Princeton Scientists Create Vote-Stealing Program for Diebold

[DLR'sCock]

Click link to go to video page (http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm)






Princeton Scientists Create Vote-Stealing Program for Diebold AccuVote-TS



A paper (and accompanying video) published by a group of Princeton computer scientists said that they created demonstration vote-stealing software that can be installed within a minute on a common electronic voting machine. The software can fraudulently change vote counts without being detected.

[Big Train]

The proof I have been waiting to see Ford, all I ever asked for.

Let the investigations begin..

[Nickdfresh]

It's a virus that can easily, unknowingly, spread by poll workers from one machine.

This shit needs to be addressed!

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
The proof I have been waiting to see Ford, all I ever asked for.

Let the investigations begin..

What are you talking about? I already showed you this video of Howard Dean reprogramming a DIEBOLD database on live TV.......

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FhMUtzOxjJY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FhMUtzOxjJY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I also posted the results of a study done somewhere in Finland, I believe, and you admitted that it was a solid case of the machines' vulnerabilities.

I salute the Princeton team in any case. The more evidence of this fraud that is out there, the better. There IS an important election coming up, after all.

Which reminds me, I gotta find my primary ballot.......

[Big Train]

There are enough sources now for me to feel comfortable with it.

Howie Dean doing anything is hard for me to believe. As is just a lone study.

I believe there is enough now to proceed.

[knuckleboner]

remember, though, there is NO guarantee that paper ballots are properly counted.

no voting system is 100% above reproach, unless we conduct the election completely out in the open. (of course, THAT has the potential for intimidation voting, the whole reason we went to the secret ballot system.)

in the end, i'm all for making sure that ANY voting system is more secured. but i'm not willing to throw the entire system out simply because it's possible to commit fraud using it. if there's serious concerns, then find a better way to monitor/sample the machines.

[Seshmeister]

From my knowledge and what I've read it is not even close to being secure. That's not to say that there have been abuses, I don't know, but I do know it is utterly fucking mental crazy to pay millions for a voting system based on MS Access.

You don't need to be from Princeton to break into an Access database.

[FORD]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
remember, though, there is NO guarantee that paper ballots are properly counted.

Paper ballots can be re-counted if neccessary. Or usually mandated by law in most states if the results are within a 1% margin of victory.


in the end, i'm all for making sure that ANY voting system is more secured. but i'm not willing to throw the entire system out simply because it's possible to commit fraud using it. if there's serious concerns, then find a better way to monitor/sample the machines.

But what if the machines were designed to be easily manipulated in the first place?

DIEBOLD also makes cash machines. Every transaction made at a DIEBOLD cash machine produces a paper record. So they obviously knew how to incorporate that into their voting machines, but never attempted to do so.

I'd favor the optical scan machines over the touch screens if forced to choose. Both use the same not exactly secure central MS Access based tabulator, but at least the optical scan ballot is a physical piece of paper which can be counted if neccessary.

There is no way to verify a touch screen vote. And they should not be used in elections until there is.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
Paper ballots can be re-counted if neccessary. Or usually mandated by law in most states if the results are within a 1% margin of victory.


Manual recounting does not solve the problem identified by kb. All counting systems are inherently flawed. One can argue (persuasively, in my opinion) that manual recounting is less accurate than machine counting.

[Nickdfresh]

Not if there's a virus "flipping" the votes...

[knuckleboner]

nor if there's a human manipulating the paper ballots.


again, i'm not arguing that specific machine "A" is perfect. but i like the system in general.

and there is an easy way to verify. i believe most voting stations that use these machines have backups. not a lot. but a few. (ally can probably atest.) so if you're really concerned, right before the polls open, randomly take a couple out from different precincts. then, have the testers put in specific numbers of votes and then get the machine's readout. if it's equal to the inputted numbers, then great. if not, then problem.

mind you, paper trails on electronic voting machines are kinda worthless. if the machine is a fraud, then so will the paper trail be. the paper trail does not give you the chance to verify that knuckleboner did, indeed, vote for kodos. in which case, what's the use?