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.