Analysis finds e-voting machines vulnerable

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
At this point i could care less about Gay Marriage or Flag Burning.
We have far far more pressing issues on the table.

If i want to burn the flag it is, as far as i know now, protected under freedom of expression.
Not that i'd burn one, yet, though it's my right to protest, for now at least.

And i'm not gay, so i've backed off the issue as it doesn't really apply to me.
To each their own, it isn't any of my business what people do with their lives.

It's really as simple as that on both issues, yet still so many buy into this wedge issue bullshit. How the Hell do you get through to these people and convince them that these idiots in office are merely pandering?

Even when they see in print that Chimpy referred to the Constitution as "just a goddamned piece of paper", they don't seem to get it.

[Cathedral]

His ass would have been ****, <----fill in the blank, by it's authors.

[BigBadBrian]

Warham already posted a pic like this, but I'll take a good team of software engineers and an E-voting concept over this anyday:

[FORD]

At least it's a verified record of the vote. If the punchcard machines are properly maintained, there wouldn't be a problem with "hanging chads" or holes not completely punched through.

As I said before, that entire process (minus the Supreme Court interference) would be worth it in order to know the actual winner of the election, rather than accept a result from a questionable machine that is 180 degrees different from exit polls or the voting history of the district in question.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
At least it's a verified record of the vote. If the punchcard machines are properly maintained, there wouldn't be a problem with "hanging chads" or holes not completely punched through.

As I said before, that entire process (minus the Supreme Court interference) would be worth it in order to know the actual winner of the election, rather than accept a result from a questionable machine that is 180 degrees different from exit polls or the voting history of the district in question.

No.

There is no "paper trail" with the punch card system, contrary to the common argument.

You only know how many people (living or dead) voted for which candidate. You cannot prove what people voted for which candidate to be able to detect errors. The punch card and optical scanners are just as flawed as the computerized systems.

Anyhow, Diebold and other automated systems are the wave of the future. Count on it.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Too bad Warpig, et al don't have HALF the sac Catheter has.


The pResident has let you down, Cath?

He's Warpig's HERO

You don't know who my hero is, knucklehead.

George W. Bush doesn't even rate.

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian


Anyhow, Diebold and other automated systems are the wave of the future. Count on it.

Then there is no future.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
... I'll take a good team of software engineers and an E-voting concept over this anyday...

Unless, of course, Hilary owned the company that produced the e-voting machines. Then you would be very concerned.

[Cathedral]

A good old #2 pencil and filling in the space for your choice is a better option than e-voting machines.

Hey, it works on SAT tests, it can work here.
And it eliminates the chads altogether.

Unless we want to call into question decades of SAT scores as being inaccurate.

Anything that uses software can be programmed to say whatever the programmer wants it to say.

YOU CANNOT TRUST AN E-VOTING MACHINE, PERIOD!

[Jerry H]

Re: Analysis finds e-voting machines vulnerable

Originally posted by FORD
Analysis finds e-voting machines vulnerable
Updated 6/26/2006 10:06 PM ET
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Most of the electronic voting machines widely adopted since the disputed 2000 presidential election "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and local elections," a report out Tuesday concludes.

There are more than 120 security threats to the three most commonly purchased electronic voting systems, the study by the Brennan Center for Justice says. For what it calls the most comprehensive review of its kind, the New York City-based non-partisan think tank convened a task force of election officials, computer scientists and security experts to study e-voting vulnerabilities.

The study, which took more than a year to complete, examined optical scanners and touch-screen machines with and without paper trails. Together, the three systems account for 80% of the voting machines that will be used in this November's election.

While there have been no documented cases of these voting machines being hacked, Lawrence Norden, who chaired the task force and heads the Brennan Center's voting-technology assessment project, says there have been similar software attacks on computerized gambling slot machines.

"It is unrealistic to think this isn't something to worry about" in terms of future elections, he says.

The report comes during primary season amid growing concerns about potential errors and tampering. Lawsuits have been filed in at least six states to block the purchase or use of computerized machines.

Election officials in California and Pennsylvania recently issued urgent warnings to local polling supervisors about potential software problems in touch-screen voting machines after a test in Utah uncovered vulnerabilities in machines made by Diebold Election Systems.

North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold did not return calls for comment. The company, a major manufacturer of e-voting machines, said earlier this month that security flaws cited in its machines were theoretical and would be addressed this year.

The new threat analysis does not address specific machines or companies. Instead, it "confirms the suspicions about electronic voting machines that people may have had from individual reports" of problems, Norden says.

Among the findings:

•Using corrupt software to switch votes from one candidate to another is the easiest way to attack all three systems. A would-be hacker would have to overcome many hurdles to do this, the report says, but none "is insurmountable."

•The most vulnerable voting machines use wireless components open to attack by "virtually any member of the public with some knowledge and a personal digital assistant." Only New York, Minnesota and California ban wireless components.

•Even electronic systems that use voter-verified paper records are subject to attack unless they are regularly audited.

•Most states have not implemented election procedures or countermeasures to detect software attacks.

"There are plenty of vulnerabilities that can and should be fixed before the November election," says David Jefferson, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory computer scientist who served on the task force. "Whether they will or not remains to be seen."

The report said state election officials could improve voting-machine security if they conduct routine audits comparing voter- verified paper trails to the electronic record and ban wireless components in voting machines.

"A voting system that is not auditable contains the seeds of destruction for a democracy," says Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., a chief sponsor of a bill to improve electronic-voting security.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...e-voting_x.htm

THE BCE HACKED INTO THEM!!!!!!!