My Blood is boiling

[King Rat]

This morning on Wizard 106, the morning show with Paul and Kelly, they wanted callers to call in and give their opinions of the new electronic voting machines. Kelly, the female half of the show, said that anyone with basic computer skills could easily hack into the machines and reprogram them to manipulate the votes for a particular candidate. For example, she said they could program the machine to redirect every third vote for candidate X to be cast for candidate Y instead. Paul, the male half of the show, did not dispute her untrue (I'm sure it was stated from ignorance and not an intention to lie) statement but, rather, seemed to accept it as an established fact.

I wonder how many people listening to that station this morning now believe the machines can be hacked so easily? How many people won't vote because they no longer have confidence in the process? Many people, especially among the elderly, have no computer knowledge and will likely assume Paul and Kelly know what they are talking about.

To me, such an ignorant and untrue statement is at best irresponsible because it undermines the confidence of voters. The statement is totally baseless and untrue.

Certainly electronic voting machines can be hacked. That has been proven. But they have been hacked in controlled situations were expert hackers were granted unfettered access to the machines for the purpose of the experiment (to see if they could hack them). The machines are NOT on the internet so it isn't like someone can just log on and break into them.

Hacking a voting machine will require access to the machine. As long as they are treated with the same care as the paper ballot system they will prove much more accurate because they don't have bias and they can't be bribed with a pint of Jack. They eliminate the possibility of corruption at the poll worker level. Can some higher level election official - someone who could smuggle a Machine into the hands of a hacker - use corruption to affect an election? Yes, but it is less likely and much more difficult.

Anyone who thinks the paper ballot system guarantees a fair election is naive. There will always be corruption. Electronic voting machines make it less likely.

I did not call the radio station this morning and refute the lie because I had no cell signal. But I did change the station.

[King Rat]

I had to come back and edit some spelling on my original post. You can tell when I'm really ticked off when I don't proofread even the obvious spelling errors. Plus I replaced the word "idiot" with "naive".

[mustangfan2003]

you know i think those machines should be thrown out. no kind of computer is 100% safe from getting hacked.

[zipzam]

mustangfan2003 said:

you know i think those machines should be thrown out. no kind of computer is 100% safe from getting hacked.

very true, computers CAN be hacked. also, people running the old paper ballot booths CAN be bought.

there is NO way to totally stop improper voting.

i look at it this way... at least if a computer is hacked there is SOME trace to it happening and who did it.
on the other hand... if i slide $1,000 in cash to the lil ole lady counting paper votes, the only trace is between myself and her. it's doubtful either of us would tell since we'd be paying the price.

[King Rat]

mustangfan2003 said:

you know i think those machines should be thrown out. no kind of computer is 100% safe from getting hacked.

That is correct but how hard is it to hack a box of paper ballots with a slit in the top? Which would be harder for the average poll worker: To mark up some extra ballots and stuff them into the box when no one is looking? Or hook a computer to the voting machine and hack into it without anyone seeing?

Paper ballots and the boxes are not left sitting around where just anyone off the streets can come in and gain access to them. Voting machines must be treated with the same care.

Isn't it telling that the same groups opposing electronic voting machines are the same groups opposing voter ID?

[sgent]

I don't know what gave you the idea the voting machines couldn't be hacked in a matter of minutes by a poll worker. Once they have been hacked, with physical access all you need to do is put a "voting" virus onto a compact flash card (available at best buy / circuit city) and stick it into the machine. Anyone with a level of knowledge to use Excel or Word profieciently could operate the hack once written.

On some machine models -- it doesn't even have to be a poll worker, but merely any voter, as they haven't been physicall secured.

Finally, there have been hacks shown where the central computers which tally the votes are hacked into via the internet -- so an expert at home or party headquarters could do it. The companies intentionally left exploitable black doors for support.

Your correct that someone might stuff a ballot -- but at least then it takes a cooridinated effort from 100's of people, and the carelessness of others. With the voting machines, it merely takes one poll worker having access to one machine for 5 minutes -- and they can infect it with a self replicating virus.

[King Rat]

Me thinks you vastly over-simplify what it would take to hack a voting machine, sgent. Just sticking a flash card into a slot does not transfer a virus. The machine must READ that card. And that feature is not available to the poll worker. In fact, even the "technicians" who are responsible for responding to problems with machines at polling places don't have that capability. And as for the voter coming in and sticking in a flashcard and loading a virus, well, I seriously doubt the runtime screen on election day will have read:

John Doe (R)
Jane Nambla (D)
Load Virus from flash card.


Isn't it telling that the very people who oppose electronic voting are the same ones who oppose voter ID?