Voting security

[Dak]

Why don't they just add biometric fingerprint scanners plus codes (changed every hour!..ok no) to the memory card storage comparment. That shouldn't be too techy for anyone to run.

 

tbh, this is sort-of why i dont think the machines have been designed that competently from a security pov...

 

im no security expert, but then, there are a few obvious things which i think certainly should have been done better. the memory card being locked with a little lock that someone can pick: biometric scanners are prohibitorily expensive, but just something like a few screws in addition to the lock would be advisable, imo, and maybe a loud buzzer that sounds when the hatch is opened? a little sticker, like forensics uses, that is inpossible to peel-off and restick, making it obvious if the hatch has been opened since the beginning of voting. but no, you got a piddly little lock, which people can pick. its no mystical art, anyone can learn how to pick locks...

 

and, given that the card is just designed to store non-executable information, shouldn't the machine be set up so that stuff on the card cannot be executed? makes sence to me, and would significanly ameliorate the risk of a virus being installed.

 

and, yes, shouldn't there be a paper-trail so that people can check wether their vote was counted correctly? something like this:

 

-------example papertrail system-------------

 

you get randomly issued a voter card, with a serial number on it. there is no way to trace this serial number to you. you vote, and your card gets marked 'void'. (this is the case, i think).

 

the cards serial could be stored along with who they voted for, and, later, the results of your area get posted on the goveournments website, like this:

 

1254835: republican

1354873: democrat

2468743: republican

 

results:

total votes: 3

 

republican: 2

democrat: 1

 

republican majority.

 

now... anyone can go and check that the figures have been added up correctly. people could go check their own vote was registered properly, without anyone else being able to tell what they voted, by checking for their cards serial number. the only way someone could cheat, rather than stealing peoples votes or intentionally miscounting, by adding votes, is by having unused cards assigned to a party.

 

this could be ameliorated by:

 

indepnedant assesment of turnout, to spot any occasions where more people voted than turned out.

 

registering of unused cards on a database as unused, hence people can check that no unused cards were assigned votes... this wouldn't actually be too hard to do reliably, if the cards were handed out sequentially, and the first unused one recorded at the close of voting, eg:

 

area x gets serials 123346 to 123999, which the voting staff publically confirm at the beginning of voting; at close of voting, the first unused card is recorded and announced, say 123599. now, all card numbers from 123599 to 123999 are publically known to be unused. to cheat, you'd require the co-operation of the voting-coordinators, ie its as secure as ballot-box voting. it could actually be taken further, imo, and made more secure than conventional voting.

 

------------- / example papertrail----------------

 

like i said, im no security expert, and i'm open to the possibility that my concerns are unjustified/not actually that big a deal, but they certainly seem like the kind of thing that a secure voting system should do.

 

the e-voting-machine-system's security just seems sloppy.

 

i mean, windows? wtf?

[SmallIsPower]

Well ok, pardon me, you are supporting systems that haven't received much attention yet but that would perhaps provide a "paper trail".

 

But those systems still have to be monitored and measured by somebody. And that somebody is going to be either a Democrat or a Republican. The criticism aimed at Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris during the 2000 election was entirely baseless. In fact, notice how those criticisms are currently non-existent in Virginia, which is about to go through the exact same kind of nation-controlling recount, but whose governor is a Democrat, which apparently automatically exempts him from corruption (?!).

 

We're going to need to mature beyond that sort of thing, regardless of what voting system we actually end up using.

 

 

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0309/S00187.htm

Besides all of the "entirely baseless" claims against Katherine Harris, including drunk driving checkpoints in poor neighborhoods, massive voter purges of anyone whose name sounded black was the NEGATIVE 16022 Al Gore got in Valousa County, FL.

A remarkable exchange concerning Diebold's voting machines in Volusia County, Florida. On January 17, 2001, Lana Hines, a county elections official sends out an inquiry as to how Al Gore ended up with a vote-count of -16,022. That's NEGATIVE 16,022—which just happens also to have been the total number of votes cast for various independent and third-party candidates who also ran. (It was the largest number of such votes cast in Volusia County's history.)

[Pangloss]

So you say. But isn't it funny how the only sources on the so-called "Volusia error" are left-wing blog sites?

 

I've read about this before, and if memory serves the best non-partisan information on it is that there was a Diebold-induced voting anomaly that entailed a sudden decrease in Al Gore's vote count of about 16,000, which is a VERY different thing from saying that they actually got a -16,000 total for that county. It's also usually brought up that the district that reported the problem only has ~500 voters, but that's irrelevent because the problem had to take place at the COUNTY level -- where the votes are actually counted, and there are almost half a million people living in that part of the state.

 

And as I understand it, the vote count was ultimately straightened out *that night*. And regardless of whether it was straightened out that night, it was certainly straightened out by the various non-partisan and bi-partisan auditing committees, the last one of which was actually hired by the MIAMI HERALD, all of which found, unanimously, that Al Gore could not possibly have won Florida under any circumstances.

 

Hey, you asked me to be skeptical.........

[GutZ]

tbh, this is sort-of why i dont think the machines have been designed that competently from a security pov...

 

im no security expert, but then, there are a few obvious things which i think certainly should have been done better. the memory card being locked with a little lock that someone can pick: biometric scanners are prohibitorily expensive, but just something like a few screws in addition to the lock would be advisable, imo, and maybe a loud buzzer that sounds when the hatch is opened? a little sticker, like forensics uses, that is inpossible to peel-off and restick, making it obvious if the hatch has been opened since the beginning of voting. but no, you got a piddly little lock, which people can pick. its no mystical art, anyone can learn how to pick locks...

 

I know it would be expensive, but I was under the assumption that the cards have to be replace every now and then, so this would make it easier to replace, without having to hold up the voting.

 

I agree though there are a number of things that can be done, I guess it's just in a semi-serious state that people just want to test it out, or are aware of the fact that it's something that needs to be done eventually, but aren't really sure how to transistion it to reality.