How could you trust his "real" results? That is rubbish. Somebody who can change results can provide fake results and just say they are "real" afterward.
I'm not saying I'd be mad at such an action, just that a revote would be necessary.
Would you be upset if....?
- Thread starter Care4all
- Start date
I'm not saying I'd be mad at such an action, just that a revote would be necessary.
And that would realy be the point of the whole excercise: you can't trust the results. His or her "real" results would be just as valid as anyone elses given the fact that this person would have proven the need for a more secure system.
Either way. You stated, "It would be fine so long as he gave the "real" results..."
The whole idea that the hacker could be trusted to give "real" results is laughable. We would have to have another election, there would be no "real" acceptible result from the guy.
I would not. Either the results are valid and the hacker couldn't have done it, or the results cannot be valid. Trusting any result from an election that was proved hacked by such a method would be equally invalid.
A revote would be necessary regardless of his producing the "real" results. There would be no evidence that those results were "real".
In other words, while I wouldn't be "mad" I still wouldn't trust his "real" reported results any more than I trust his hacked results.
The non-partisan GAO report says it can be done:
Specific Problems Identified by GAO
Based on reports from election experts, GAO compiled numerous examples of problems with electronic voting systems. These included:
Flaws in System Security Controls
Examples of problems reported by GAO include (1) computer systems that fail to encrypt data files containing cast votes, allowing them to be viewed or modified without detection by internal auditing systems; (2) systems that could allow individuals to alter ballot definition files so that votes cast for one candidate are counted for another; and (3) weak controls that allowed the alteration of memory cards used in optical scan machines, potentially impacting election results. GAO concluded that "these weaknesses could damage the integrity of ballots, votes, and voting system software by allowing unauthorized modifications (p. 25).
Flaws in Access Controls
Examples of problems reported by GAO include (1) the failure to password-protect files and functions; (2) the use of easily guessed passwords or identical passwords for numerous systems built by the same manufacturer; and (3) the failure to secure memory cards used to secure voting systems, potentially allowing individuals to vote multiple times, change vote totals, or produce false election reports.
According to GAO, "in the event of lax supervision, the ... flaws could allow unauthorized personnel to disrupt operations or modify data and programs that are crucial to the accuracy and integrity of the voting process" (p. 26).
Flaws in Physical Hardware Controls
In addition to identifying flaws in software and access controls, GAO identified basic problems with the physical hardware of electronic voting machines. Example of problems reported by GAO included locks that could be easily picked or were all controlled by the same keys, and unprotected switches used to turn machines on and off that could easily be used to disrupt the voting process (p. 27).
Weak Security Management Practices by Voting Machine Vendors
Experts contacted by GAO reported a number of concerns about the practices of voting machine vendors, including the failure to conduct background checks on programmers and system developers, the lack of internal security protocols during software development, and the failure to establish clear chain of custody procedures for handling and transporting software (p. 29).
Actual Examples of Voting System Failure
GAO found multiple examples of actual operational failures in real elections. These examples include the following incidents:
* In California, a county presented voters with an incorrect electronic ballot, meaning they could not vote in certain races (p. 29).
* In Pennsylvania, a county made a ballot error on an electronic voting system that resulted in the county's undervote percentage reaching 80% in some precincts (p. 29-30).
* In North Carolina, electronic voting machines continued to accept votes after their memories were full, causing over 4,000 votes to be lost (p. 31).
* In Florida, a county reported that touch screens took up to an hour to activate and had to be activated sequentially, resulting in long delays (p. 31)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102105Q.shtml
Saying that something "can be" is not the same as saying that something "is".
That it would be possible for somebody to hack the machine does not mean...
1. That it would possible for somebody to do it during an election, meaning actually entering a polling district, removing the necessary object, changing it, then resealing it...
2. That it was actually done.
3. That safeguards against such hacking at other than the computer level are not effective.
In other words, just stating that somebody could hack my password to my non-networked computer at home does not mean that it has been hacked. It also does not mean that the effective means I use has not kept all prospective hackers away from the machine, and thus it has been hacked...
That it would be possible for somebody to hack the machine does not mean...
1. That it would possible for somebody to do it during an election, meaning actually entering a polling district, removing the necessary object, changing it, then resealing it...
2. That it was actually done.
3. That safeguards against such hacking at other than the computer level are not effective.
In other words, just stating that somebody could hack my password to my non-networked computer at home does not mean that it has been hacked. It also does not mean that the effective means I use has not kept all prospective hackers away from the machine, and thus it has been hacked...
A computer that is not networked cannot be hacked from an outside means. You must have access to the computer in one way or another to hack it. Thus the computers that we use could not be hacked without your physical presense and by actions described in posts above.
None of this is very reassuring Damo if it is the Company that owns the proprietory electronic voting machines .... that is the one that does the HACKING and the vote changing.
LOL. Once again, just saying that something is possible is not evidence that it has happened. This has been my point.
I agree, I like machines that give a paper record that is verifiable by the voter before the vote is cast. We use just such a machine in our district which is poor because of the low numbers of our population in our County. If our poor district can get it right what is wrong with your districts? And believe me, the machines were purchased by the county, not by the state. They were selected and purchased by our County Clerk's office to fit the Federal requirement of touch-screen voting because of those idiotic Chads in 2000...
Why is it that these County Clerks can't figure out that people don't like having no paper trail?
I don't think it will actually happen. Too many people are already upset about these machines that aren't even networked. I would never let it happen in our County.... Or at least I'd fight it tooth and nail.
why do you keep throwing out that statement that it does not mean it did happen just because it was possible???
I never said that? And it is not what this thread is about, is it?
care
The reason that it won't is because people must be reasonably assured of accurate results. That people are up in arms about machines that are not networked gives me a reference point to show that changes will be made in the opposite direction. People will fight for less hackable machines, not for more hackable... And when it comes right down to it, at that level particularly, people's votes really matter and they will select those who will enact the change that they wish.
At some point people will draw the line... "This far and no more!"
The GAO report is brought up by those who believe that a previous election was already "hacked", Care. They use the report that states that it "can happen" as evidence that it "did happen"... reference about a billion threads from Desh.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
It is and I would be willing, but I lack the skills.