electronic voting systems

[Rimbo 25773]

Speaking as a professional software engineer, the third panel is 100% true.

There's actually a better explanation than "our entire field is bad at what we do," and that is: "There is literally no way to prevent any computerized voting system from having its votes altered to fit a desired outcome, and it can be done in ways that are 100% undetectable." And this problem exists at the most fundamental levels of how the systems work; no technology, encryption algorithm, or anything can prevent this from happening.

This is kind of an old issue, but it's a new comic, that expresses the problem better than anything I've seen.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Rimbo

[Biff Tannen 45491]

Well that's special.  What is so hard about having two paper print outs for each ballot on top of the electronic record?  One copy goes into an ol-timey ballot box and one you keep and verify before leaving the booth. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Fake.  There are no female software engineers.

[lemonlime 5503]

We need to go back to Scantron.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

13 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Fake.  There are no female software engineers.

Pretty sexist to just assume that the one with the beard is female.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Pretty sexist to just assume that the one with the beard is female.

Beards are females that closeted gay guys hang out with.  None of those stick figures have any facial hair.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

Dude. It's right there in front of you. Figure has a gamer-fringe dorm-beard.

You're blind.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Dude. It's right there in front of you. Figure has a gamer-fringe dorm-beard.

You're blind.

Nope.  That's the back of her hair hanging down behind her head.  Look at the 3rd panel on the top where all of her hair is behind her neck.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

12 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Nope.  That's the back of her hair hanging down behind her head.  Look at the 3rd panel on the top where all of her hair is behind her neck.

I see. Yet the plot thickens-- we are now on a Moebius strip of reality where you must first argue (and correctly, I'll give you that) that there IS a female software engineer, in order to assert that the cartoon is incorrect. How can that be, Sir? I see her with my own eyes now that you point her out!

By the way, we agree that the first figure in the first panel is female and not some bearded male. No man with an unkempt beard would gain employment interviewing stick figures.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13410]

The voting should be electronic AND a paper copy is produced and kept in a voting box.  Assign an ID to both to tie them together.   Then randomly audit the electronic votes and paper copies to ensure no discrepancies exist.     Once the vote has been accepted by state and all challenges resolved, destroy the paper copies.  

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

13 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The voting should be electronic AND a paper copy is produced and kept in a voting box.  Assign an ID to both to tie them together.   Then randomly audit the electronic votes and paper copies to ensure no discrepancies exist.     Once the vote has been accepted by state and all challenges resolved, destroy the paper copies.  

 

Yes, I said something similar.  Why can't we do this?

[RDCanecutter 26249]

Nothing will ever be simpler and more efficient than just showing up with the fiercest, most well-armed mob, and taking everything valuable.

[Rimbo 25773]

29 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yes, I said something similar.  Why can't we do this?

Because it's a stupid waste of money: If you're going to make paper the thing that you do voting with, it is far cheaper and easier to just have a punch-out or fill-in ballot. Also... have you ever dealt with computer printers? 

But anything -- any system -- that transmits your vote electronically can (and will) be hacked, and untraceably so. If you think the Russians were meddling before...

[lemonlime 5503]

18 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Because it's a stupid waste of money: If you're going to make paper the thing that you do voting with, it is far cheaper and easier to just have a punch-out or fill-in ballot. Also... have you ever dealt with computer printers? 

But anything -- any system -- that transmits your vote electronically can (and will) be hacked, and untraceably so. If you think the Russians were meddling before...

This.  We should just do Scantron.  It's paper and there's a paper trail, but results can be tabulated quickly.  No need for fancy systems and massive amounts of money paid to voting machine vendors.

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

Speaking as a professional software engineer, the third panel is 100% true.

There's actually a better explanation than "our entire field is bad at what we do," and that is: "There is literally no way to prevent any computerized voting system from having its votes altered to fit a desired outcome, and it can be done in ways that are 100% undetectable." And this problem exists at the most fundamental levels of how the systems work; no technology, encryption algorithm, or anything can prevent this from happening.

This is kind of an old issue, but it's a new comic, that expresses the problem better than anything I've seen.

That is a Randall Munroe Comic.  His stuff is great. Especially the books. This probably belongs in Nerdz.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

13 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

This.  We should just do Scantron.  It's paper and there's a paper trail, but results can be tabulated quickly.  No need for fancy systems and massive amounts of money paid to voting machine vendors.

But then you run into the morons who can't fill in a bubble.  You know what, maybe we don't deserve a democracy.  We're too fucking stupid to fill in a bubble.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Biff Tannen

[lemonlime 5503]

There is no way filling in a bubble is harder than punch cards (hanging chads anyone) or the computerized, hackable system. Hell, first graders can fill in bubbles on standardized tests. 

[elfenix 34171]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well that's special.  What is so hard about having two paper print outs for each ballot on top of the electronic record?  One copy goes into an ol-timey ballot box and one you keep and verify before leaving the booth.

literal vote buying.

Edited August 8, 2018 by elfenix

[Biff Tannen 45491]

54 minutes ago, elfenix said:

literal vote buying.

huh?

[elfenix 34171]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

huh?

if you have a receipt of how you voted, you can show that to a party willing to give you money for how you voted.  you can buy votes currently but you have to take the person voting at their word that they actually did it. 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

23 minutes ago, elfenix said:

if you have a receipt of how you voted, you can show that to a party willing to give you money for how you voted.  you can buy votes currently but you have to take the person voting at their word that they actually did it. 

So how does that affect my vote?  Are you talking about just in terms of exit polling?

[elfenix 34171]

19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So how does that affect my vote?  Are you talking about just in terms of exit polling?

you asked what's so hard about giving people a receipt of their vote.  i'm telling you that what's hard about it is it leads to literal vote buying (and/or intimidation).  someone wants to pay $10 for a vote right now, they have to take you at your word you voted.  currently, at a polling place, they don't know how you voted, or even if you voted instead of jerking off on the machine. 

if you're handed a receipt, they don't pay unless you show them the receipt. 

 

note: mail-in ballots have this problem currently. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by elfenix

[F250 28680]

Years ago, I spent a couple of years working with a group guys who ended up as senior management at Diebold. Holy shit, these guys were some unscrupulous criminals. Everyone that knew them was shocked that they were overseeing the tech behind voting machines.

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

54 minutes ago, elfenix said:

you asked what's so hard about giving people a receipt of their vote.  i'm telling you that what's hard about it is it leads to literal vote buying (and/or intimidation).  someone wants to pay $10 for a vote right now, they have to take you at your word you voted.  currently, at a polling place, they don't know how you voted, or even if you voted instead of jerking off on the machine. 

if you're handed a receipt, they don't pay unless you show them the receipt. 

 

note: mail-in ballots have this problem currently. 

Ah I see now.  That's fucked up if that really occurs.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

you asked what's so hard about giving people a receipt of their vote.  i'm telling you that what's hard about it is it leads to literal vote buying (and/or intimidation).  someone wants to pay $10 for a vote right now, they have to take you at your word you voted.  currently, at a polling place, they don't know how you voted, or even if you voted instead of jerking off on the machine. 

if you're handed a receipt, they don't pay unless you show them the receipt. 

 

note: mail-in ballots have this problem currently. 

Would be surprised if the "Want some money? Better show us a ballot photo on your phone" system isn't already standard.

[elfenix 34171]

15 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Would be surprised if the "Want some money? Better show us a ballot photo on your phone" system isn't already standard.

they told me to put my phone away when i was using it to read recommendations.  maybe that's why.

[Buzzrock 14870]

I think you should have to hand write 100 words explaining why you’re voting for someone. You can use any reasoning you like.

[GSU&UT 1798]

The majority of the people want this, only a very small number of states use a paper ballot system. I wonder why that is?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

17 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

The majority of the people want this, only a very small number of states use a paper ballot system. I wonder why that is?

The hanging chads of the 2000 election bring back bad memories

[GSU&UT 1798]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The hanging chads of the 2000 election bring back bad memories

The electronic machines were ordered under good intentions, the fact that a state like mine literally doesn't have an auditable paper trail despite all the evidence suggesting we have a very insecure system is suspicious at best.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

The majority of the people want this, only a very small number of states use a paper ballot system. I wonder why that is?

Money to be made selling fancy hackable machines to the states.

[F250 28680]

 

 

[SquishMitten 10398]

The voting should be electronic AND a paper copy is produced and kept in a voting box.  Assign an ID to both to tie them together.   Then randomly audit the electronic votes and paper copies to ensure no discrepancies exist.     Once the vote has been accepted by state and all challenges resolved, destroy the paper copies.  
 

The Travis County Clerk was on the news talking about their new machines this morning. Sounds almost exactly like what you’re describing. Paper printout of the votes you cast, you verify the printout matches your electronic submission. If it does, you put it in a ballot box which they will use in the event of a recount as well as randomly audit. If it doesn’t, there’s a magistrate on site to decertify the vote you cast and you go through the process again.

[retread 2951]

From defcon tweet

[bernorange 8348]

On 8/8/2018 at 1:30 PM, Biff Tannen said:

Yes, I said something similar.  Why can't we do this?

We can.

http://blackboxvoting.org/ballot-images/

[F250 28680]

Fucking West Virginia. Read this guy's subtweets, fucking mind blowing.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

30 minutes ago, F250 said:

Fucking West Virginia. Read this guy's subtweets, fucking mind blowing.

 

We aren't far off from a borderline red state intentionally picking a hackable system with the hope that hackers will keep them in power. WV is as good as any.  Even though its red now, it's a union state that could easily be talked into complete socialism. Maybe more so than any other state. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

I've gone over this issue in other threads, but I'll put it here too. The best fix is with the use of biometric data (iris and fingerprints) to verify the identity and lock votes in a server that can't be altered once cast. The biometric data creates a unique logarithm that can't be broken into like other system as it would require the individual voter to be present to access their own records. At the time of voting, a print out if their voting record for the present ballot and historic ballots can be produced. This would enable the individual the ability to audit their own ballot for any issues of ballot tampering and bring it to the appropriate authority if they ever found any such tampering.

This method also allows for near-real time results from around the country on any given election.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13410]

1 hour ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I've gone over this issue in other threads, but I'll put it here too. The best fix is with the use of biometric data (iris and fingerprints) to verify the identity and lock votes in a server that can't be altered once cast. The biometric data creates a unique logarithm that can't be broken into like other system as it would require the individual voter to be present to access their own records. At the time of voting, a print out if their voting record for the present ballot and historic ballots can be produced. This would enable the individual the ability to audit their own ballot for any issues of ballot tampering and bring it to the appropriate authority if they ever found any such tampering.

This method also allows for near-real time results from around the country on any given election.

Yep, technology exists to store data that can't be changed without being detected.  It's one of the core concepts of blockchain technology. And while I understand many roll their eyes at blockchain (& bitcoin), it's proven that you can't alter data once recorded.    Blockchain is nothing more than data and encryption but allows for full audits.

While voters should be allowed to audit their vote and verify it was recorded correctly, I don't think we can allow people to walk out with a paper record of their vote.   It removes the privacy of the voting booth, and encourages vote buying and intimidation.   It would also lead to many claiming their vote was hacked when in reality they had buyers remorse.  "I didn't see the paper ballot said I voted for X.  I pressed Y.  I was hacked in the voter booth."

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I've gone over this issue in other threads, but I'll put it here too. The best fix is with the use of biometric data (iris and fingerprints) to verify the identity and lock votes in a server that can't be altered once cast. The biometric data creates a unique logarithm that can't be broken into like other system as it would require the individual voter to be present to access their own records. At the time of voting, a print out if their voting record for the present ballot and historic ballots can be produced. This would enable the individual the ability to audit their own ballot for any issues of ballot tampering and bring it to the appropriate authority if they ever found any such tampering.

This method also allows for near-real time results from around the country on any given election.

I saw Dr. gates defeat biometrics in National treasure......so color me skeptical.........

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

27 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I saw Dr. gates defeat biometrics in National treasure......so color me skeptical.........

Your reference is a movie for why you can't get support this therefore it makes the argument invalid.

37 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yep, technology exists to store data that can't be changed without being detected.  It's one of the core concepts of blockchain technology. And while I understand many roll their eyes at blockchain (& bitcoin), it's proven that you can't alter data once recorded.    Blockchain is nothing more than data and encryption but allows for full audits.

While voters should be allowed to audit their vote and verify it was recorded correctly, I don't think we can allow people to walk out with a paper record of their vote.   It removes the privacy of the voting booth, and encourages vote buying and intimidation.   It would also lead to many claiming their vote was hacked when in reality they had buyers remorse.  "I didn't see the paper ballot said I voted for X.  I pressed Y.  I was hacked in the voter booth."

If a vote can't be independently verified outside of the system then it calls into question the system it comes from. The system would need to have a number of internal steps prior to the completion of the ballot prior to submission to prevent missteps such as errors in selecting the incorrect Candidate than whomever the voter intended. The wonderful thing about biometrics is that everyone has their own unique biometrics and carry them with them wherever they go. So using them as the access point to ensure the right person votes under the right record stored and is transmitted via blockchain.

To allow for the issue of deviation with "buyers remorse" doing away with first past the post and using the Alternate vote would correct that problem as the voter selects the Candidate they want to vote for in order until they either run out of candidates or they would never vote for a specific Candidate so they leave them off. If the first Candidate is eliminated, their vote falls to the second Candidate or third or however many until the vote finds a Candidate that takes the election. Here is a video that explains the alternate vote really well:

https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE

[atomheartbevo 89409]

As much as I love technology, I'm completely fine with using paper ballots and dipping peoples thumbs in that ink that takes a few days to come off. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

53 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Your reference is a movie for why you can't get support this therefore it makes the argument invalid.

If a vote can't be independently verified outside of the system then it calls into question the system it comes from. The system would need to have a number of internal steps prior to the completion of the ballot prior to submission to prevent missteps such as errors in selecting the incorrect Candidate than whomever the voter intended. The wonderful thing about biometrics is that everyone has their own unique biometrics and carry them with them wherever they go. So using them as the access point to ensure the right person votes under the right record stored and is transmitted via blockchain.

To allow for the issue of deviation with "buyers remorse" doing away with first past the post and using the Alternate vote would correct that problem as the voter selects the Candidate they want to vote for in order until they either run out of candidates or they would never vote for a specific Candidate so they leave them off. If the first Candidate is eliminated, their vote falls to the second Candidate or third or however many until the vote finds a Candidate that takes the election. Here is a video that explains the alternate vote really well:

https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE

You might wanna check your sarcasm meter. For the record I like the concept of biometrics.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

As much as I love technology, I'm completely fine with using paper ballots and dipping peoples thumbs in that ink that takes a few days to come off. 

Just use scantron ballots and unnetworked scantron machines. Have each voter put his ballot through a machine himself after voting. Have poll workers run the ballots through another machine after polls close. Check that the counts are identical. If not hand count them twice. 

Not sure why we are trying to reinvent the wheel.  Voting machines dont need to be networked or put on the internet. I guess we are looking for live counts for media purposes, but we have done fine with exit polling.

[bernorange 8348]

11 hours ago, bernorange said:

We can.

http://blackboxvoting.org/ballot-images/

I wasn't at my computer when I posted this last night.  Pretty sure no one bothered to click and read judging from the posts that followed.  I'll include a snippet now FWIW:

Quote

Ballot Images – A new way to verify that results are true

This is already available in most systems. Laws are already on the books to authorize you to do this. It costs almost nothing and enables almost everyone to authenticate computerized voting system results. All that remains is cooperation (or court-ordered coercion) of public officials to force them to honor your rights.

It is a one-two punch which makes it very difficult to tamper with results without detection – no matter who administers the system, what vendors they use, or who gets their hands on the computer code. If you do this, it won’t matter if it’s the Russians or some local good ol’ boy sticking hands into the system, because you can catch them.

There is a word we use in popular culture today: Crowd sourcing.

What this does is crowd-source the authentication of the vote, in effect letting any and all persons verify ALL the votes, and if they want, anyone can do their own full recount of any or all races. And it is virtually free.

TWO PARTS PLUS A NECESSARY LINK-UP

1.     Ballot images – Modern voting systems, and even the touch-screens, even if they are paperless, capture an individual image of each vote. Paper ballots are by far the best, because they are needed for part 2. Think of it like this: As ballots go through the scanner, it takes a photo of each and stores it as an electronic file. (Electronic voting systems self-populate a template, which isn’t as good but still somewhat helpful). These are called “ballot images” and are simply electronic files, like PDF or TIFF or JPG or PNG files. Under freedom of information law, it is your right to get copies of these electronic files. They are (or should be!) anonymous and do not identify voter.
2.     Right to examine actual ballots – After downloading the whole set of ballot images — in essence, your own copy of every ballot — you still need the ability to verify that these electronic images have not been changed. Here’s how that works: A linkage between ballot and ballot image should exist, in the form of a serial number. Not a fancy QR code which can contain hidden identifiers leading back to the voter ID of who cast the ballot. Just a simple unique number, like 10548626. This number appears on both ballot and ballot image. If you want to check whether ballot images are real, you simply examine the actual ballots using your Freedom of Information rights, comparing to make sure the image matches the original.

Ballot images are available right now in most voting machines. ...

There is more detail at the link already provided.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

44 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Just use scantron ballots and unnetworked scantron machines. Have each voter put his ballot through a machine himself after voting. Have poll workers run the ballots through another machine after polls close. Check that the counts are identical. If not hand count them twice. 

Not sure why we are trying to reinvent the wheel.  Voting machines dont need to be networked or put on the internet. I guess we are looking for live counts for media purposes, but we have done fine with exit polling.

This is the most sane and logical response I have seen yet.  1980s technology, FTW.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13410]

1 hour ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Your reference is a movie for why you can't get support this therefore it makes the argument invalid.

If a vote can't be independently verified outside of the system then it calls into question the system it comes from. The system would need to have a number of internal steps prior to the completion of the ballot prior to submission to prevent missteps such as errors in selecting the incorrect Candidate than whomever the voter intended. The wonderful thing about biometrics is that everyone has their own unique biometrics and carry them with them wherever they go. So using them as the access point to ensure the right person votes under the right record stored and is transmitted via blockchain.

To allow for the issue of deviation with "buyers remorse" doing away with first past the post and using the Alternate vote would correct that problem as the voter selects the Candidate they want to vote for in order until they either run out of candidates or they would never vote for a specific Candidate so they leave them off. If the first Candidate is eliminated, their vote falls to the second Candidate or third or however many until the vote finds a Candidate that takes the election. Here is a video that explains the alternate vote really well:

https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE

The only method of a full independently verified system is to makes all votes public.  And I don't even remotely see that occurring.    At some point you have to trust the system to work.  

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Just use scantron ballots and unnetworked scantron machines. Have each voter put his ballot through a machine himself after voting. Have poll workers run the ballots through another machine after polls close. Check that the counts are identical. If not hand count them twice. 

Not sure why we are trying to reinvent the wheel.  Voting machines dont need to be networked or put on the internet. I guess we are looking for live counts for media purposes, but we have done fine with exit polling.

I think this is what we basically mean when we say paper ballots. They will be scanned very quickly so things don't take forever, but you can freaking hand-recount them if you need to.

[GSU&UT 1798]

I work in Software but I'm definitely not an expert in security and networking, so someone get on to me if my annoyance is misplace. I am getting annoyed at seeing so many tweets and reports at how easy it is to get admin access to these machines if you are there physically. I think the vast majority of focus needs to be placed on remote access to all these systems, I'm not as concerned about thousands of precincts having people show up and start tampering with the machines in front of everyone.

[GSU&UT 1798]

29 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I work in Software but I'm definitely not an expert in security and networking, so someone get on to me if my annoyance is misplace. I am getting annoyed at seeing so many tweets and reports at how easy it is to get admin access to these machines if you are there physically. I think the vast majority of focus needs to be placed on remote access to all these systems, I'm not as concerned about thousands of precincts having people show up and start tampering with the machines in front of everyone.

Someone pointed on to me on another board that a lot of places have curtains around them so it'd be much easier there to screw with them. I've never seen curtains here, we just have dividers, but it was a simple point I never bothered to consider. 🤦‍♂️