|
I'm a developer for E-Counting applications. Not E-Voting, mind you. The difference is that we are counting the paper using scanners (of course it needs to be sighted after unpacking in order to spot errors the scanner can't handle it self, but those are edge cases). Long story short, I believe in E-Counting (saves the govt. a ton of money to burn somewhere else) but not in E-Voting (obvious security reasons, but also for reasons that nobody can tell whether my vote is anonymous or not - Apart from the system manufacturer, if they're really telling the truth).
|
|
|
|
|
As a programmer, voting machines are simple machines and should/could be easily protected.
As a citizen, I don't care about voting machine, I tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to voting; pen/pencil, paper, box.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
When I figure out how to tamper with E-voting, I certainly will not reveal that here.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
There are more ways to fraud a paper ballot than an electronic one. If the e-voting is properly audited, then the chance of undetected fraud is much lower than even the best manual system.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
|
No that doesn't show anything of the sort. I do not pretend to know everything about GEMS, but if the only recording of a vote is the database record I would be very surprised. I go back to my first point, auditing. In theory they could change the vote enough to give whoever they wanted enough support BUT. And this is a big BUT. BUT will it tally with the raw data?
A person goes and casts his vote. An audit point would be collected of a vote for X at that machine at that time. The votes would then be tallied, surely not once as that is asking for fraud, but several times. For the fraud to work, you would need to change the VOTE and all it's records. Not the TALLY.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
I think I heard that a couple elections ago, here in Ohio they found a machine that changed the votes between cast and record. I do not know if the machine was actually used or just found.
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually interviewed with a company that makes those machines. And having met the people programming some of those machines, I do not have any real faith in them. The "lead developer" didn't know what Parse and TryParse functions do. And the other devs weren't much better.
Speed of sound - 1100 ft/sec
Speed of light - 186,000 mi/sec
Speed of stupid - instantaneous.
|
|
|
|
|
These are the best voting devices. They are so good like you wouldn't believe it. So good. They are the best and the greatest devices you will ever know. Believe me, bigly.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I don't think we are quite ready for an electronic voting system. I personally think we should revisit the idea in another 4-8 years.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
I think every voter should be made to cut his hand with his hunting knife, and press his bleeding palm on a rock to indicate his preference.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I think every voter should be made to cut his hand with his hunting knife, and press his bleeding palm on a rock to indicate his preference.
I know you are joking... but using DNA signing is a perfectly valid biometric method for user identification/verification.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't joking...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
yeah... but retrofitting that to a rock would be tough.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a better solution.
Line up the candidates, and walk the voters past them. Each voter indicates his preference by cutting the candidate of his choice with a knife. The candidate with the most cuts takes office.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
When the outcome may be worth billions to someone (company, country,...), there's no way enough money would be spent to architect and implement a 'hackproof' system.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Aliens and cosmic rays worry me the most, followed by demons, and sixteen-year-olds with pimples in eastern Europe.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
There are no aliens, you're already foiling cosmic rays with your tinfoil hat, and demons are the good guys (it's God and his angels who make the innocent suffer).
But I'll agree that pimply-faced youths, in whatever country, are the biggest involuntary-poop inciters of the age.
Ter'r'rists? Pfft! Spotty "because I can!"* and "I hate grown-ups!" teenagers are the greatest risk to society as we know it.
* Nine times out of eleven, it's "Because I can download scripts!"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It defeats the object of voting, because you know damned well that there will be all manner of hacking and manipulation going on.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
make a blockchain voting system
do or do not, there is no try
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: What is your opinion of the security of voting online or with an electronic voting device with regards to hacking and/or manipulating the results?
In a voting booth you are anonymous, on a PC you can have an overpowering partner standing over you forcing you to vote in a way you don't like. 
|
|
|
|
|
class chad
{
public bool hanging { get; set; }
}
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
How is this different from mail-in voting. With mail-in voting, you can have an overpowering partner standing over you forcing you to vote in a way you don't like.
However, with online voting, using video for authenticaion, such as facial recognition and/or retina scanner, you could also require that the voter is alone in a room and require a quick panorama or the room to prove no one is there coerce you. Sure, one could "hack" the panorama but that is a lot harder compared to the options you have for protecting mail-in voting.
|
|
|
|
|
Vote for Pogo; electronic or paper becomes a non-issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Security gets better, but the attack surface gets bigger.
With voting on paper, your paper can be swapped out easily by unscrupulous vote counters.
With voting on machines, the software could be tampered with, even post compile.
I am for online voting if it requires multi-factor authentication, including facial recognition or retina scan, State Id (such as driver's license), social security number, etc.
The misconception of online voting is that everyone has to do online. No. To start out, all the normal voting processes, such as paper or voting booths, still exists. However, to register online, you have to go to the DMV with your two forms of Id and register to vote, get facial recognition scanned, or retina scan or something etc.
So anyone with a phone/pc with a camera, and a willingness to share their face or retina with the system can vote easily online. They log in. The camera scans both sides of the drivers license. The facial recognition or retinal scanner verifies who they are. Yes, retina scanner might be better cause if your looks have drastically changed (weight loss, beard, whatever) it might not work.
But secure? It is pretty difficult to mimic both a valid drivers license, and facial or retina scan. Sure any one person could do it, but to do it in mass enough to affect an election is not likely. While not 100% secure, I would argue it is more secure than a pencil and a paper or a disconnected machine that could be tampered with.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
