Welcome to Emulationworld

Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode


SubjectWe've been using eletronic balots here in Brasil for what? 6-8 years now? Reply to this message
Posted byDeath Knight
Posted on10/21/04 05:26 PM



And there hasn't been any evidence of frauds yet. I'm guessing it's the not the exact same system since ours was developed here and the tech wasn't disclosed, but to me, they've seemed just as reliable as regular ballots, if not more so.

The frauds occur behind the scenes, regardless of what kind of ballot is used, bitch about the right things people.

edit* this was meant to be a reply to Halcyon's post below.


Gives us a kiss precious.


SubjectThere haven't been any frauds? new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on10/21/04 07:15 PM



Or there haven't been any DISCOVERED?


> The frauds occur behind the scenes, regardless of what kind of ballot is used,
> bitch about the right things people.


Exactly.

CSP


SubjectThis is why people want a paper trail new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on10/21/04 08:02 PM



It's easy for an electronic voting machine to print out a vote receipt for a manual recount in case of machine failure or hackery. It's not like we don't know whether or not the machines can be tampered with and are hackable, it's a fact, they can be tampered with and they are quite clearly hackable. It was also thought that since the government is a public body, the voting system should be public as well, an open project that can be reviewed by any citizen who wishes to make sure their vote is dealt with securely by an electronic program.

However, the fact that the company repeatedly, refused to divulge details on the software (presumably because they wish to quell any distrust of the voting software), and during software demonstrations they didn't let anyone touch the machines or try various things out. In addition, leaked memos have shown that Diebold were using uncertified machines in production, that's machines running versions of software that haven't been approved for use (not that that certification must do any rigorous testing considering the shape the software is in) and who knows what flaws, back doors, or whatever have made their way in there.

The fact that receipts aren't mandatory and the fact that they're going ahead with these shitty machines with a shitty system to register your vote just shows how unseriously the american government is taking this voting procedure and almost guarantees problems. How many people are going to try to hack these machines on election day? It's going to be nuts.




Subjectthe risk are the same as any system, i guess.. new Reply to this message
Posted byTi-BOne
Posted on10/21/04 10:50 PM



at least here, the machine is programmed, to automatically stop voting, and count the votes and emmits a report(printed out and eletronically) at exactely 5pm.

aparentely there is some sort of system key to make sure that what the guys brings in to the count room is the same thing that was inside the machine.

now.. people CAN be bought..
so.. as long as humans want money..
someone in a confidence position can screw up..
however...

both the machine, and the printed report must be delivered on the electoral (sp?) building at most at 5:30pm (or was it 6pm ?), so there isn't much time left for the machine to be hacked and the machine auto locks itself after 5pm, so one would have to hack INTO the machine, break the votes encryption, make a fake printed report with the EXACTELY same votes that he hacked into the machine, within the time of 30 minutes.

but, as i said, what if you buy the guy who gets the machines ? then you have like.. more time to hack the thing..
or something..

voting can never be safe, because you can't trust people.


> It's easy for an electronic voting machine to print out a vote receipt for a
> manual recount in case of machine failure or hackery. It's not like we don't
> know whether or not the machines can be tampered with and are hackable, it's a
> fact, they can be tampered with and they are quite clearly hackable. It was
> also thought that since the government is a public body, the voting system
> should be public as well, an open project that can be reviewed by any citizen
> who wishes to make sure their vote is dealt with securely by an electronic
> program.
>
> However, the fact that the company repeatedly, refused to divulge details on the
> software (presumably because they wish to quell any distrust of the voting
> software), and during software demonstrations they didn't let anyone touch the
> machines or try various things out. In addition, leaked memos have shown that
> Diebold were using uncertified machines in production, that's machines running
> versions of software that haven't been approved for use (not that that
> certification must do any rigorous testing considering the shape the software is
> in) and who knows what flaws, back doors, or whatever have made their way in
> there.
>
> The fact that receipts aren't mandatory and the fact that they're going ahead
> with these shitty machines with a shitty system to register your vote just shows
> how unseriously the american government is taking this voting procedure and
> almost guarantees problems. How many people are going to try to hack these
> machines on election day? It's going to be nuts.
>


-----------
Icy Guitarist


SubjectThere's a greater risk with electronic voting new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on10/21/04 11:47 PM



With paper voting (or a good electronic system), people on the inside are the only ones who can mess around with it.

With the one that the US is going to use for their elections, people on the outside can mess with it too. I'd say the US is making a bad decision going with those Diebold machines.




SubjectThis whole conversation is moot new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on10/22/04 00:35 AM



> With paper voting (or a good electronic system), people on the inside are the
> only ones who can mess around with it.
>
> With the one that the US is going to use for their elections, people on the
> outside can mess with it too. I'd say the US is making a bad decision going
> with those Diebold machines.


Given the fact that both parties have money, both have some modicum of power, the American public is divided fairly equally, and each division has comparable numbers of people that would do such a thing, I'd say everything should be hunky-dory.

Think about it - either party could potentially do what they need to win the election, including cheating. I'm to naive to think they would go to the extreme of hacking the machine, but certainly the possibility is there.

What makes more sense is an activist from either side creating hell with the machines. In that case, I think you'd have to agree that there are an equal number of supporters for either side that have the will and ability to do it.

Interestingly, even if they don't, it still makes sense. For example - If Bush was leading in this country by 70% and had many more people willing to hack the vote to get him to win, wouldn't that still be an accurate representation of the truth as if they didn't hack the machine? Sure.

More interestingly, in an election where it is 70/30, the hackers for the trailing candidate would even it out to a true representation.

It'll never be perfect, and it doesn't have to. Here's the kicker: You know why people are so concerned about voting machines? Because the candidates are so similar, so equal in American's minds. Given that, who cares who wins? They're virtually indistinguishable. How can America be so polarized for either side, and yet so equal? It doesn't make sense.


CSP


SubjectI'm just saying some proof is better than no proof new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on10/22/04 02:11 AM



I'm just saying some proof is better than no proof, in regards to receipts. At least there is a hope that the real numbers would be counted, it's better than no hope at all, if the electronic records are compromised it will be very difficult to get the original data back. With paper receipts you can do a manual recount.

> Think about it - either party could potentially do what they need to win the
> election, including cheating.

Given how serious some people are patriotically, and how democracy is some all american thing that the US is trying to bring to the world and prove it's the best system and everyone believes in it etc, isn't it ridiculous that this is the scenario in the USA? Sounds like the whole operation is just a joke. How fucked up.

> I'm to naive to think they would go to the extreme
> of hacking the machine, but certainly the possibility is there.

Nobody's saying the parties are going to do it, but certainly some very talented hackers on either side could take it unto them as a personal duty or whatever. Look at how many people write viruses, I'm not sure how many of them work for McAffee or Symantec or whatever but I'm sure most virus writers don't. A lot of people do it for fame or for personal gain (SPAM etc), and I'm sure that there could be hackers with political motives as well.




SubjectRe: I'm just saying some proof is better than no proof new Reply to this message
Posted byChachiSqrPants
Posted on10/22/04 08:27 AM



> I'm just saying some proof is better than no proof, in regards to receipts. At
> least there is a hope that the real numbers would be counted, it's better than
> no hope at all, if the electronic records are compromised it will be very
> difficult to get the original data back. With paper receipts you can do a
> manual recount.


I know, I was really just kidding. I think the best voting machines should be utilized.


> Given how serious some people are patriotically, and how democracy is some all
> american thing that the US is trying to bring to the world and prove it's the
> best system and everyone believes in it etc, isn't it ridiculous that this is
> the scenario in the USA? Sounds like the whole operation is just a joke. How
> fucked up.


I would say the opposite, given that we have intimate knowledge, in some cases, of the voting process, procedure, mechanics, logistics, and it's so highly contested. Like my reply to DK, how'd you like to live in a country where the government told you "Oh no, everything is fine, WE'VE never had a problem. ALL of our elections are ABSOLUTELY fair." Sure.


> Nobody's saying the parties are going to do it, but certainly some very talented
> hackers on either side could take it unto them as a personal duty or whatever.
> Look at how many people write viruses, I'm not sure how many of them work for
> McAffee or Symantec or whatever but I'm sure most virus writers don't. A lot of
> people do it for fame or for personal gain (SPAM etc), and I'm sure that there
> could be hackers with political motives as well.


Sure, but my point is, they're not going to all get together and decide on Bush to win, or Kerry to win, are they? It'll all even out.

CSP


SubjectOh, ok new Reply to this message
Posted byHalcyon
Posted on10/22/04 01:18 PM



> I would say the opposite, given that we have intimate knowledge, in some cases,
> of the voting process, procedure, mechanics, logistics, and it's so highly
> contested. Like my reply to DK, how'd you like to live in a country where the
> government told you "Oh no, everything is fine, WE'VE never had a problem. ALL
> of our elections are ABSOLUTELY fair." Sure.

I wonder how fair it IS though, does everyone know about people ordered to withold information, gerrymandering, Diebold's commitment to delivering bush votes, buggy systems, preventing accurate recounts, wtf? Seriously, who knows this shit is even going on?


About the only thing that makes me feel better is this though.




Previous ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode