Rigging elections to be "monkey business" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 09-24-2004, 05:40 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133214,00.html

Quote:

Touchscreen Hack Effort Called 'Monkey Business'

Thursday, September 23, 2004

By Joseph Bacchus and Stacy Kaper

Critics of the Diebold touch-screen voting machines turned their attention Wednesday from the machines themselves to the computers that will tally the final vote, saying the outcome is so easy to manipulate that even a monkey could do it.

And they showed video of a monkey hacking the system to prove it.

In the minute-long video produced by Black Box Voting, Baxter the chimp is shown deleting the audit log that is supposed to keep track of changes in the Diebold central tabulator, the computer and program that keeps track of county vote totals.

Black Box Voting founder Bev Harris said the demonstration shows that the system — which will be used in more than 30 states, including Maryland — is dangerously inadequate when it comes to stopping election fraud.

But a Diebold spokesman insisted that the system is secure despite "incessant" criticism from organizations such as Black Box Voting.

"The fact of the matter is what you saw was a staged production ... analogous to a magic show," said David Bear, the Diebold spokesman.

Even if the system could be hacked, he said, it could only be done by a person with "unfettered access to the system." Bear noted that elections are not just the machines, but also the people who work the elections.

"Quite honestly it's somewhat insulting to elections officials and volunteers," he said to the idea that elections officers would tamper with vote results.

He cited "multiple levels of redundancy" that would ensure that "any deviation would immediately be noticed" and dealt with.

But Black Box Voting on Wednesday demonstrated two quick ways that "an unscrupulous person with no computer skills whatsoever" could sabotage vote totals, according to Associate Director Andy Stephenson.

The entire voting record can be deleted by choosing "reset the election" on a drop-down menu, he said, or a hacker can destroy a tabulator's ability to recognize ballots by un-selecting three checkboxes on a program control panel.

Once those changes are made, a hacker could cover his tracks by deleting the audit log, as Baxter did.

The Diebold central tabulators use a program called "GEMS" that saves vote totals in Microsoft Access, a Windows-based database program.

GEMS requires users to enter a password to access the vote totals, but Harris showed that the totals can also be opened -- and altered -- with Access, without ever running GEMS.

Because Access functions are already built in to the Windows operating system, the totals could be altered even if a computer did not have Access installed on it, said Herbert Thompson, a computer security expert who teaches at the Florida Institute of Technology. He demonstrated how to change vote totals with a six-line program in Microsoft notepad, "a simple text editor" that comes with all copies of Windows.

But Maryland election officials agreed with Bear that no hacking can happen unless the hacker is physically at the computer. The central tabulators are safe from any such outside tampering, said Donna Duncan, director for the Maryland State Board of Elections election management division.

State elections officials also said Wednesday that they are confident they can protect the system from a decidedly lower-tech threat.

Elections administrator Linda Lamone (search) said she told Maryland State Police and the Governor's Office of Homeland Security in a conference call Wednesday that contingency plans are in place, should a terrorist attack or weather disaster occur during the election.

Without going into details, Lamone told the Election Law Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee that alternative polling sites have been identified and the elections board is prepared to handle a recount, should it be necessary.

"We probably have the most secure system in the nation," said Lamone, adding that her office is working with state police to "go over and above" security measures currently in place.

Lamone, who was dismissed earlier this month as elections administrator before winning a stay from the state's highest court, said all of Maryland's voting machines were upgraded this summer and are on schedule to be used Nov. 2. She said the machines will also undergo a series of security tests before and on the day of the election.

She did not discuss the potential for outright acts of aggression at the polls, something that worries Nancy Dacek, president of the Montgomery County Board of Elections.

Dacek said Wednesday that she fears that critics of the new voting system may try to physically sabotage the machines. She pointed to a recent incident in which a poll judge had to be ordered to return a voting machine that was used for demonstrations at an suburban folk festival.

As a precaution against such sabotage, some Montgomery County machines will not be set up until the morning of the election, rather than the usual night before.

Republican Delegate Jean Cryor told Lamone she hopes the state is ready for whatever happens after the election.

"I think votes will be challenged all over the state," she said.

Capital News Service contributed to this report.

Well, one thing can be said at least: I'll be watching the 2004 election for suspense and entertainment just as much as to find out who wins

Black Box Voting page re: this story
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/114

So, what do you think about this? Do you think things like this will cause the 2004 elections to be even more of a fiasco than 2000, or do you think that none of this will have an effect on the election and its outcome?

Ustwo · 09-24-2004, 05:47 PM

I am not a fan of electronic voting for obvious reasons.

Problem is most politicians and the public have no clue how easy it would be for someone to alter the machines.

Seaver · 09-24-2004, 06:00 PM

I dont like it either, needs MUCH improvement.

The problem is a chimp can also be taught to throw away ballots in the current system too... they need to pull their heads out of their ass and get this shit straight or we'll have another 2000 election media circus (under the best circumstances).

Ustwo · 09-24-2004, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I dont like it either, needs MUCH improvement.

The problem is a chimp can also be taught to throw away ballots in the current system too... they need to pull their heads out of their ass and get this shit straight or we'll have another 2000 election media circus (under the best circumstances).

Well while the whole anonymous voting is hunky dory, I'd be for a voting ID card where you could verify your own vote.

A friend of mine has a husband in a union in chicago. She says its better now but the old days 'aka 10 years ago' they would find out who didn't vote from the list and cast votes for them after the polling place had closed (all democrat of course). Currently she says she is forced to vote (or her husband gets in trouble and work) and he is forced to work for the democrats (or again he will lose his job) but they don't quite go for all out vote fraud.

System has flaws either way and I'd be willing to give up the totally anonymous ballot if it ment less fraud.

djtestudo · 09-24-2004, 06:27 PM

I like the idea of the machines, but they need some sort of paper trail to be safer.

Living in Maryland, this has been all over the news for the past couple months, and I personally feel that this company's outright refusal to listen to anyone is insulting to ME as a voter.

cthulu23 · 09-24-2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

.....they would find out who didn't vote from the list and cast votes for them after the polling place had closed (all democrat of course).

But of course...everyone knows that no Republicans have ever committed voter fraud. Can we go a few breaths without dragging ugly partisanship into the ring?

SecretMethod70 · 09-24-2004, 06:49 PM

I don't think he was dragging partisanship into it at all. I live in Chicago and it's a well-known fact that the Democratic party machine is still alive and well over here. Funny how Daley keeps winning by landslides when I've never met anyone who actually LIKES him as a mayor. Let's not get sensitive - he was simply referring to a real-life example that happened to be of the Democrats.

Anyway, anonymous ballots are a necessary part of PREVENTING vote fraud - they don't help perpetrate it. Back before we moved to the Australian ballot (which, yes, can have it's own flaws), the parties could tell if you were voting for them or not, and when you work for the city government you better believe that they're interested in knowing. And, in Chicago for example, 5 of the top 6 employers are government entities - and it's like this in most major cities. So, if there is no anonymity to voting, they can ake sure that you vote for them or else you may not have a job any longer. This is the whole REASON we switched to the Australian ballot system.

Ustwo · 09-24-2004, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

I don't think he was dragging partisanship into it at all. I live in Chicago and it's a well-known fact that the Democratic party machine is still alive and well over here. Funny how Daley keeps winning by landslides when I've never met anyone who actually LIKES him as a mayor. Let's not get sensitive - he was simply referring to a real-life example that happened to be of the Democrats.

I kinda liked Daley until the whole Migs thing. What an asshole.

Anyways what I ment by anonymous voting can go, is there needs to be a way for people to identify who they voted for and to have some some way of verifing who voted for who. Lets say I am in charge of the voting machines and even if it gives you a print out it still might have 'scored' your vote for someone else.

I know there is no fool proof system, and to quote Stalin 'Those who vote decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

But of course...everyone knows that no Republicans have ever committed voter fraud. Can we go a few breaths without dragging ugly partisanship into the ring?

SecretMethod70 · 09-24-2004, 07:57 PM

Well, obviously there's little we can do regarding COUNTING the votes besides monitor it. However, it would be good to, at the very least, have something where you vote for someone and then it says "voting for X, are you sure?" to verify that you're voting for that person. This is, of course, in regards to electronic voting. Personally though, I'm a fan of optical voting, as in the scantron type machines.

MSD · 09-24-2004, 09:08 PM

Quote:

But Maryland election officials agreed with Bear that no hacking can happen unless the hacker is physically at the computer. The central tabulators are safe from any such outside tampering, said Donna Duncan, director for the Maryland State Board of Elections election management division.

Last I heard, they still hadn't unplugged the modems. If I lived in MD, I could either get a job on the election monitoring staff, of find someone on the staff who was willing to show me the machines (yes, they're that poorly guarded,) get a password and log in, or get the phone number and crack a random password (which could also be done by a trained monkey,) and start playing around with GEMS.

Alternately, I could just spend thirty seconds to try every possible two-number combination that can be entered into a secret, undocumented dialogue box, creating a second table of votes in the database, and read from that table when sending votes to the tabulator instead of the actual vote tables.

cthulu23 · 09-24-2004, 09:16 PM

Did you know that the CEO of Diebold has pledged to deliver Ohio to Bush? This obviously proves that Repulicans are behind this faulty security, as some anonymous relative told me so. If anecdotal evidence and a tangential connection to the truth equals a valid point, then here's my two cents.

So the voting machines were rigged...by the Republicans of course. Dirty cheaters.

Does that sound ridiculous and partisan?

gcbrowni · 09-25-2004, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Did you know that the CEO of Diebold has pledged to deliver Ohio to Bush? This obviously proves that Repulicans are behind this faulty security, as some anonymous relative told me so. If anecdotal evidence and a tangential connection to the truth equals a valid point, then here's my two cents.

So the voting machines were rigged...by the Republicans of course. Dirty cheaters.

Does that sound ridiculous and partisan?

Not if it's in Chicago ... It would be nice to see a lot of people in Chicago go to jail over this (again!) It's hard to believe they continue to get away with it year after year.

Ustwo · 09-25-2004, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Did you know that the CEO of Diebold has pledged to deliver Ohio to Bush? This obviously proves that Repulicans are behind this faulty security, as some anonymous relative told me so. If anecdotal evidence and a tangential connection to the truth equals a valid point, then here's my two cents.

So the voting machines were rigged...by the Republicans of course. Dirty cheaters.

Does that sound ridiculous and partisan?

So far the only one being partisan in this thread is you. If you are unware of the Chicago democratic machine, then I fault your education.

Rekna · 09-25-2004, 07:42 AM

Does anyone else find it funny that 90 some percent of people with masters/phds in computer science/engineering say they don't think we should use electronic voting and that you need to have a physical medium which you can go back to and count? These are the experts here...

cthulu23 · 09-25-2004, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So far the only one being partisan in this thread is you. If you are unware of the Chicago democratic machine, then I fault your education.

Hmmm, turning a call for fairness into partisanship? Sounds reasonable to me.

shakran · 09-25-2004, 08:39 AM

I don't see where the confusion is here. If you have a computerized voting machine with no paper trail and no way of proving that the stored votes are in fact the votes that were cast, then you have a security problem.

Either side could exploit it. No matter who wins, the other side will always wonder if they won for real, or by cheating.

irateplatypus · 09-25-2004, 08:57 AM

from the article...

Quote:

"Quite honestly it's somewhat insulting to elections officials and volunteers," he said to the idea that elections officers would tamper with vote results.

cry me a friggin river. i'll hurl insults all day if it provides impetus for more electoral integrity.

jb2000 · 09-25-2004, 02:31 PM

No system is without flaws. Without trust in those conducting and tabulating the poll, there will not be trust in the system.

The problem with older systems is that fully trust-worthy officials will still get results not 100% accurate due to issues with the various methods.

The problem with electronic systems is that even if 99.9% of officials are 100% honest, it only takes a couple of bad apples out of the many officials and volunteers to have a big effect on accuracy.

analog · 09-25-2004, 02:39 PM

MOD NOTE:

This has the potential to be a good thread, but not if it continues on the path of sarcasm, personal insinuations, and general lack of tact with which some are posting. Please keep the comment to yourself if you're only going to jab someone- and don't return fire if someone does to you. They will be taken care of later.

- analog.

09-24-2004, 05:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I am not a fan of electronic voting for obvious reasons. Problem is most politicians and the public have no clue how easy it would be for someone to alter the machines. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-24-2004, 06:27 PM	#5 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I like the idea of the machines, but they need some sort of paper trail to be safer. Living in Maryland, this has been all over the news for the past couple months, and I personally feel that this company's outright refusal to listen to anyone is insulting to ME as a voter. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

09-24-2004, 06:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I don't think he was dragging partisanship into it at all. I live in Chicago and it's a well-known fact that the Democratic party machine is still alive and well over here. Funny how Daley keeps winning by landslides when I've never met anyone who actually LIKES him as a mayor. Let's not get sensitive - he was simply referring to a real-life example that happened to be of the Democrats. Anyway, anonymous ballots are a necessary part of PREVENTING vote fraud - they don't help perpetrate it. Back before we moved to the Australian ballot (which, yes, can have it's own flaws), the parties could tell if you were voting for them or not, and when you work for the city government you better believe that they're interested in knowing. And, in Chicago for example, 5 of the top 6 employers are government entities - and it's like this in most major cities. So, if there is no anonymity to voting, they can ake sure that you vote for them or else you may not have a job any longer. This is the whole REASON we switched to the Australian ballot system. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

09-24-2004, 07:57 PM	#9 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Well, obviously there's little we can do regarding COUNTING the votes besides monitor it. However, it would be good to, at the very least, have something where you vote for someone and then it says "voting for X, are you sure?" to verify that you're voting for that person. This is, of course, in regards to electronic voting. Personally though, I'm a fan of optical voting, as in the scantron type machines. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

09-24-2004, 06:00 PM	#3 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I dont like it either, needs MUCH improvement. The problem is a chimp can also be taught to throw away ballots in the current system too... they need to pull their heads out of their ass and get this shit straight or we'll have another 2000 election media circus (under the best circumstances).

09-24-2004, 09:16 PM	#11 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Did you know that the CEO of Diebold has pledged to deliver Ohio to Bush? This obviously proves that Repulicans are behind this faulty security, as some anonymous relative told me so. If anecdotal evidence and a tangential connection to the truth equals a valid point, then here's my two cents. So the voting machines were rigged...by the Republicans of course. Dirty cheaters. Does that sound ridiculous and partisan?

09-25-2004, 07:42 AM	#14 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Does anyone else find it funny that 90 some percent of people with masters/phds in computer science/engineering say they don't think we should use electronic voting and that you need to have a physical medium which you can go back to and count? These are the experts here...

09-25-2004, 08:39 AM	#16 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	I don't see where the confusion is here. If you have a computerized voting machine with no paper trail and no way of proving that the stored votes are in fact the votes that were cast, then you have a security problem. Either side could exploit it. No matter who wins, the other side will always wonder if they won for real, or by cheating.

09-25-2004, 02:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	No system is without flaws. Without trust in those conducting and tabulating the poll, there will not be trust in the system. The problem with older systems is that fully trust-worthy officials will still get results not 100% accurate due to issues with the various methods. The problem with electronic systems is that even if 99.9% of officials are 100% honest, it only takes a couple of bad apples out of the many officials and volunteers to have a big effect on accuracy.

09-25-2004, 02:39 PM	#19 (permalink)
analog Banned	MOD NOTE: This has the potential to be a good thread, but not if it continues on the path of sarcasm, personal insinuations, and general lack of tact with which some are posting. Please keep the comment to yourself if you're only going to jab someone- and don't return fire if someone does to you. They will be taken care of later. - analog.