Argonne Researchers 'easily Hack' Electronic Voting Machine
Posted 29 September 2011 - 04:05 PM
Posted 29 September 2011 - 04:06 PM
Posted 29 September 2011 - 04:08 PM
So a penny slot machine is more important than being disenfranchised by an electronic voting machine.
Posted 30 September 2011 - 08:59 AM
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. :-)
Posted 06 October 2011 - 11:12 AM
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.