Potential for Election Fixing Exposed Through Voting Machine Flaws
Computer disks with vote-counting source code in public hands and claims that original factory passwords are still in use are just two serious flaws exposed in Diebold electronic voting machines due to be used in the up-coming US elections.
Many other potential holes for exploitation remain, including password over-rides which could lock-out local officials and open the doors to hackers. It seems that votes could be rigged, leaving no paper record to enable a subsequent recount.
Researchers at Princeton University have demonstrated how the addition of rogue source code could easily turn an election result on its head. Assurances by Diebold leave even Rep. Gov. Robert Ehrlich unconvinced, who urges voting by absentee ballot.
about this problem??? I mean if you were at a polling station could you tell a poll worker that you refuse to have your vote counted by electronic voting and want to vote by paper or some other option because you do not trust the e-voting machines?
I find it amazing that people are willing to trust such an easily exploitable system... I don't think e-voting should be allowed at all unless the system produces a paper output so one could compare e-results to paper ones.
So many people think bush cheated. They have universitys putting together complex programs and crazy ideas on how it could happen. Couldent they do something productive other then teaching us how to hack a voteing computer.
future tense, not past - they're showing how Bush WILL cheat. Exposing how US democracy is riddled with holes is a pretty damn good use of time and resources I'd say. And 'crazy' ideas as to how it could happen? Are you retarded?
Because he is obviously the axis of all evil and of course smart enough to fool every god damn voting booth in america. What happenens if a democrat inserts this virus? That would obviously be a lie and created by bush. Just like he creates huricanes for black people.
If one of these extremist anti-war protestors(elitest collage pricks) Hacked the computers and made sure the worse case scinario happened to bush? Would u be mad?
Bush obviously didn't need to toy with *every* voting booth...just enough to get him by. But that's just speculation.
At any rate, I think that the whole concept of "e-voting" is just rubbish because of its potential exploits. It might encourage more voters to come out, but the accuracy of such a new system is questionable, not to mention its manipulability.
And I'm sorry for nitpicking, but for the love of god, invest in a remedial spelling course.
Wow, apparently shooting the messenger isn't enough, you've got to chain-gun them.
How do factory default passwords require complex, crazy systems to exploit? You're just shooting in the dark here, because these are all very simple exploits. How does concern for the integrity of our representative voting system make one an "extremist anti-war protestor?" I think you've gotten your talking-points tangled, because your comments are nonsensical besides the fact that you know nothing about these people. As for doing something productive, I think you ought to suggest a course of action instead of b-tching (oh, irony). Should they politely point out the potential for hacking? Gee, they've only been doing that for half a decade. Should they deomonstrate it? Apparently that's completely outrageous too, so just what do you suggest, beyond shutting up to save people like you from unpleasant truths?
Do you have any point here, save to b-tch and moan about facts and those who present them?
Am I shooting down the messenger? What is the point of the comment feature if you cant say what you feel about the story and listen to other people views. You obviously took my thoughts very personal and I love to listen to you guys freak out.
Am I wrong but shouldent the person orginizing the local election be sure to make sure the default password is not on the system. I mean you cant blame bush if the guy running the local show was to dumb to learn how to use the system.
I may be wrong and I dont know who has access to the systems.
How do you know their not implying the Dems are going to cheat? Oh never mind I just looked at the source that couldn't possibly be the intent.
@MomentOfClarity Seems you have no problem running your mouth and saying what you feel. But when people like Steme say something, it isn't good enough. Probably cause he appears to back Bush in a way.
quote:As for doing something productive, I think you ought to suggest a course of action instead of b-tching (oh, irony)
So what was so damn productive about any thing you wrote? If anyone sounded like they were B-TCHING it was you. (Oh,irony) What is your solution to the voting machine flaws. A hand count?
hand counts work fine here in Australia. Pencil on paper and we have results within a about 6 hours for most counts. Some of the close seats might take a week.
We also have preferential voting which means votes get counted many times. ie. I vote for Party Z but if they don't make it give my vote to Party G, and so on.
Sound complex? Well we still manage to count them faster than your machines and chad analysis! :)
an e-voting machine should have no need for a hard-disk, colourful graphics, or anything over-complicated.
It has one function: to record votes. Such a system can and could be implemented in embedded logic, even in write-once logic. Hardware changes are far harder to propogate than physical hardware ones.
The problem is that neither of you seems to have any idea that there is a difference between arguing and attacking. Steme's comments have no merit, and I pointed out why. Those that were not baseless attacks on the poorly-understood beliefs of his political rivals and the researchers were simply complaints that led to no solution (which is ironic, since one such complaint was that the researchers were posing no solution). This is why I hate the system of punditry we have leading American political thought, because such behavior is taken to be real debate and emulated. He can say what he feels all he likes, just like I can point out how idiotically partisan and non-productive it is. You'd do well to learn that free-speech is a two-way street.
There's no irony that I did not pose a solution, because I was not demanding one - we already have it. We go back to paper voting, because digital voting is not ready yet. Between a few hanging chads and results that can be tailored to one's political fancy, I'll go with the former.
