Voting changes recommended to Georgia lawmakers (Atlanta, Norwood: centers, mayor, privacy)

[CaliDreaming01]

With paper ballots, someone has to physically take possession of the ballots in order to destroy or tamper with them. With cameras, regulations, and the number of people who are around watching for this kind of behavior, accomplishing this is very difficult even if you have a number of co-conspirators.

Two scary things about voting machines are 1) hackers can get into remotely and/or with no trace that the machine was ever compromised and 2) even without bad intent, random bugs and programming errors can easily affect the results of elections without anyone being aware that it happened. If paper ballots had been used, it's unlikely the errors that forced the redo of that GA Republican primary race last year would have ever occurred.

I get security patches on my iphone every other day it seems but in GA we are still relying on the same software we used 20 years ago. It's quite frightening.

[Brian_M]

Originally Posted by markjames68

Oh, and by your argument, just because machines can be manipulated doesn’t mean they are.

For me, it's the Potential for abuse. I see the Potential for abusing electronics as being exponentially higher than the Potential for abusing paper.


And the potential to abuse electronic machines is spread out among the entire populace that uses any given machine. A group of people can find an exploit (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...nes/523639001/ not difficult), and share it among like-minded individuals. Lots of groups of like-minded people who think they are "right" and don't care about any silly laws/morals/ethics between them and getting their way. After all, history is written by the victors, so any means necessary can be written as "the good fight".


Please keep in mind that my perspective on this issue has ZERO bearing on you, the reader, and what kind of person you might be. It's not an attack on you, just a request to consider your opinion as it might have some points that may not be fully researched. It's not personal, just a difference in opinion... nothing more than you liking pepperoni pizza and me liking cheese.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01

With paper ballots, someone has to physically take possession of the ballots in order to destroy or tamper with them. With cameras, regulations, and the number of people who are around watching for this kind of behavior, accomplishing this is very difficult even if you have a number of co-conspirators.

Two scary things about voting machines are 1) hackers can get into remotely and/or with no trace that the machine was ever compromised and 2) even without bad intent, random bugs and programming errors can easily affect the results of elections without anyone being aware that it happened. If paper ballots had been used, it's unlikely the errors that forced the redo of that GA Republican primary race last year would have ever occurred.

I get security patches on my iphone every other day it seems but in GA we are still relying on the same software we used 20 years ago. It's quite frightening.

Again, these are NOT networked machines. How do hackers “get into them remotely”?

I’ve been in IT for 30 years. Software age is NOT an indication of a problem. In fact, if a system is working correctly and does its function you generally do NOT update it. Where systems get updated are to correct faults, to add features, to improve security. The latter is most important for networked devices exposed to the internet.

Also, you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you state that the software needs updating because it’s 20 years old, and on the other, “random bugs and programming errors” can effect things. Which is it?

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by markjames68

Sure, except when some are held back or there are others that magically appear.

The fact that the machines could be hacked is no proof that they will be hacked. If they aren’t connected to the internet they will need to be individually compromised.

I have to believe it’s harder to hack a machine than to pocket a bunch of ballots from a precinct.

That is conspiracy-theory crap. Paper ballots work. Many states use them--Oklahoma, North Dakota, even Alabama!

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by markjames68

Again, these are NOT networked machines. How do hackers “get into them remotely”?

That answer has already been given to you, but you didn't accept it because you didn't believe it.

I’ve been in IT for 30 years.

If that were true then you should know how hacking works.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by Brian_M

For me, it's the Potential for abuse. I see the Potential for abusing electronics as being exponentially higher than the Potential for abusing paper.


And the potential to abuse electronic machines is spread out among the entire populace that uses any given machine. A group of people can find an exploit (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...nes/523639001/ not difficult), and share it among like-minded individuals. Lots of groups of like-minded people who think they are "right" and don't care about any silly laws/morals/ethics between them and getting their way. After all, history is written by the victors, so any means necessary can be written as "the good fight".


Please keep in mind that my perspective on this issue has ZERO bearing on you, the reader, and what kind of person you might be. It's not an attack on you, just a request to consider your opinion as it might have some points that may not be fully researched. It's not personal, just a difference in opinion... nothing more than you liking pepperoni pizza and me liking cheese.

An interesting article, thanks for sharing it. As suspected, when the machines are laid bare, and people have access to its internals or even to administer it, there are weaknesses. That’s where physical security comes in. When voting this past election I think someone would have said something had I got out my laptop and plugged it in, or removed the back panel, etc.

My argument is that if you had a person with bad intent accessing a room where blank ballots are stored, or where boxes with ballots inside were placed, they could spoil ballots, stuff ballot boxes or destroy ballots. Or where the counting is done simply miscount the results or misreport them.

There seems to be a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt about the possibility of hacking machines. I fully admit it is possible, but aside from thought exercises such as you showed at DEFCON I haven’t heard or any real-world problems.

A paper trail is a sensible precaution.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

That answer has already been given to you, but you didn't accept it because you didn't believe it.



If that were true then you should know how hacking works.

I know very well how it works. And as I’ve said before, if you maintain physical security of these devices - with the same chain of custody that is expected of ballot boxes - you don’t get some random guy coming up and installing malware.

But let’s go ahead and return to paper ballots. And of course, electronic payments and money transfers are also subject to hacking, so let’s return to cash only or checks. Stock trading needs to be done with paper slips like the old days. And heaven forbid, no electronic titles for our vehicles, paper only.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by markjames68

I know very well how it works. And as I’ve said before, if you maintain physical security of these devices - with the same chain of custody that is expected of ballot boxes - you don’t get some random guy coming up and installing malware.

But let’s go ahead and return to paper ballots. And of course, electronic payments and money transfers are also subject to hacking, so let’s return to cash only or checks. Stock trading needs to be done with paper slips like the old days. And heaven forbid, no electronic titles for our vehicles, paper only.

You keep getting theoretical with all the supposed ways that paper ballots can go wrong. In practice that almost never happens if you have a government devoted to electoral integrity.

If. That was one of the big question marks that still hangs over last year's gubernatorial election.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

You keep getting theoretical with all the supposed ways that paper ballots can go wrong. In practice that almost never happens if you have a government devoted to electoral integrity.

If. That was one of the big question marks that still hangs over last year's gubernatorial election.

And you keep on getting theoretical with all the supposed ways that machines can go wrong.

All the examples that have been provided were when the “hackers” had access to the hardware, software, smart card, etc. I would hope that electoral integrity extends to maintaining security of the machines. Maybe not.

If someone can show me an example where a hacker can corrupt a voting machine from a distance with no physical access then I will be convinced.

I don’t deny that it’s silly to have a machine with no paper trail - after all, power glitches and other errors can occur - but to throw out the machines entirely is unnecessary.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by markjames68

And you keep on getting theoretical with all the supposed ways that machines can go wrong.

That doesn't hold water for several reasons.

First of all, there are known instances where the machines have visibly flipped votes. With no paper trail, we have no way of knowing whether machines invisibly flip votes.

Second, the software code used in the machines is secret. That should be open-source, period, except for any component that compromises voter privacy. There is no reason why we can't see the code used in those machines.

Third, and I think we're on the same page here, versions of these machines that have no paper trail cannot be completely trusted.

All the examples that have been provided were when the “hackers” had access to the hardware, software, smart card, etc. I would hope that electoral integrity extends to maintaining security of the machines. Maybe not.

If someone can show me an example where a hacker can corrupt a voting machine from a distance with no physical access then I will be convinced.

I don’t deny that it’s silly to have a machine with no paper trail - after all, power glitches and other errors can occur - but to throw out the machines entirely is unnecessary.

Any system has risks. I'll give you that. But playing devil's advocate, how is a paper trail safe and yet somehow paper ballots aren't? Seems like a double standard.