Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Diebold Voting Systems Grossly Insecure

michael posted about 11 years ago | from the vote-early-vote-often dept.

United States 534

Several well-known security researchers have examined the code for Diebold's voting machines (which we last mentioned two weeks ago) and produced an extensive report (pdf). The NYT has a story on the report, which cuts to the bone: 'Our analysis shows that this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. We highlight several issues including unauthorized privilege escalation, incorrect use of cryptography, vulnerabilities to network threats, and poor software development processes. For example, common voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal.'

cancel ×

534 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

you want gross? HOW ABOUT A SLASHDOT FUCKFEST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523089)

FP nygg0rz

I'll just wait for the link (-1, Offtopic)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 11 years ago | (#6523102)

To the non-reg NYT page, thanks.

Ah-ha! (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | about 11 years ago | (#6523109)


voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal.

Were they testing these in Florida a few years ago?

your latest fan is on the right track (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523146)

you really should fuck fucking off.

Re:Ah-ha! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523200)

Were they testing these in Florida a few years ago?

No, they were using a ballot designed by the Democratic Party, home of such paragons of fair voting as Richard Daley Sr., Tammany Hall, and "Landslide" Lyndon Johnson.

Re:Ah-ha! (2, Funny)

Mr Teddy Bear (540142) | about 11 years ago | (#6523214)

YAY! Now I can finally get Mickey Mouse to take a state!

Or another one: Maybe with this installed Perot could have had a chance! :-P

Re:Ah-ha! (5, Funny)

Glonoinha (587375) | about 11 years ago | (#6523222)

Dammit, that's a bug.

Unlimited voting was supposed to be restricted to the elite voters that have insider privileges.

Expect a patch.

Re:Ah-ha! (5, Insightful)

perdelucena (455667) | about 11 years ago | (#6523364)

DEAN for President in 2004 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523370)

Please support Vermont Governor Dean as he is the only politician to exploit the internet for unsavory fundraising and bogus poll results.

In addition:
He supports the Saddam Hussein regime and wants to bring the American coward/murderers home for trial ASAP

Wants to reward failure and penalize success in the USA bu usurious taxes on the middle class. Take from the hard working successful people and give to the lazy bums on welfare.

Supports every freakish lifestyle know to humans--Homos, Trannys Dog Sex Foot fetish and numerous other disgusting groups.

Please support this idiot so President Bush can carry all 50 states rather than a mere 49 in the 2004 election.

Thank You! from Howard Dean for President
paid for by the reelect Bush campaign committee)

Don't you realize that ... (3, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | about 11 years ago | (#6523380)

if you continue to question the legitimacy of the 2000 elections, the terrorists win? He was clearly selected.

Now turn off your computer, sit there calmly and wait for the soldiers to cart you off as the enemy combatant that you obviously are.

Re:Don't you realize that ... (-1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523411)

How is this uninformed garbage modded up?

The Supreme court said if you recount ONE COUNTY you must recount ALL OF THEM.

Also, in 5 recounts since 2000 elections BUSH WON THEM ALL.

GET OVER IT.

here we go again (2, Insightful)

NGTV13 (240114) | about 11 years ago | (#6523113)

So, can't someone who knows what they're doing write some of these things? This is exactly why jon q public is afraid of things becoming 'technology rich'

Re:here we go again (0)

NGTV13 (240114) | about 11 years ago | (#6523220)

and to that end, as we say here in chicago, vote early, vote often...

So it's only a matter of time (4, Funny)

Hayzeus (596826) | about 11 years ago | (#6523115)

till I ascend to the Governorship of Louisiana. Start reaching into your pockets, now folks -- Big Daddy's open for Bidness!

That would require that the polling places ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523406)

have that new-fangled invention, electricity.

Since that won't be happening for few years yet, I'll still be Governer!

*sigh* (5, Funny)

Ummagumma (137757) | about 11 years ago | (#6523117)

You would think, with all the qualified unemployed software engineers out there, they could at least hire a few...

Re:*sigh* (2, Interesting)

Kierthos (225954) | about 11 years ago | (#6523223)

Hell, with a couple of the unqualified ones, they might have a better system....

Although, truth be said, I'd love to see a system where they allow unlimited voting, but only a microscopic percentage of the voting public knows about it. You know, the wrong people. The kind who would "write-in" Johnny Depp as governor....

Kierthos

Re:*sigh* (2, Funny)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | about 11 years ago | (#6523263)

That would make our election system a lot like Slashdot. Especially where trolling is concerned. No matter. That's what Scalia was in the 2000 elections anyway. ;P

Re:*sigh* (0, Flamebait)

Suidae (162977) | about 11 years ago | (#6523313)

Do you mean to say that you think that all of the flaws were mistakes?

I fully expect that some of them were intended as 'features' that would only be available to a select few.

If the devices aren't fully open, don't trust them.
If the devices are fully open, don't trust them.

Re:*sigh* (1)

ls-lta (681694) | about 11 years ago | (#6523333)

We've got our futures to think about. This programming gig is only going to last so long, my future? Politics!

Flaws still unfixed after ***5 Years*** (5, Insightful)

kryzx (178628) | about 11 years ago | (#6523119)

Here the bit from the article that I find most interesting. To have security flaws is one thing. To not fix them even after you know about them is another.

'But Douglas W. Jones, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa, said he was shocked to discover flaws cited in Mr. Rubin's paper that he had mentioned to the system's developers about five years ago as a state elections official.

'"To find that such flaws have not been corrected in half a decade is awful," Professor Jones said.'

Re:Flaws still unfixed after ***5 Years*** (2, Insightful)

realdpk (116490) | about 11 years ago | (#6523194)

Let this be a lesson to all those that say full disclosure for security issues is wrong and/or dangerous. :)

Re:Flaws still unfixed after ***5 Years*** (2, Funny)

TopShelf (92521) | about 11 years ago | (#6523324)

Flaws? I thought they were features...

Your time scale is too short. (1)

sulli (195030) | about 11 years ago | (#6523368)

From NYT:

"We're constantly improving it so the technology we have 10 years from now will be better than what we have today," [Diebold guy] Mr. Richardson said. "We're always open to anything that can improve our systems."

Like making them non-useless?

Re:Flaws still unfixed after ***5 Years*** (1)

Laur (673497) | about 11 years ago | (#6523396)

"We're constantly improving it so the technology we have 10 years from now will be better than what we have today," Mr. Richardson said. "We're always open to anything that can improve our systems."

See, they still have 5 more years to fix the bugs! Plenty of time, right?

Does it really matter? (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | about 11 years ago | (#6523122)

Security flaws or rigged voting procedures...either way someone will be able to alter the election.

Re:Does it really matter? (1, Insightful)

isotope23 (210590) | about 11 years ago | (#6523166)

and if that doesn't work, there is always a "non-precedent" setting ruling by the Supreme Court..... lol

and no I'm not a Dem

Re:Does it really matter? (0, Troll)

augros (513862) | about 11 years ago | (#6523316)

but only dems say "lol" on slashdot.

Re:Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523402)

Yeah, cause conservatives don't know what the acronym LOL stands for... :-)

Re:Does it really matter? (1)

eyeye (653962) | about 11 years ago | (#6523419)

But theres nothing easier than doing

UPDATE results SET candidate1votes = candidate2votes +1000;

Well...DUH!!! (1, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | about 11 years ago | (#6523123)

Who in his right mind would trust a closed-source voting system whose binary executable image is not verifyable by CRC???

sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523207)

I don't know, maybe a person who would use CRCs to verify anything in a hostile environment?

Re:Well...DUH!!! (2, Informative)

Asprin (545477) | about 11 years ago | (#6523289)


Why would you trust [acm.org] the CRC?

google (4, Informative)

gokubi (413425) | about 11 years ago | (#6523126)

story [nytimes.com]

In other news... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523132)

See [theeventmagazine.com] Kobe Bryant's accuser!

Re:In other news... (0, Offtopic)

MImeKillEr (445828) | about 11 years ago | (#6523158)

That's just wrong.

Well what did you expect??? (0, Flamebait)

advocate_one (662832) | about 11 years ago | (#6523133)

they run on Microsoft operating Systems...

Links/mirrors (0, Redundant)

mjmalone (677326) | about 11 years ago | (#6523140)

pdf in case of slashdotting [scrollios.com]

google link [nytimes.com]

Re:Links/mirrors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523208)

karma whore!!!!!!!!

Re:Links/mirrors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523254)

actually i don't really care about karma... i just wanted to see how many people would click on my mirror and see how my server would take it :/ can't i have a little fun today?

Well yeah! (5, Funny)

cspenn (689387) | about 11 years ago | (#6523141)

You can't expect a secure voting machine! I mean, how else can [insert current party in power] rig the next election unless the machines are grossly insecure?

What, you were expecting fairness?

Re:Well yeah! (4, Insightful)

dasmegabyte (267018) | about 11 years ago | (#6523483)

how else can [insert current party in power] rig the next election

Well, rigging it in a state in which your brother is governor with a supreme court your daddy appointed should be pretty easy...

that's not good (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523145)

says it all

Aha! (4, Funny)

TerryAtWork (598364) | about 11 years ago | (#6523151)

That explains why the L337 P4rt'/ swept the last elections....

Great (0, Flamebait)

iocat (572367) | about 11 years ago | (#6523168)

Not only does my district use there, but I vote in an unpopular way for where I live (Barbara Lee usually gets elected to speak for me, sadly enough). I guess I have to trust to the stupidity of the ballot workers to ensure that I am not disenfranchised in the future.

That said, hopefully publicizing the faults will lead to some upgrades to the security of the system.

interesting... (0, Troll)

Dorothy 86 (677356) | about 11 years ago | (#6523174)

I didn't know Microsoft made voting machine software!

You didn't read it here first (5, Insightful)

ansak (80421) | about 11 years ago | (#6523175)

Anyone who's even briefly perused comp.risks [comp.risks] , even before the post-US-Election-2000 debacle, wouldn't be the least bit surprised by these conclusions.

Scottie's Law strikes again (from Star Trek III): "The more they back up the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drains." The simpler the voting system (the less mechanical, electronic, electro-mechanical etc. etc.) is the less open it is to fraud (both officially and unofficially perpetrated) or error (both innocent and culpable).

One more reason I'm glad to live in Canada...

Re:You didn't read it here first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523367)

Pfth! Did "Scottie" happen to share this wisdom while flying in a friggin spaceship?

Trust me, for every reason you are glad to live in America Jr...err...Canada, there are at least 5 reasons I'm glad you do too.

GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS ADMINISTRATION: EAT A DICK (-1, Flamebait)

Teh Bungi (689672) | about 11 years ago | (#6523176)

Those fuckers are going to try and use the Diebold machines to win future elections. They did it in Florida. Their next target: The USA.

Re:GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS ADMINISTRATION: EAT A DI (-1, Offtopic)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | about 11 years ago | (#6523450)

The parent makes an astute observation and I like the subject line. Yet another preson to add to my friend's list.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA ... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523181)

oh never mind

Feature? (2, Funny)

fraudrogic (562826) | about 11 years ago | (#6523184)

For example, common voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal

Diebold Salesman: "This is a feature, an unintentional extra for your customers!"

Voting problems (2, Insightful)

Casisiempre (691255) | about 11 years ago | (#6523186)

There are always voting problems. You can fairly easily falsify paper ballots too with $100 worth of equipment. It is even easier in those areas (like Oregon) where all voting is done through the mail. Although there is no excuse to allow known bugs to stick around, there most likely will always be bugs/flaws in whatever method you use for voting.

CBN2004 (4, Funny)

blowhole (155935) | about 11 years ago | (#6523190)

Cowboyneal for office!

Reporter: "Mr. Neal, under what platform are you running?"
CBN: "Redhat Linux 9"
Reporter: "..."

Re:CBN2004 (1)

qtp (461286) | about 11 years ago | (#6523363)

Although the RedHat platform is the prefered policy for the Large corporations, the left leaning lobby seems to support the Debian ideology.

Other inerest groups, including the Anarchists and the Willingly Unemployed Caucus, have called for "More Slack", but this reporter has been unable to determine any consistant policy in the Slackware platform.

In other news...

This is a surprise? (4, Insightful)

SoCalChris (573049) | about 11 years ago | (#6523191)

Any time there is a system, someone will be able to break or hack it. Especially a closed system that isn't open to scrutiny.

At least with the current voting system, while you're there you see everyone being handed 1 ballot, and turning in just 1 ballot. You see the ballot go in the sealed box. There's no secret about what your vote is doing, and no confusion about whether the vote was cast or not, or if anyone is turning in multiple ballots.

Open Source? (5, Interesting)

chundo (587998) | about 11 years ago | (#6523192)

Time to start a viable open-source voting-machine project. These guys [free-project.org] started something promising, but it looks like development has ceased. Anybody know of a decent, active open-source electronic voting system?

-j

Re:Open Source? (1)

lfourrier (209630) | about 11 years ago | (#6523435)

Time to start to understand that no voting-machine project, open-source or not, is viable.
The requirements, differents from country to country and from state to state, are so complex (observable, anonymous, comprehensible and trustable by someone with an IQ of 70, trustable even if you trust no one, but, at the same time preventing you to prove to anybody how you voted ) that I still have to see a proposal better that the french system with plexiglass clear voting boxes, and open to every voter manual counting. And if you want, you can pass the whole day at the poll station to check everything.
Even if there was an open source solution, the many technics we can imagine to have a running program different from the published one are so numerous. And for what gain ? To be able to have final result at 8 PM, instead of 4AM the next day ?

Re:Open Source? (1)

Suidae (162977) | about 11 years ago | (#6523488)

It really ought to be pretty darn simple. I'm talking no more than a few weeks of full-time development by experianced engineeres.

Hardware-wise it should support a write-once type memory chip for recording votes. I don't mean flash RAM that a good hacker could alter, I mean fuse memory that cannot be altered (without extraordinary equipment and knowledge) once written.

It should also have to support printing a paper ballot that is viewed by the voter. The voter would not review his choices on screen, he would be required to read the paper ballot to verify the vote, then match a random glyph on the paper to one on the screen to approve the vote (he has to look at the paper to get the glyph, so he's more likely to actually review his vote).

Initial counts would come from the memory chip, recounts would be done off of the paper ballots (which would be formated such that the same encoding could be read by machine or human).

Everything should be traceable back to the specific voting machine from which it came (heck, you could even have the machine use a combination of GPS and accelerometers to record the coordinates and time when the vote was cast).

Given that an overly complicated system would probably actually be a detriment, i wouldn't be suprised at all to see some opensource versions.

Yay! (4, Funny)

JanusFury (452699) | about 11 years ago | (#6523193)

It says in the article that this company makes ATMs. I think I'm going to go get some free money.

Not suprised (2, Interesting)

Plug1 (588101) | about 11 years ago | (#6523211)

Considering the fiasco that was the Presidential election can anyone say that they are suprised? This company will make alot of money serving the special interests of some political party. By making it insecure they insure that politicians will again be able to steal the vote from the people, with all the real evidence of this being reported in the British press. Your votes mean nothing even moreso now.

Re:Not suprised (1)

Thoguth (203384) | about 11 years ago | (#6523430)

Since when is the New York Times part of the British press?

Re:Not suprised (1)

Rethcir (680121) | about 11 years ago | (#6523486)

Good thing your queen was so fairly elected! Go suck a crumpet.

I'm sure GW (0, Flamebait)

asv108 (141455) | about 11 years ago | (#6523218)

Will encourage all States to do a trial run of these machines for the 2004 election.

Re:I'm sure GW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523449)

Maybe, but voting is NOT a federal responsibility, it's a state one.

Here's an article (5, Interesting)

Tarindel (107177) | about 11 years ago | (#6523228)

that I ran across a few weeks ago: http://www.cronus.com/electionfraud [cronus.com]

It IS interesting to note how many dollars have flowed between Diebold and the Republican party...

Re:Here's an article (-1, Troll)

revscat (35618) | about 11 years ago | (#6523424)

Republicans would no more rig an election than they would, I dunno, commit larceny [go.com] .

Republicans don't do anything wrong, ever. Especially if it has political traction.

If they do do something wrong, well then, the Democrats did it first, which makes it excusable. The Republicans just did it to ensure their political survival, see. Or it's because the ends justifies the means. Abortion is murder, Jesus is coming, and liberals are commie terrorists. Anything is justifiable if you're purpose is higher.

Wow... (5, Interesting)

mhayenga (684912) | about 11 years ago | (#6523233)

Their security there sounds a lot like their security here at UT...

For example, common voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal

The vending machines here around campus (using a diebold system) were used by almost 600 students to get "free" food... In an audit they detected it... Full text here [dailytexanonline.com]

Old Saying (4, Insightful)

DogIsMyCoprocessor (642655) | about 11 years ago | (#6523238)

Never ascribe to malice anything that can be explained by stupidity.

Some people, in comments widely circulated on the Internet, contend that the company's software has been designed to allow voter fraud. Mr. Rubin called such assertions "ludicrous" and said the software's flaws showed the hallmarks of poor design, not subterfuge.

Where are the experts? (1)

Nomd (599624) | about 11 years ago | (#6523241)

So where is the good system that follows good software development processes and implements cryptography correctly? Certainly such a system is worth the experts in the field investing in it.

It sounds like we assigned the implementation of America's voting system to the members of the short bus.

The wonders of technology (0, Troll)

Muhammed Absol (670439) | about 11 years ago | (#6523245)

It's amazing how quickly we went from having to make entire ballot trucks disapear last election to merely having the same voter from the bush family vote several times. 2004: election year of the vote box spammers!

This isn't so bad, really. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523247)

I mean, come November 2004 we can get a good candidate into the Whitehouse.

Vote Spider-Man 2004

Look at the bright side (3, Funny)

Gzip Christ (683175) | about 11 years ago | (#6523248)

In practical terms, this means that elections will go from being controlled by corporations to being controlled by script kiddies. Cool! CowboyNeal for president in 2004!

Beautiful. (-1, Troll)

Asprin (545477) | about 11 years ago | (#6523249)


Beautiful. Glorious and beautiful.

Keep up the good work, Diebold. You are making my case for me.

Poor choice of words (5, Funny)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | about 11 years ago | (#6523262)

"This is an iceberg that needs to be hacked at a good bit," Mr. Neumann said, "so this is a step forward."
Isn't that a rather poor choice of words when talking about program code? And is hacking an iceberg permissible under the DMCA?

Voting using tokens? (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | about 11 years ago | (#6523270)

I dont understand why they couldnt have some staffers sitting at a desk for people when they show up. The staffers have a box of cards (rfid tags ?) that have each person in their districts social security number. Person goes to the booth, scans their tag which says to the system, ok, 111-22-3333 is voting. The system should allow them to pick a candidate (or candidates) and then once they are done, invalidate their social number. To prevent against people from using fake socials, the system should be preprogrammed with its districts voters social numbers. Thoughts?

Re:Voting using tokens? (1)

tdemark (512406) | about 11 years ago | (#6523434)

You then have the possibility that votes may not be anonymous.

Currently, unless voting by mail, the majority of votes cannot physically be linked to an individual voter.

- Tony

Re:Voting using tokens? (1)

elmegil (12001) | about 11 years ago | (#6523453)

People are going to be suspicious that this doesn't preserve their anonymity voting.

Also read... (2, Informative)

DrCreep (564670) | about 11 years ago | (#6523284)

Found this a while back on

www.whatreallyhappened.com

http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.ht ml

On purpose? (2, Interesting)

DrWho520 (655973) | about 11 years ago | (#6523285)

How can such grossly negligent design be produced by someone who wanted such a system to succeed. I do not know why someone would not want this type of system, I only proposed the possibility.

Are Diebold ATMs more secure? (5, Informative)

holt_rpi (454352) | about 11 years ago | (#6523287)

From the NYT Article:
The systems, in which voters are given computer-chip-bearing smart cards to operate the machines, could be tricked by anyone with $100 worth of computer equipment, said Adam Stubblefield, a co-author of the paper.


"With what we found, practically anyone in the country -- from a teenager on up -- could produce these smart cards that could allow someone to vote as many times as they like," Mr. Stubblefield said.
It would be interesting to see how worried Diebold is about fraudulent misrepresentation in its voting machines as opposed to its ATMs. I wonder aloud how vigilant they are (read: how much money they spend in a year) in each area.

Just from the above quote, this doesn't sound like the kind of security that any bank would tolerate. Is this a case of lawmakers awarding contracts under duress after being wowed by cool "tecknoligee" in order to avoid being the next "Florida 2000," or is Diebold simply a victim of its own success for having potentially higher standards for commerce than voting?

[sarcasm]
It almost seems like the authentication process to make this work would need something as stringent as, say, a National ID card [privacy.org] ...

Ooh, and we could use a Poll tax [wikipedia.org] to pay for the equipment!
[/sarcasm]

Re:Are Diebold ATMs more secure? (1)

MImeKillEr (445828) | about 11 years ago | (#6523376)

"With what we found, practically anyone in the country -- from a teenager on up -- could produce these smart cards that could allow someone to vote as many times as they like," Mr. Stubblefield said

Ahh, yes. But if DirecTV has their way, posessing equipment to program SmartCards will be illegal [slashdot.org] .

Our time is upon us (1, Interesting)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | about 11 years ago | (#6523290)

Finally, the hackers can get someone they like into office. It might even mean the end of the two party system, when mysteriously 300 million (out of 210m) vote for a third party ;o)

Howard Dean For President (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523302)

Please support Governor Dean as he is the first politician to exploit the internet for unsavory fundraising and bogus poll results.

In addition:
He supports the Saddam Hussein regime and wants to bring the American murderers home ASAP

Wants to reward failure and penalize success in the USA bu usurious taxes on the middle class

Supports every freakish lifestyle know to humans--Homos, Trannys Dog Sex fetish and too many other disgusting acts to mention

Please support this lunatic fringe candidate so President Bush can carry all 50 states and not a mere 49.

Thankd You! from the Howard Dean for President Committee (paid by the reelect Bush campaign committee)

Finally. (-1, Flamebait)

Wakko Warner (324) | about 11 years ago | (#6523307)

Now I know how Bush won.

Well, that and lawyers.

- A.P.

Smart cards again, huh? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 11 years ago | (#6523321)

I guess the FBI and NSA will be tripping over each other to get DirectTV's list [slashdot.org] of people who've bought card programmers. Last week you were just a potential thief. This week, you're a potential anarcho-terrorist.

Steal Elections Remotely (1)

foo_48120 (156977) | about 11 years ago | (#6523328)

The only purpose to use completely electronic voting whether by voting machine or web services, is to make it easier to steal elections without the messy paper trail of paper ballots or the need to double punch those unwanted Republican ballots.

Of course there is no security. The idea is to know ahead of time at the central computers how many votes are needed so they can be added in quietly with smoothed data and not the mass stuffed ballot boxes of so many past stolen elections.

David

Wait- (-1, Redundant)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | about 11 years ago | (#6523334)

These things run a form of Windows yes?

So why is anyone surprised then?

OMG! (-1, Flamebait)

tevenson (625386) | about 11 years ago | (#6523344)

It wasn't the old jews faults, it was HACKERS. Evil Republican HACKERS!

Diebold got the early and often part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6523350)

If they can just add a feature so the dead can vote, they can use it in Chicago.

More Importantly (1)

deadlinegrunt (520160) | about 11 years ago | (#6523353)

Can it handle malicious MIDI's?

Anyway, what's the big deal? Once an elected politician gets in office he gets a r00t kit by lobbyist. What's the rub here???

FidoNet handled this (3, Interesting)

TerryAtWork (598364) | about 11 years ago | (#6523374)

In FidoNet elections you sent in your vote with a one-time password.

The election results were sent to all voters with a list of all the passwords who voted for each candidate. You checked to make sure yours was in the right category.

This is still hackable, though, simply by custom generating for each voter a message with their vote in the correct category, but enough other passwords in the cheating candidate to make sure they win.

Whats the way to handle this properly in a world of PKI and the web?

Unforgivable (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 11 years ago | (#6523377)

Elections are at basis of democracy it is essential that elections are done properly and fairly or you quickly end up with nothing but a facade, that this has occured it frankly terrifying considering the electoral process may of already been subverted in any number of countries using these systems without anybody being the wiser. If it turns out that they were willfully negligent in designing the system or even worse knew about and ignored the flaws for 5 years they should be charged with treason by every country they've sold to and if they aren't dealt with very harshly I will be rightfully suspicious...

The one problem they mention... (1)

webster (22696) | about 11 years ago | (#6523382)

If the voting terminal was able to ensure that each voter only voted once, then there would be even less of a secret ballot than there is now. While such assurances could be built without compromising voter annonymity, it almost certainly would not be. If you don't think ballot secrecy is important, just consider the time when Ann Coulter is president. Voting against her agenda would be treason.

Better to handle the multiple voting issue outside the machine.

Wow... (1)

trainsnpep (608418) | about 11 years ago | (#6523408)

Considering the stories we've had in the past few weeks, this article can be summed up in three words: Sounds [slashdot.org] Like [slashdot.org] Microsoft [slashdot.org] ...

But on a more serious note, how did Diebold get the contract in the first place? How can we be sure now that when they do fix the problems mentioned in the report they don't introduce more. Our election system is backwards enough. Do we really need to give more chances for crooked results?

Electronic voting a solution to a non-problem (1)

So Called Expert (670571) | about 11 years ago | (#6523413)

Paper ballots are receipts as well as ballots. Electronic voting needs to either provide third-party accountability or stay in the lab. Period. Luckily, nobody has ever tried to tamper with voting results

Solution? (2, Funny)

Aluvus (691449) | about 11 years ago | (#6523428)

If the system is insecure, why not have someone boost its ego?

Chads == Pointers ?? (2, Funny)

SkiddyRowe (692144) | about 11 years ago | (#6523463)

If recounts came about due to a close race, would they count dangling pointers?

Does that mean... (1)

packethead (322873) | about 11 years ago | (#6523470)

For example, common voters, without any insider privileges, can cast unlimited votes without being detected by any mechanisms within the voting terminal. ...we can all cast our votes for Linus.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>