fraudulent voting (which is very easy), zombie voting and other old fashioned trickery (google the washington governor's election, seattle district in particular).
I voted under a phony name in 2006, due to bad handwriting. After I discovered this, I called up my old roommate, who voted under my name (rather than his) in my old town. Vote totals were unnaffected, but only because we were honest.
Better electronic systems are possible.
In NJ, we have an electronic machine which is just a bunch of buttons and lights: push a button, a light in row 1 goes on, push the commit button, and "Row a, column b" is recorded. A translucent paper ballot indicating the meaning of "Row a, columnb b" is placed on top of the lights/buttons, so the machine doesn't know which row/column corresponds to which candidate.
Using a machine like this, and physically randomizing the rows/columns machine by machine on election day (which isn't done in NJ), software fraud would be difficult.
Of course, none of this will stop fraudulent voting (which is very easy), zombie voting and other old fashioned trickery (google the washington governor's election, seattle district in particular).
I voted under a phony name in 2006, due to bad handwriting. After I discovered this, I called up my old roommate, who voted under my name (rather than his) in my old town. Vote totals were unnaffected, but only because we were honest.
Random 1% error is easily dealt with. When the election is close they do a supervised recount.
There are certainly no problems with supervised recounts. Look how well they go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_electi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_200...
I'm not saying electronic is definately the way to go. I'm just saying that paper ballots also have big problems, and that one can protect reasonably well against pure software hacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_electi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_200...
I'm not saying electronic is definately the way to go. I'm just saying that paper ballots also have big problems, and that one can protect reasonably well against pure software hacks.
You've pointed out exactly why supervised recounts with paper ballots are so much better. You can look how well they go.
There is not a single comment suggesting that electronic voting machines are acceptable. I take this as a sign that the hacker community is unanimous in condemnation of our disenfranchisement.
Is there anything we can do about it? Or does it take millions of dollars to have any impact in America anymore?
Is there anything we can do about it? Or does it take millions of dollars to have any impact in America anymore?
The mere fact that the source for these machines is not available for public scrutiny is a pretty clear indication that voting machines threaten the democratic process.
I wonder if anyone has tried to use FOI laws to gain access to the code, and if so, how much of it was redacted?
I wonder if anyone has tried to use FOI laws to gain access to the code, and if so, how much of it was redacted?
Having the source code wouldn't be much of an assurance. How do you know that this code is really the code that is deployed on the machine during the elections? How do you know that the memory cards that store the votes are not tampered with? How do you know that the machine's hardware works "as advertized"?
Without a paper trail, we should assume every voting mechanism is rigged. The stakes are just too high to do otherwise.
Without a paper trail, we should assume every voting mechanism is rigged. The stakes are just too high to do otherwise.
My understanding was that what has been tested (and ruled on) in court is whether the code comprises a trade secret, and whether as a trade secret the code should be disclosed.
I still don't get what's wrong with the mkI pencil and ballot paper!
I still don't get what's wrong with the mkI pencil and ballot paper!
I remember seeing this video in a very sobering HBO documentary: http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/
Direct YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-YXvxYbck&feature=relat...
Thats quite the pick up line:
Hello. My name is Clinton E. Curtis, programmer.
Hello. My name is Clinton E. Curtis, programmer.
odd how not many people here care to comment.
There's not much to say. It's sobering to think that it is somewhat likely that the voting machines were rigged and that there is absolutely no way of confirming it.
"Somewhat" likely?
Here's how normal paper ballots work: After the polls officially close, they count them up, in full view of whatever members of the public care to observe. In hotly-contested areas, this will usually include members of both/all the major political parties. This mutual distrust keeps everyone honest. Fraud is obviously not impossible, but is more difficult to get away with.
Here's how electronic voting works: A private, for-profit corporation TELLS you what the numbers are, with no paper trail and using unauditable practices protected by "trade secret" (court ruling).
What else do you need to know? People will scam other people for a buck, let alone control of the entire country. The burden of proof should be on the voting process to show that it's correct, not on those who challenge it; because the very lack of auditability is a virtual guarantor of fraud. It is not an accident when ATM companies produce voting machines with no receipts.
In the 2004 election, exit polls tracked closely with the official counts in the paper ballot areas, but were way off the "official" totals in the electronic voting areas. E.g. http://www.nogw.com/images/exit_poll.jpg
Hackers make ZERO difference. Hack all the votes you want going in; the voting machine company is a black box, and it will produce whatever totals it wants as output.
It's ESPECIALLY not going to announce if it were breached and is now completely untrustworthy; it's going to produce numbers that look plausible to save its own ass, leaving aside any nefarious reasons. Even if all their voting data was corrupted, they could just get the exit poll or pre-election survey numbers and tweak by a few percent in the desired direction in a few key areas and voila.
How many people need to be in on this? One guy with root access.
Here's how normal paper ballots work: After the polls officially close, they count them up, in full view of whatever members of the public care to observe. In hotly-contested areas, this will usually include members of both/all the major political parties. This mutual distrust keeps everyone honest. Fraud is obviously not impossible, but is more difficult to get away with.
Here's how electronic voting works: A private, for-profit corporation TELLS you what the numbers are, with no paper trail and using unauditable practices protected by "trade secret" (court ruling).
What else do you need to know? People will scam other people for a buck, let alone control of the entire country. The burden of proof should be on the voting process to show that it's correct, not on those who challenge it; because the very lack of auditability is a virtual guarantor of fraud. It is not an accident when ATM companies produce voting machines with no receipts.
In the 2004 election, exit polls tracked closely with the official counts in the paper ballot areas, but were way off the "official" totals in the electronic voting areas. E.g. http://www.nogw.com/images/exit_poll.jpg
Hackers make ZERO difference. Hack all the votes you want going in; the voting machine company is a black box, and it will produce whatever totals it wants as output.
It's ESPECIALLY not going to announce if it were breached and is now completely untrustworthy; it's going to produce numbers that look plausible to save its own ass, leaving aside any nefarious reasons. Even if all their voting data was corrupted, they could just get the exit poll or pre-election survey numbers and tweak by a few percent in the desired direction in a few key areas and voila.
How many people need to be in on this? One guy with root access.
Alright, I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged, but I didn't want to sound like a crackpot. It's too bad there is no political process left in America.
But who says it's a crackpot theory? Mainstream media, owned by...
I think more generally this is exposing the problem with majority rule, whose time should come to an end anyway. What if there IS a legitimate >50% Idiocracy? Just look at the birth rate among different political groups and you can see which way we're heading.
I didn't consent to be ruled by anyone, let alone the people "in charge" now. I didn't agree to all these rules, or all these laws, that claim to govern every aspect of my existence.
The next step in human liberation is freedom from those who seek to control others. Given the scarcity of natural resources, but effectively infinite virtual resources, you can do whatever you want in your own virtual reality. It will be freedom for your mind.
I think more generally this is exposing the problem with majority rule, whose time should come to an end anyway. What if there IS a legitimate >50% Idiocracy? Just look at the birth rate among different political groups and you can see which way we're heading.
I didn't consent to be ruled by anyone, let alone the people "in charge" now. I didn't agree to all these rules, or all these laws, that claim to govern every aspect of my existence.
The next step in human liberation is freedom from those who seek to control others. Given the scarcity of natural resources, but effectively infinite virtual resources, you can do whatever you want in your own virtual reality. It will be freedom for your mind.
I would assume this is partly because many of us have been upset with electronic voting machines since day one. Machines without paper trails are scary, and there's not much more for the hackers here to say.
What's odd is that, seemingly, so few non-hackers are scared of the implications of these machines.
Here's a scary combo: Ron Paul's tech savvy followers + no paper trails.
What's odd is that, seemingly, so few non-hackers are scared of the implications of these machines.
Here's a scary combo: Ron Paul's tech savvy followers + no paper trails.
It scares me a lot less than existing system. Ron Paul and the Ron Paul followers are strongly in favor of a paper trail, by the way: without it, they fear being disenfranchised.
Realistically, there isn't going to be a paper trail in November, or in the foreseeable future for that matter.
At the risk of getting "too" political, I believe there's a contingent of Paul supporters who don't seem so... umm... ethically inclined. A goofy thing to say about the world of politics, no doubt. But combine that lack of ethics with technological ability...
At the risk of getting "too" political, I believe there's a contingent of Paul supporters who don't seem so... umm... ethically inclined. A goofy thing to say about the world of politics, no doubt. But combine that lack of ethics with technological ability...
Maybe they don't think rigged presidential elections make any difference anyway.
Be brutally honest with yourself. If any of the last 10 presidential elections had gone the other way, how would that have changed YOUR life?
Personally, I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that I have other things I'd rather spend my mental energy on.
Be brutally honest with yourself. If any of the last 10 presidential elections had gone the other way, how would that have changed YOUR life?
Personally, I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that I have other things I'd rather spend my mental energy on.
The geezers who typically volunteer during elections probably don't mind manually counting up ballots.
Seems like voting might be one of the few areas where more technology is not a good thing.