Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
merrill

American Politicians are wanting to invest in many more hackable voting machines using Russia as the reason = this smells like a conservative conspiracy.

Recommended Posts

When Princeton professor Andrew Appel decided to hack into a voting machine, he didn’t try to mimic the Russian attackers who hacked into the Democratic National Committee's database last month. He didn’t write malicious code, or linger near a polling place where the machines can go unguarded for days. 

Instead, he bought one online. 

 
 
 
Appel’s mischief might be called an occupational asset: He is part of a diligent corps of so-called cyber-academics—professors who have spent the past decade serving their country by relentlessly hacking it.

 

Electronic voting machines—particularly a design called Direct Recording Electronic, or DRE’s—took off in 2002, in the wake of Bush v. Gore. For the ensuing 15 years, Appel and his colleagues have deployed every manner of stunt to convince the public that the system is pervasively unsecure and vulnerable. 

 

Beginning in the late '90s, Appel and his colleague, Ed Felten, a pioneer in computer engineering now serving in the White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy, marsha led their Princeton students together at the Center for Information Technology Policy (where Felten is still director). There, they relentlessly hacked one voting machine after another, transforming the center into a kind of Hall of Fame for tech mediocrity: reprogramming one popular machine to play Pac-Man; infecting popular models with self-duplicating malware; discovering keys to voting machine locks that could be ordered on eBay.

 

Eventually, the work of the professors and Ph.D. students grew into a singular conviction: It was only a matter of time, they feared, before a national election—an irresistible target—would invite an attempt at a coordinated cyberattack. 

 

The revelation this month that a cyberattack on the DNC is the handiwork of Russian state security personnel has set off alarm bells across the country:

 

Some officials have suggested that 2016 could see more serious efforts to interfere directly with the American election. The DNC hack, in a way, has compelled the public to ask the precise question the Princeton group hoped they’d have asked earlier, back when they were turning voting machines into arcade games: If motivated programmers could pull a stunt like this, couldn't they tinker with the results in November through the machines we use to vote?

 

This week, the notion has been transformed from an implausible plotline in a Phil ip K. Dick novel into a deadly serious threat, outlined in detail by a raft of government security officials. “This isn’t a crazy hypothetical anymore,” says Dan Wallach, one of the Felten-Appel alums and now a computer science professor at Rice. “Once you bring nation states’ cyber activity into the game?” He snorts with pity. “These machines, they barely work in a friendly environment.” 

 

The powers that be seem duly convinced. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson recently conceded the “longer-term investments we need to make in the cybersecurity of our election process.” A statement by 31 security luminaries at the Aspen Institute issued a public statement: “Our electoral process could be a target for reckless foreign governments and terrorist groups.” Declared Wired: “America’s Electronic Voting Machines Are Scarily Easy Targets.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the U.S. heads toward an especially contentious national election in November, 15 states are still clinging to outdated electronic voting machines that don't support paper printouts used to audit their internal vote counts.

E-voting machines without attached printers are still being used in a handful of presidential swing states, leading some voting security advocates to worry about the potential of a hacked election.

Some makers of e-voting machines, often called direct-recording electronic machines or DREs, are now focusing on other sorts of voting technology, including optical scanners. They seem reluctant to talk about DREs; three major DRE vendors didn't respond to questions about security.

 
 
1.jpg?mode=stretch&connatiximg=true&scale=both&height=225&width=400
 
 
 
 
 

Here are five things to know about DREs:

1. DREs without paper-trail backups are still used in several states

Five states, New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and Lousiana, continue to use DREs without paper-trail printouts statewide, according to election security advocate Verified Voting.

Another 10 states use DREs without paper trails in some voting locations. Among those states: potential presidential swing states Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida, as well as Texas, Indiana, and Tennessee.

Fourteen states use DREs combined with a paper-trail backup, either statewide or in some jurisdictions.

2. Some experts worry about a hacked election

While a hacked election may be unlikely, it's not impossible, said Joe Kiniry, a long-time election security researcher. Researchers have found many security holes in DREs, and many states don't conduct comprehensive election audits, said Kiniry, now CEO and chief scientist at Free and Fair, an open-source election technology vendor.

"I would say that a determined adversary, with the standard skill that people like me have, would be able to hack an election nationally," he said. "With enough money and resources, I don't think that's actually a technical challenge."

Voting results are "ripe for manipulation," Kiniry added. 

Hacking an election would be more of a social and political challenge than a technical one, he said. "You'd have a medium-sized conspiracy in order to achieve such a goal."

While most states have auditable voting systems, only about half the states conduct post-election audits, added Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting.

 

"That leaves a lot of gaps for confirming that election outcomes were correct," she said. "In such a contentious election year, well, let's just say it's never a good thing to be unable to demonstrate to the public's satisfaction that votes were counted correctly, whether in a small contest or large."

3. The use of DREs without paper trails is in decline

Twenty-three states used DREs without paper trails in the 2008 U.S. election, and 17 used them in 2012, compared to 15 states this year, according to information from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and Verified Voting.

Many states embraced e-voting machines after the disputed 2000 U.S. election, when so-called hanging chads on paper punch ballots in Florida helped to determine the results of the presidential race.

But many DRE models didn't offer a way for election officials to double-check the electronic results. Several fair election advocates called for printers to be installed as a way to audit, and several states listened.

Other states abandoned DREs for electronic scanning technology after several studies found glaring security holes in many DREs and some states reported glitches during the 2004 and 2008 elections. 

4. Several issues have driven the decline in DRE use

Many states wanted both reliability and the ability to audit electronic voting results, said Verified Voting's Smith.

"Ballots counted by scanners give you added reliability, in that if the scanner breaks down, voters can still continue to vote -- marking their ballots to be stored in a locked receptacle at the polling place and counted later when the scanner is working again," she said. "If you have a DRE polling place, if the DREs break down, voting comes to a halt -- unless you have emergency paper ballots for voters to mark."

In addition, some DREs proved expensive to maintain and replace, Smith said. Some DREs had "shorter lifespans that some other earlier kinds of equipment," she added. "Lever machines lasted for decades; punch-cards, too. So the purchasing cycle became shorter."

States received a 2002 funding boost for election equipment from the federal government, but the money dried up. "Jurisdictions found themselves, about a decade-plus on, realizing their systems were wearing out and may need replacement," Smith said.

5. States can take simple and inexpensive steps to improve security

Even though Kiniry's company sells voting technology, he tells states they can improve security with better election audits. Many states are "extremely resistant" to recounts, he said.

States can embrace statistics-based risk-limiting audits and parallel testing audits, which use excess voting machines to test results on Election Day. Both audits are inexpensive; risk-limiting audits are "literally something you can learn to do, without being a statistician, in a day, and you can perform the recount in an afternoon," Kiniry said.

States can also hire hackers, even "an intern from a computer science department," to probe their voting systems and "think like a bad guy," Kiniry said. White hat hackers can help states "protect against accidental or malicious behavior."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most any computer system can be hacked. In essence voter suppression can be accomplished through computerized voting machines.  Conveniently conservatives seem to own mostof the computerized voting devices ...... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, merrill said:

Most any computer system can be hacked. In essence voter suppression can be accomplished through computerized voting machines.  Conveniently conservatives seem to own mostof the computerized voting devices ...... 

 

Good information. But we have a president who never criticizes Putin for attacking our nation and its election system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

How To Steal an Election

It's easier to rig an electronic voting machine than a Las Vegas slot machine, says University of Pennsylvania visiting professor Steve Freeman.

That's because Vegas slots are better monitored and regulated than America's voting machines, Freeman writes in a book out in July that argues, among other things, that President Bush may owe his 2004 win to an unfair vote count.

We'll wait to read his book before making a judgment about that. But Freeman has assembled comparisons that suggest Americans protect their vices more than they guard their rights, according to data he presented at an October meeting of the American Statistical Association in Philadelphia.

How To Steal an Election
GRAPHIC: The Washington Post - March 16, 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 8:03 AM, merrill said:

When Princeton professor Andrew Appel decided to hack into a voting machine, he didn’t try to mimic the Russian attackers who hacked into the Democratic National Committee's database last month. He didn’t write malicious code, or linger near a polling place where the machines can go unguarded for days. 

Instead, he bought one online. 

 
 
 
Appel’s mischief might be called an occupational asset: He is part of a diligent corps of so-called cyber-academics—professors who have spent the past decade serving their country by relentlessly hacking it.

 

Electronic voting machines—particularly a design called Direct Recording Electronic, or DRE’s—took off in 2002, in the wake of Bush v. Gore. For the ensuing 15 years, Appel and his colleagues have deployed every manner of stunt to convince the public that the system is pervasively unsecure and vulnerable. 

 

Beginning in the late '90s, Appel and his colleague, Ed Felten, a pioneer in computer engineering now serving in the White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy, marsha led their Princeton students together at the Center for Information Technology Policy (where Felten is still director). There, they relentlessly hacked one voting machine after another, transforming the center into a kind of Hall of Fame for tech mediocrity: reprogramming one popular machine to play Pac-Man; infecting popular models with self-duplicating malware; discovering keys to voting machine locks that could be ordered on eBay.

 

Eventually, the work of the professors and Ph.D. students grew into a singular conviction: It was only a matter of time, they feared, before a national election—an irresistible target—would invite an attempt at a coordinated cyberattack. 

 

The revelation this month that a cyberattack on the DNC is the handiwork of Russian state security personnel has set off alarm bells across the country:

 

Some officials have suggested that 2016 could see more serious efforts to interfere directly with the American election. The DNC hack, in a way, has compelled the public to ask the precise question the Princeton group hoped they’d have asked earlier, back when they were turning voting machines into arcade games: If motivated programmers could pull a stunt like this, couldn't they tinker with the results in November through the machines we use to vote?

 

This week, the notion has been transformed from an implausible plotline in a Phil ip K. Dick novel into a deadly serious threat, outlined in detail by a raft of government security officials. “This isn’t a crazy hypothetical anymore,” says Dan Wallach, one of the Felten-Appel alums and now a computer science professor at Rice. “Once you bring nation states’ cyber activity into the game?” He snorts with pity. “These machines, they barely work in a friendly environment.” 

 

The powers that be seem duly convinced. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson recently conceded the “longer-term investments we need to make in the cybersecurity of our election process.” A statement by 31 security luminaries at the Aspen Institute issued a public statement: “Our electoral process could be a target for reckless foreign governments and terrorist groups.” Declared Wired: “America’s Electronic Voting Machines Are Scarily Easy Targets.”

 

The voting crime is within our borders also known as GOP conservatives ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 2:03 PM, merrill said:
 

How To Steal an Election

It's easier to rig an electronic voting machine than a Las Vegas slot machine, says University of Pennsylvania visiting professor Steve Freeman.

That's because Vegas slots are better monitored and regulated than America's voting machines, Freeman writes in a book out in July that argues, among other things, that President Bush may owe his 2004 win to an unfair vote count.

We'll wait to read his book before making a judgment about that. But Freeman has assembled comparisons that suggest Americans protect their vices more than they guard their rights, according to data he presented at an October meeting of the American Statistical Association in Philadelphia.

How To Steal an Election
GRAPHIC: The Washington Post - March 16, 2006

 

GOP and Grand Theft stick together ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Browse The Truth-O-MeterTM

See our fact-checks of President Donald Trump

See our latest Pants-On-Fire rulings

Search fact-checks by subject

Search fact-checks by person

View recent articles

 

BEGIN ORGANIZING YOUR VOTING DAY PACKETS = Democracy NOW 

Voters must assume CONSERVATIVES may have purged YOU from the voting rolls. Any way possible

Okay let's plan ahead. VOTE VOTE VOTE

 

Voters ORGANIZE A VOTING DAY PACKET which should contain:

--- a birth certificate

--- drivers license or state ID card

--- proof of voter registration etc etc etc. 

--- Keep it close by as voting opportunities will occur about 4 times in the next 10 months.

Let's get on with it. WE voters have a mess to clean up.

Sorry to say the grand ole party that represented the Fiscal Conservative/Socially Responsible republicans is dead. Over thrown by a radical right wing Libertarian coup which represents hate and outlaws.

Once again….Voters BEGIN ORGANIZING YOUR VOTING DAY PACKET. Keep it close by ALWAYS.

CONSERVATIVES will never give up squashing democracy and YOUR right to vote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 8:06 AM, merrill said:

As the U.S. heads toward an especially contentious national election in November, 15 states are still clinging to outdated electronic voting machines that don't support paper printouts used to audit their internal vote counts.

E-voting machines without attached printers are still being used in a handful of presidential swing states, leading some voting security advocates to worry about the potential of a hacked election.

Some makers of e-voting machines, often called direct-recording electronic machines or DREs, are now focusing on other sorts of voting technology, including optical scanners. They seem reluctant to talk about DREs; three major DRE vendors didn't respond to questions about security.

 
 
1.jpg?mode=stretch&connatiximg=true&scale=both&height=225&width=400
 
 
 
 

 

Here are five things to know about DREs:

1. DREs without paper-trail backups are still used in several states

Five states, New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and Lousiana, continue to use DREs without paper-trail printouts statewide, according to election security advocate Verified Voting.

Another 10 states use DREs without paper trails in some voting locations. Among those states: potential presidential swing states Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida, as well as Texas, Indiana, and Tennessee.

Fourteen states use DREs combined with a paper-trail backup, either statewide or in some jurisdictions.

2. Some experts worry about a hacked election

While a hacked election may be unlikely, it's not impossible, said Joe Kiniry, a long-time election security researcher. Researchers have found many security holes in DREs, and many states don't conduct comprehensive election audits, said Kiniry, now CEO and chief scientist at Free and Fair, an open-source election technology vendor.

"I would say that a determined adversary, with the standard skill that people like me have, would be able to hack an election nationally," he said. "With enough money and resources, I don't think that's actually a technical challenge."

Voting results are "ripe for manipulation," Kiniry added. 

Hacking an election would be more of a social and political challenge than a technical one, he said. "You'd have a medium-sized conspiracy in order to achieve such a goal."

While most states have auditable voting systems, only about half the states conduct post-election audits, added Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting.

 

"That leaves a lot of gaps for confirming that election outcomes were correct," she said. "In such a contentious election year, well, let's just say it's never a good thing to be unable to demonstrate to the public's satisfaction that votes were counted correctly, whether in a small contest or large."

3. The use of DREs without paper trails is in decline

Twenty-three states used DREs without paper trails in the 2008 U.S. election, and 17 used them in 2012, compared to 15 states this year, according to information from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and Verified Voting.

Many states embraced e-voting machines after the disputed 2000 U.S. election, when so-called hanging chads on paper punch ballots in Florida helped to determine the results of the presidential race.

But many DRE models didn't offer a way for election officials to double-check the electronic results. Several fair election advocates called for printers to be installed as a way to audit, and several states listened.

Other states abandoned DREs for electronic scanning technology after several studies found glaring security holes in many DREs and some states reported glitches during the 2004 and 2008 elections. 

4. Several issues have driven the decline in DRE use

Many states wanted both reliability and the ability to audit electronic voting results, said Verified Voting's Smith.

"Ballots counted by scanners give you added reliability, in that if the scanner breaks down, voters can still continue to vote -- marking their ballots to be stored in a locked receptacle at the polling place and counted later when the scanner is working again," she said. "If you have a DRE polling place, if the DREs break down, voting comes to a halt -- unless you have emergency paper ballots for voters to mark."

In addition, some DREs proved expensive to maintain and replace, Smith said. Some DREs had "shorter lifespans that some other earlier kinds of equipment," she added. "Lever machines lasted for decades; punch-cards, too. So the purchasing cycle became shorter."

States received a 2002 funding boost for election equipment from the federal government, but the money dried up. "Jurisdictions found themselves, about a decade-plus on, realizing their systems were wearing out and may need replacement," Smith said.

5. States can take simple and inexpensive steps to improve security

Even though Kiniry's company sells voting technology, he tells states they can improve security with better election audits. Many states are "extremely resistant" to recounts, he said.

States can embrace statistics-based risk-limiting audits and parallel testing audits, which use excess voting machines to test results on Election Day. Both audits are inexpensive; risk-limiting audits are "literally something you can learn to do, without being a statistician, in a day, and you can perform the recount in an afternoon," Kiniry said.

States can also hire hackers, even "an intern from a computer science department," to probe their voting systems and "think like a bad guy," Kiniry said. White hat hackers can help states "protect against accidental or malicious behavior."

 

Using false allegations of “voter fraud,” right-wing politicians are pursuing policies that disenfranchise students and other at-risk voters — including the elderly and the poor — who are unlikely to have drivers’ licenses or other forms of photo ID. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 1:58 PM, merrill said:

Most any computer system can be hacked. In essence voter suppression can be accomplished through computerized voting machines.  Conveniently conservatives seem to own mostof the computerized voting devices ...... 

 

Using false allegations of “voter fraud,” right-wing politicians are pursuing policies that disenfranchise students and other at-risk voters — including the elderly and the poor — who are unlikely to have drivers’ licenses or other forms of photo ID. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 7:03 AM, merrill said:

When Princeton professor Andrew Appel decided to hack into a voting machine, he didn’t try to mimic the Russian attackers who hacked into the Democratic National Committee's database last month. He didn’t write malicious code, or linger near a polling place where the machines can go unguarded for days. 

Instead, he bought one online. 

 
 
 
Appel’s mischief might be called an occupational asset: He is part of a diligent corps of so-called cyber-academics—professors who have spent the past decade serving their country by relentlessly hacking it.

 

Electronic voting machines—particularly a design called Direct Recording Electronic, or DRE’s—took off in 2002, in the wake of Bush v. Gore. For the ensuing 15 years, Appel and his colleagues have deployed every manner of stunt to convince the public that the system is pervasively unsecure and vulnerable. 

 

Beginning in the late '90s, Appel and his colleague, Ed Felten, a pioneer in computer engineering now serving in the White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy, marsha led their Princeton students together at the Center for Information Technology Policy (where Felten is still director). There, they relentlessly hacked one voting machine after another, transforming the center into a kind of Hall of Fame for tech mediocrity: reprogramming one popular machine to play Pac-Man; infecting popular models with self-duplicating malware; discovering keys to voting machine locks that could be ordered on eBay.

 

Eventually, the work of the professors and Ph.D. students grew into a singular conviction: It was only a matter of time, they feared, before a national election—an irresistible target—would invite an attempt at a coordinated cyberattack. 

 

The revelation this month that a cyberattack on the DNC is the handiwork of Russian state security personnel has set off alarm bells across the country:

 

Some officials have suggested that 2016 could see more serious efforts to interfere directly with the American election. The DNC hack, in a way, has compelled the public to ask the precise question the Princeton group hoped they’d have asked earlier, back when they were turning voting machines into arcade games: If motivated programmers could pull a stunt like this, couldn't they tinker with the results in November through the machines we use to vote?

 

This week, the notion has been transformed from an implausible plotline in a Phil ip K. Dick novel into a deadly serious threat, outlined in detail by a raft of government security officials. “This isn’t a crazy hypothetical anymore,” says Dan Wallach, one of the Felten-Appel alums and now a computer science professor at Rice. “Once you bring nation states’ cyber activity into the game?” He snorts with pity. “These machines, they barely work in a friendly environment.” 

 

The powers that be seem duly convinced. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson recently conceded the “longer-term investments we need to make in the cybersecurity of our election process.” A statement by 31 security luminaries at the Aspen Institute issued a public statement: “Our electoral process could be a target for reckless foreign governments and terrorist groups.” Declared Wired: “America’s Electronic Voting Machines Are Scarily Easy Targets.”

this is a democrat scheme you filthy sack of ass holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voter Fraud and Voter suppression is a conservative platform agenda item

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...