PCWorld Forums: Argonne Researchers 'easily Hack' Electronic Voting Machine - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Argonne Researchers 'Easily Hack' Electronic Voting Machine here

Any voting system can be compromised, including mechanical voting matchines (which include paper voting rolls as well as totalizing meters). You have to have a system of good controls, good procedures and good people to defend against such hacks. They still can happen, but just not as often. Simply continuing to insist on paper trails is just a Luddite reaction.

Any voting system can be compromised, including mechanical voting matchines (which include paper voting rolls as well as totalizing meters). You have to have a system of good controls, good procedures and good people to defend against such hacks. They still can happen, but just not as often. Simply continuing to insist on paper trails is just a Luddite reaction.

It should be pointed out that Nevada laws for gaming machine code reviews are INFINITELY more strict than that for voting machines.

So a penny slot machine is more important than being disenfranchised by an electronic voting machine.

I believe it was Stalin that said it was not important how many votes you get but who does the counting. How else do you think that Harry Reid won re-election?

These kind of stories always seem to use phrasing like, "...assembled using inexpensive parts available at most electronic stores like Radio Shack...". Sure, the pieces parts are inexpensive. It's also easy to build explosive devices using "common household chemicals" or used motor oil and lawn fertilizer. But the simplicity of the components does not inherently put it in the realm of most people, even the electronically or technically inclined. (Also keeping in mind that what is "easy" to these researchers could still be very difficult to the average person.)
And even if this or any explosive device was that easy, you don't see people utilizing these devices en masse.

Now, as to the validity of the story, I question some of it as well. I'm certainly not a technophile, but I have to question the ability of an "ordinary store-bought $15 remote control" to control a $11.29 circuit board from a half mile. It's hard enough to get an "ordinary store-bought" remote control to function at a distance of 15 feet with direct line of site, let alone 2,640 feet and through brick, stone, and whatever else may be in the way.

And then there's the $11.29 microprocessor and "homemade" circuit board. It's so genuinely EASY to program a microprocessor and put it on a "homemade" circuit board that EVERYONE is doing this, right? Wrong.

I realize that if there's a great enough need to swing votes, that those that want to do it, will. This is just one way of doing it. But just because it can be done doesn't mean that there should be any great hysteria about it. Bring it to the attention of people, yes. But don't act like the sky is falling. There's imperfections in many aspects of our voting systems, from hanging chads to eVoting that can be compromised to people that simply can't follow directions at the booth.

If this potential for fraud is so great, then how come they don't mandate paper trails everywhere? That is the part that doesn't make sense to me.
And EvilDave made a good point about gambling machines having tighter controls. Although, I feel like voting for one person over another in itself is a gamble. :-)

One line in the story says it all: "Supporters of DRE systems insist that such concerns are overblown ." If you click the link in that line, you get another story quoting various officials who poo-poo the idea that anyone could cheat in an election,

I think that pretty much sums up what most elections actually amount to: a sop to the masses (perhaps more like a soporific). Elections are something to make people think they are participating in government,but the reality is quite something else. Voting is a waste of time. There is no investment to the voter and no consequences for how one votes. No single person determines the outcome of any national, state or city election, so the time and effort required to make a careful, prudent and well-considered choice is simply not worth it. And even if one spends a great amount of time and effort to insure his or her choice is what might be best for society or the future of the human race, it is quite likely to be canceled out by a stupid careless selfish stoned evil jerk who votes opposite just because he felt like it or because he believed some lie fostered by other evil people.

It's pretty obvious that many state election officials share my view because they aren't at all worried that the results might not be what the voters intended. They figure that someone will win or some ballot measure will either pass or fail, so why get too bothered about which is which.51% of the people will be happy and 49% unhappy, so why worry about whether the count actually matches the intention of the jerks voting? "We did our job; we had an election."

It's probably better for the election commissions if the votes can't be audited or checked against paper trails.If you can't check the results, then you can't find any mistakes in the job that the election officials did. They are 100% perfect!

I think the real battle is going to be between the old-school Daley/Obama, Chicago-style or New York Plunkett of Tammany Hall style of election corruption (you know, having dead people vote 5 times, using goons to intimidate voters,etc) and the new kids on the block with their electronic hacking devices. What will happen to an old time ward heeler's power base if any 19 year-old punk with $30 of electronics can decide an election? The fun may just be starting.