It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Want To Know Just How Bad Security Is For E-Voting Machines?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
This is a follow up thread to the one that I posted here when this report first surfaced.

Now they have released the report, regardless of attempts to squelch and bury them.

TechDirt


Now, one of the researchers who did the research, Andrew Appel, has released a long report detailing a ridiculous number of security problems with Sequoia's machines.


The evidence that has been discovered about the machines that Sequoia produced is chilling, to say the least. There are so many ways to hack and change the vote on these things that it is impossible to assume that anyone using them has any assurance that their candidate gets the vote.

There is a lot of information on Sequoia around ATS, as well as on bogus E-V machines from others. It is not hard to see that they have been voting for us for a long time. Anyone that disagrees with that statement should keep in mind that they will not even consider putting a paper trail on these machines. Easy Fix; Nuff Said.

Dont get me wrong, Diebold has never been any better. I HATE voting on e-machines. I would rather record my vote on toilet paper. At least I know what kind of treatment that medium gets "in the end". They are doing the same thing with digital votes, all the while saying that every vote was accurately counted.




posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by wheresthetruth
 


Here in Connecticut, our new machines have an actual paper ballot to mark and then run through the machine. The paper vote is retained in case of a recount and thats locked in a vault. The number of paper and the number of total votes have to match. I don't think I would stand to vote if no paper trail could not be retained. It makes no sense other than to defraud the voters the way you have to vote.

Zindo
edit to say that I don't know who makes the machines my state is useing. I haven't sen them myself.

[edit on 10/21/2008 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
You would think that if they can license people to regulate and certify the slots machines in Vegas that government would have even stricter requirements on voting machines.


Never thought I would see the day when slot machines were more secured and reliable than voting machines.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Said it before and I'll say it again. As long as the "electoral college" is in play, the people will not have a say. WIKI the 2000 election.
Not like if ther wasn't the EC the votes wouldn't be fixed anyways.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I posted this the other day, but because of log in/out reasons, it got squashed and I couldn't be bothered........

In Britain, we have a General Election which equals around 650 constituencies voting in one night. There is a race to be first, the record is about 3/4 of an hour after 10 o'clock, but then there is a lull, the other constituencies know they have lost, so they give up. They still count the ballot papers, and some have no chance of getting to bed that night, the result is close and there is a recount. And another. And a third. This collapses any hope of let alone going to bed, the race is lost.

Anyway, the minor news is that Obama wins, not a multi time window set of races. The computers have ensured the shortest reporting time ever and they are the true winners. We trust them over the need for accountability. And why? Because speed of answer is more important than accuracy.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


Its good to hear about those of you getting to vote on paper ballots. At least there is a record.

I would rather wait for 3-5 days for the results to insure the vote was counted and verified, then validated before being reviewed, just to make sure the person who got the most votes actually won. Its a sick, twisted, evil, corrupt world. What fun we are having.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
There should be voter-verified paper ballots, in addition to whatever voting machines are used.

These should be hand-counted, under scrutiny, at each precinct, then sealed and stored securely.

The results of the hand-tally from each precinct should be phoned in to the state election office, and tallied there.

Then, the results for each precinct should be published in a state-wide newspaper, so people can verify the totals, and those who counted at the precincts can verify their numbers were reported correctly.

This should be done in parallel with any electronic or automated tallies.

The results would not only provide an alternate, verifiable vote tally, at most one or two days behind the electronic results, but would also act to verify the accuracy of the electronic portion of the system, revealing any shenanigans.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
There should be voter-verified paper ballots, in addition to whatever voting machines are used.

These should be hand-counted, under scrutiny, at each precinct, then sealed and stored securely.

The results of the hand-tally from each precinct should be phoned in to the state election office, and tallied there.

Then, the results for each precinct should be published in a state-wide newspaper, so people can verify the totals, and those who counted at the precincts can verify their numbers were reported correctly.

This should be done in parallel with any electronic or automated tallies.

The results would not only provide an alternate, verifiable vote tally, at most one or two days behind the electronic results, but would also act to verify the accuracy of the electronic portion of the system, revealing any shenanigans.


All good, but to screw your system up, I'd vote one way on one then another on another. We need a single line of accountability.

EDIT: And that has to be anonymous......

[edit on 21-10-2008 by redled]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


My ATM gives me a human-readable, verifiable transaction receipt, that is sufficient for legal 'proof'. Why can't a voting machine do the same?

Edit to clarify: these, of course, are the separate 'paper ballots' I was referring to. An auditable copy of the voters' results (anonymous) that can be separately verified both by the voter, when they cast their ballot, and counted to give a results tally that should match the electronic results.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by Ian McLean]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Well, the last time I voted it was with the new computer system, and the card (ATM like, white card) I swipped did not work. I went back for another one, and it did not work. Finally, a guy had to come over with a new card (acting as if I was doing it wrong), and he swiped a new card over and over....didn't work for him either. So, I had to wait for another computer. Made me wonder about computer glitches. But, I did like the touch-screen style of voting. Also, they threw those cards around. No one seemed to be keeping track of them. I think the only purpose for the card is to activate the computer....so I can't vote over and over. One vote per swipe.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
reply to post by redled
 


My ATM gives me a human-readable, verifiable transaction receipt, that is sufficient for legal 'proof'. Why can't a voting machine do the same?


Coz the difference is getting 20,000 receipts together at once. Many go through the washing machine.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join