Easy Voting Fraud Machines
 

Princeton University shows how they quickly reversed the outcome of a mock vote -- leaving no evidence that they did so.

This particular Diebold machine will be used for 10% of the U.S. electorate this November.

More details can be found at their site:
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

Two things: Why would the voting workers switch memory cards in the machines in the first place.. and second, they stated earlier that the software deletes its self leaving no trace once the voting is over.. so it doesn't have the chance to spread from one machine to another.

It would delete after the vote was over, the worker would switch the card because they were told to or because they were the one who wanted to.

Their program was set up to self-delete from the machine but it doesn't have to be set up that way. Probably, that applies to the card, also.

The next step, networking the machines, will be even more perilous. I long for the good old days of two dollar bills, free whiskey and pug nosed thugs. ;)

They were two different examples. One with software that deletes itself, and one that has a virus. Also, an example where someone would change memory cards from one machine to another is one in which a software upgrade was to be deployed.

These guys are also now reporting that the key to unlock the door of every Diebold machine is the same standard key used to open hotel mini-bars, office furniture, and some other cabinets. It's easy to purchase over the internet. They even link to online stores that sell the key.

WTF? So now I know where to go to get a key to open 10% of the voting machines in the US.

Good thing our elections are never close.

Even if nobody ever committs a fraud with these machines, the perception that they might have will eventually dissolve the perceived legitamacy of our process.That is no small thing. I'm glad we still use pencils here, even if one of our counties' ballot boxes went missing a couple elections back.

gregiore 1,373,361
rossi 1,373,232
-----------------------
difference 129

total votes 3,956,472
(plus distant
third candidate)
63,465
===================
Grand total 4,019,937


I hope you were speaking facetiously, Griff. 129 votes decided our state's most recent Governor's race. Out of a total of over 4 million votes. Close *does* happen. Close *does* count.

Back to the main topic:

I believe that any system that doesn't provide a paper audit trail for a manual recount is fatally flawed. And some of the paper trail systems I've seen are only an ace away from fatal themselves. Diebold is not on the right track wrt security and reliability and traceability. Far from it.

:lol:

I think its a plot to increase voter apathy, personally. What if they held an election and nobody came? George Jr., president for life, anyone?

How charmingly innocent of you, BigV. You're right, but they ARE on the right track wrt selling and delivering elections to the highest bidder. I can guarantee that track is much more profitable.

My cynicism circuits are completely fried right now. Totally overloaded. I can't fight the good fight that way. I'm barely getting by on my auxilliary humor backups right now.

I wasn't shooting for charmingly innocent, but I take your point. But all I have are facts, and (theoretically) (eventually) the truth will set me (us all) free.

Sorry V, I can be cynical and skeptikal at the same time and it creates a synergy of negativity. I have developed a tolerance to it. In a lot of ways, I find solace in the lack of hope. Hope is so passive, as long as there is hope we can sit on our hinders and wait for things to get better. When all hope is lost then you know that any outcome is entirely dependent upon your actions.

That's how I see the issue of hope. wrt our electoral system, I think it will have to get worser before it gets betterer.

And finally, let's don't forget to mention the pink elephant in the middle of the room.

Princeton study only repeats what has been reported with numerous reasons in this 9 Oct 2004 Cellar discussion:
Letting the Voter Count

The name Diebold and a potential for voter fraud was long defined in science publications and was also reported in mainstream press back then. See the previous discussion.

Yeah, this topic is a re-run. But the study is new. As far as I know, this is the first time anyone has really had one of these machines to play around with. It's the first time I heard how easy it is to get a key for one to access the controls.

Well, gosh...just because it *can* be rigged doesn't mean it *will* be rigged, right? I mean, people wouldn't steal elections just for money or power. And besides, they just want to protect us and keep us safe. They just want to preserve what made this country great.

Profit.

Well, I for one think that this is just another liberal plot to undermine this great country of ours. Look where the study was done. Princeton??? A hotbed of left wingers if there ever was one. First the liberals claim there were no WMD's, then they say Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq, then Dick Cheney shoots some idiot connected with Halliburten, etc., etc.

The entire problem is the left wing press with Fox as a prime example. Did you know that Fox even reported on hurricane Katrina? Its true. Muzzle the press and the voting machines will no longer be a problem. Simple. :right:

I don't see the readily available key is a big problem. Anyone trying to pull this off would have to have skills and resources that could surmount the lock problem without skipping a beat.

The big problem is DiBold, their junk and their political clout. :mad:

Some basic security means that the 'paper' (memory card update) must be irrevocable. The memory card is written to only by incrementing a counter. Its only write function must be one that increments the counter. Count cannot be modified and cannot be decremented. The 'paper' also must be serial numbered (internally and electronically) with an encrypted security function so that memory card cannot be swapped. The 'paper' (that memory card) is used just once and then becomes a permanent record of the vote. An 'increment counter once' and 'read many times' nonvolatile memory chip.

Any electronic voting machine that does not contain this essential and minimal security function is flawed - insufficient as a voting machine.

Numerous ways exist to modify and pervert voting records when using a standard non-volatile memory chip/card. Conventional memory is totally unacceptable for vote recording.

Second - the 'paper ballot' must be readable by a completely separate and secure method. Same function performed when using paper and eyes. You can see exactly what is on that 'paper ballot' just before it drops into the ballot box - the 'memory card'. Anything less means voter fraud.

Whatever do you mean? It's not as if the President of Diebold (who also isn't a Republican Pioneer) guaranteed a win in Ohio for Bush in 2004 or anything...:right:

Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner. ;)

The fact that Diebold makes ATM machines should scare the hell out of anybody reading this.

Without telling too much, I know the technical design of Diebold ATM machines. It was a first indication that bad things might be found in their voting machines.

The mere fact that Diebold thought it fit to use Windows® on some machines told me they wouldn't be secure in the least.

I think its cute how anyone thinks that the Diebold machines were created to do anything except control the outcome of elections. From what I'm reading, these things were basically designed to *be* insecure and manipulable.

And more fuel for the fire. Or at least hopefully there will be a fire at some point.To tell the truth, I'm not sure I'd trust a patch even if they hadn't applied it covertly. How is a state government going to verify a patch does what they say it does?

Once I looked into the company and it's past, I never thought anything else, even before the machine came out.

Well, wouldn't a patch to correct a software glitch be necessary for every one of the 19000 voting machines. I'm going with the assumption that all the machines in the state should be running the same software.

Why patch only 1200 machines.....or was he saying he witnessed 1200 machines being patched but the rest were patched without him witnessing it?:confused:

If not, still, every machine must have software (even if different) that is certified. From IEEE Spectrum of October 2004: Why worry who is changing the software. There is no verifiable paper trail or anything that is equivalent. If that was not bad enough, IEEE even noted how entry to buildings where voting machines are stored was easy - almost routine.

Furthermore is the response of technically naive to the problem. So how did Princeton researchers obtain a machine? Subterfuge? What kind of confirmation is that? Powers that be fear that indepentent analysis might learn electronic voting machine concepts - the secrets of Windows or Unix? Sounds too much like Saddam again has WMDs. Certifying software patches does not even begin to question these machine integrities.

He's not saying anything about the machines that he didn't witness, as far as I can tell. They may or may not have been patched.