Meet the e-voting machine so easy to hack, it will take your breath away

[LiberalArkie]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-voting-machine-so-easy-to-hack-it-will-take-your-breath-away/


Virginia election officials have decertified an electronic voting system after determining that it was possible for even unskilled people to surreptitiously hack into it and tamper with vote counts.

The AVS WINVote, made by Advanced Voting Solutions, passed national Voting Systems Standards and has been used in Virginia and, until recently, in Pennsylvania and Mississippi. It used the easy-to-crack passwords of "admin," "abcde," and "shoup" to lock down its Windows administrator account, Wi-Fi network, and voting results database respectively, according to a scathing security review published Tuesday by the Virginia Information Technologies Agency. The agency conducted the audit after one Virginia precinct reported that some of the devices displayed errors that interfered with vote counting during last November's elections.

The weak passwords—which are hard-coded and can't be changed—were only one item on a long list of critical defects uncovered by the review. The Wi-Fi network the machines use is encrypted with wired equivalent privacy, an algorithm so weak that it takes as little as 10 minutes for attackers to break a network's encryption key. The shortcomings of WEP have been so well-known that it was banished in 2004 by the IEEE, the world's largest association of technical professionals. What's more, the WINVote runs a version of Windows XP Embedded that hasn't received a security patch since 2004, making it vulnerable to scores of known exploits that completely hijack the underlying machine. Making matters worse, the machine uses no firewall and exposes several important Internet ports.

"Because the WINVote devices use insecure security protocols, weak passwords, and unpatched software, the WINVote devices operate with a high level of risk," researchers with the Virginia Information Technologies Agency wrote in Tuesday's report. "The security testing by VITA proved that the vulnerabilities on the WINVote devices can allow a malicious party to compromise the confidentiality and integrity of Voting data."


Snip

[louis-t]

1. Maybe on purpose.....

"...the machine uses no firewall and exposes several important Internet ports."

[RobertEarl]

2. This is not possible

There is no way in hell government would allow such a thing.

This is all just a big disinformation campaign brought to you by communist looking to destroy our trust in the most important function of our democracy.

Right?

[Volaris]

22. of course you're right...Once again, Obamas fault=)

[JHB]

45. Thanks, Illinois state senator Obama!

[Vincardog]

3. That is not a bug it is a FEATURE!

[NorthCarolina]

10. Yep. Pretty much.

You know "Help America Vote", well, it does. If you vote incorrectly, it will Help you by self correcting your entries to fit the predetermined outcome.

[DeSwiss]

4. K&R

[L0oniX]

34. +1

[arcane1]

5. I don't trust ANY of these damned things n/t

[SusanCalvin]

8. Amen.

Never have, never will.

I remain convinced that certain persons who saw their, um, possibilities - and an opportunity - foisted them on us after Florida 2000, during all that HAVA business. No, I don't know *exactly* who. But I'm convinced.

Paper ballots, hand counted at the precinct level, web cam watching (now *there's* a good use of a computer), results posted on site before the ballots leave.

[RKP5637]

26. Same here! Often proprietary code, none allowed to look. It's ridiculous! Way too much

potential for rigging and skewing the vote. It's a stupid and insane methodology without better control mechanisms, implementation and audit trail/tracking.

[cprise]

41. Even software doesn't matter that much when the other parts

-- the firmware and especially the hardware are pretty much beyond examination. There are plenty of quirks at the firmware and hardware levels that can be harvested and then used to skew the voting software.

Naive programmers who push for open source voting software are the kind of people who make assumptions about hardware that are completely unsupported. For the most part, its is their job to assume that software is complex and flawed while the hardware underneath is some kind of crystaline version of perfection. But hardware is very complex, too.

Computers as we know them cannot be used to protect high-value yet anonymous transactions. In voting, the mechanics and logic of both casting and counting must be transparent to a sufficiently large number of people in order to make the process verifiable. Computerized voting is not verifiable, hence the nickname it was given in the early 2000's: Black Box Voting.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

44. It's a fucking travesty. I cannot understand how this is acceptable to the citizenry of our country.

Then again, the powers that be don't care if we like it or not.

[RKP5637]

47. Yep, that's the bottom line of it all, TPTB don't care if we like it or not. n/t

[840high]

76. +1

[RKP5637]

46. Yep, exactly! Black Box Voting! n/t

[Mnemosyne]

6. K&R! nt

[F4lconF16]

7. This is so bad it would be comedic.

Would be.

[tomm2thumbs]

9. I'm sure the GOP governors will be buying up the used machines on Craigslist to use themselves

They'd just LOVE to play like this.

[Dont call me Shirley]

11. Paper ballots. And a federally constitutional amendment avowing right to vote.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Paper ballots. Hire a few more people to count them, democracy demands a just accounting.

[elehhhhna]

17. " a voter verificatied paper ballot as the ballot of record"

That's the proper language per Andy.

[csziggy]

54. Paper ballots can be machine scanned for a quick result

But also can be counted by hand for a verified election. That's what we have used here in Leon County, Florida since the late 1980s here in Leon County. While "Hacking Democracy" proved that the optical scan machines can be hacked, a hacked result can only stand if the paper ballots are not retained and counted.

In 2000 Ion Sancho, Leon County Supervisor of Elections, posted scans of every ballot that was not acceptable to the machines. I still have that PDF file here somewhere. These were ballots that were kicked out by the machine on the first pass, but the voters insisted on them going into the ballot box. That's part of the advantage of the optical scanners - if programmed correctly every questionable ballot, those with extraneous marks, under or over votes - will be kicked out by the scanner so the voter can amend their ballot, even get a new one to replace the unacceptable one.

But after 2000 the Florida Legislature did NOT set up good rules for recounts, or for machines that could do that kind of discrimination. They went full bore for full electronic machines with no verification possible. Sancho refused to change his machines, though after he participated in the movie, he tried to get the software to be more robust and got into a mess with voting machines manufacturers trying to get him removed from office. So few counties in Florida improved their voting methods - they just changed to an even more dubious technology.

[Jenoch]

12. This is another reason why I believe the best

way to vote is using a paper ballot in a voting booth at the polling place on election day.

[Stevepol]

15. Amen, a thousand times AMEN!!!

If the vote is counted in total secrecy without verification, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY!

The German Constitutional High Court has outlawed computerized counting of the vote for that very reasons. Check it out:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Germany-bans-computerized-by-Paul-Lehto-090303-583.html

[Jenoch]

51. Our paper ballots are counted by a machine.

The way to vote is to fill in the oval next to the name of the candidate for whom you wish to vote. It's amazing the number of people who ignore the instructions and use an 'x' or a '✓' instead of using the felt tip marker and filling in the oval. Those ballots are rejected and counted visually. The ballot counting machines operate the same wayas the machines that scored the tests taken at school.

[JohnnyRingo]

13. All they have to do is add a paper printout.

Here in Ohio under republican governor Bob Taft we had similar machines. The companies claimed it would be impossible to add a printout, but when we elected democrat Ted Strickland in '06 they suddenly found a way and today we have a complete paper backup.

Now at the end of the day we check the machines and make sure the electronic tally matches the printed paper roll. If it doesn't we have to stay until we find out why. The voter can watch his/her vote as it's printed, and the paper rolls are stored for a couple years in case of a challenge or recount. I laugh because some here still don't trust machine counts and ask for a paper ballot to fill out, apparently not realizing those ballots are fed through a computer scanner for the vote count (the ballot is saved).

In the case of these Virginia machines it would take some conspiracy to throw an election because of the thousands of machines that would have to be individually altered, but no discrepancy is acceptable and even changing a few hundred of the machines can change a close election. The reason it would take so many is because it would be a red flag if 100% of the voters in one precinct voted one way, so they could only shave a small percentage from each machine to fly under the radar.

If the Virginia state government says it's impossible to add a paper trail, they're lying.... for some reason. Edit: On rereading the article, I see officials de-certified these machines, but there should still be a paper trail.

[Fred Sanders]

16. No computers. Pen and paper. Scan with human eyes, record and store with human hands.

[JohnnyRingo]

19. You may be skeptical, but I think they're pretty reliable

If a precinct is run right, with equal participation from each party, the machines do a good job of keeping a nonpartisan tally. No matter what we have to do to a machine here in Ohio, a member of the opposite party has to witness and literally sign off on the action. With the printed paper roll a machine can always be cross checked for accuracy, and indeed at the end of the day it is. Remember that a voter can watch the actual ballot as it's printed.

I believe the risk of hand counting is more of a threat to voter integrity. Imagine the Freepers who might sign up to count your vote. I really have faith that people who volunteer for such an ordeal are devoted, but a renegade could make "mistakes". Having someone simply check on that person would double the already huge work load and offer an easier opportunity for conspiracy than manually hacking thousands of voting machines.

One big beef I have with these machines in Virginia is that they're unnecessarily connected to wi-fi. There's absolutely no reason a voting machine has to be connected to the internet to count votes. They can be locked with a security tag at the end of the day and transported back to district headquarters for centralized uploading by an equally bipartisan team.

[RobertEarl]

20. Good gawd

You don't know the freepers own the voting machines and program the gawd damn things? Geez!!

And you hate hand counts? WTF?!?!?!

[JohnnyRingo]

23. I also hate wired telephones.

Thank goodness technology progresses toward efficiency and convenience. It's a great time to be alive.

My point is that it doesn't matter who makes the machines if it's done correctly. Here in Ohio we use three companies to prevent overwhelming influence over the machines from one CEO.

Our machines can't communicate online, and provide a paper printout that the voter can witness as it's printed. That paper trail is compared to the electronic tall before being locked and sealed in a box for return to district HQ. That paper trail is stored a certain number of years in case of suspicion.

There is nothing more secure about hand counting than that. Considering human error, especially with such a monotonous task, I believe a computer system can be more secure.

[RobertEarl]

24. Ohio?

Where the election was stolen from Kerry? Using just the type of machines you back?

No. Your ideas to use machines is what got us into this mess, and now Virginia has even caught on. I'll never understand how someone on a democratic board can be so undemocratic and actually support any undemocratic process like using freeper owned machines to count votes..

Please, don't tell me you work in elections in any shape or form.

[JohnnyRingo]

27. Pay attention

As I said, under Bob Taft the voting machine companies said they couldn't add a paper printout. When Ted Strickland took office from him beginning in 2007 he immediately changed all of Ohio's voting machines so they would record a printed record. These machines were ready well before the '08 election when Obama carried Ohio, and are still in use today.

Go back and read my reply to find out how these paper printouts are used to 100% verify the electronic count.

And I've been a hands on election worker for years. That why I know much more about the system here in Ohio than what you think you learned from hair on fire conspiracy sites. If you think there's some way to corrupt the vote tally on our machines, you just tell me and I'll explain how the system is safeguarded to prevent it in a way you weren't aware of.

[RobertEarl]

29. OMG

No wonder the whole thing is so fucked up.

The last thing I need is advice from a machine lover.

I prefer people, not some damned machine counting my vote.

[JohnnyRingo]

32. People can be corrupt

Machines don't care, and when operated by an equal number of each party, they are quite accurate. I know enough about the system to say that with complete confidence.

Would you have one of each party manually view each ballot, declare their tally independently in a log, have a checker make sure the counts are compatible, and reliably combine the district's hand count to a final hand written sum?

I guess you could call up the National Guard for such a labor intensive task, but I want millions of votes recorded accurately before inauguration day. Perhaps you vote in Podunk Holler where you and the other townfolk hand your ballot to Mr Drucker at the general store, but the rest of us deal in logistics of a much larger scale here in the 21st century.

Cars drive themselves, we shop at home with credit cards, and people vote on electronic machines. Welcome to the future, you're late.

[questionseverything]

38. people are corrupt that is why it is ussually an insider doing the fraud

i call bs that every "ballot" on the roll is examined

you do point out a big problem when you talk about the combined totals....many times the local results do not match the county results or the state results

2ff that ohio has a republican sos, voting machines owned by repubs but you "trust" the system

i want a system i trust because i can oversee every step, a system so transparent any citizen can check every step

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1805818671/computerized-election-theft-enough-already-lets-st

http://bradblog.com/?p=11132

[LiberalLovinLug]

40. Paper cares even less

And paper printouts from a computer that could be hacked are so less credible than actually marking a piece of paper and putting it in a box. For one, just because you get a printout is no guarantee that the actual machine has recorded your vote properly. Secondly, just because you are sitting at home along with many others clutching your paper printout does nothing to prove or disprove you are in the majority. The exit polls from Ohio were so off that in any other country there would have been multiple calls for re-votes.

Look, its really not that difficult to use the more secure transparent paper based voting that most every other democracy uses. I am from Canada. I have worked in the past at the polling station. People come in, mark their ballot, put it in the box. All carefully observed by us, as well as reps from each party. At the end of the voting time, we counted the votes under the watchful gaze of the reps who can challenge questionable ballots. It all happens in the one evening. If you hire enough people temporarily for the day, its easy to complete it in a timely manner. In fact one complaint here in the western Canada time zone is that we find out how it probably will turn out before our polls even close.

Why even chance using machines when you already had in place the most secure method available? Especially when time and again it has been proven how easily these machines can be hacked?

Yes "People can be corrupt". That is precisely why you take away the only avenue that "people" can take advantage of to "be corrupt".

[JohnnyRingo]

50. You didn't understand what I said.

The paper printout here isn't a receipt, it stays with the machine until the end of the day. Voters can watch their vote as it prints out and a final total is printed on the roll. When we remove them that night a person from each party records the tally and compares it to the machine's count. If those numbers match, the roll is then signed by each worker and locked in a box with a security seal for return to the election board by two workers- one from each party- where it's stored under lock & key for several years in case of a dispute or recount.

The machines themselves are also locked with a tamper proof security seal until returned to county HQ. Some people don't trust the machines and ask for a paper ballot, not understanding that their ballot is fed through a computer scanner at the elections board anyway. It looks like an SAT test with small circles to color in, but it makes some feel better.

I can't vouch for the '04 election results here in Ohio, but when democrat Ted Strickland took office as governor in '07 he made sure every machine in the state had that paper trail that ensures voter integrity. I remind that Obama won Ohio handily in '08.

I should point out too that it's a misconception that our election is counted by one company. We use three unrelated companies to supply the machines to avoid the obvious pitfalls of such a system. If the machines from one supplier overwhelmingly favors republicans it would be a huge red flag that would cost millions in lost contracts and likely result in criminal charges once the paper trail is audited. No corporate CEO is going to chance bankrupting his company and losing future contracts just so he can elect pols who presumably would give them lucrative government contracts. It's so much more profitable to make millions a year by offering a fair and accountable election, especially when it's so easy to get caught.

[cprise]

52. Then computers are a burden to the voters

...who must read-back the printout after already having gone through the ballot to mark it. LET THE F-ING COMPUTERS READ WHAT WE MARK ON PAPER BALLOTS INSTEAD.

Furthermore, my understanding of these printouts is that some of them do not have standing as ballots themselves; they can be ignored or disposed of with impunity.

BTW, that spiel about technology marching forward is a load of bull, because it comes attached to the demands of a capitalist class insisting that we do not EVER refuse their new money-making schemes. We do not get to pick and choose what tech is appropriate, and anyone trying to stop them in any way is pilloried as a Luddite. That is "progress" based on fallacy.

[JohnnyRingo]

56. Again, you have a bit of a misconception

First, you assume that before the computers people voted by marking a big X on a ballot with a quill or something. I witnessed my first election at preschool age almost 60 years ago when I went into the booth with my mother. Voters were led to a machine covered with levers that we would tick over to record our vote. My mom didn't have to spend much time with that because she would simply flip the big lever for a straight ticket, pull the handle to record the vote and open the curtain. Mom taught me a lot when I was young, but she never told me to distrust that mechanical voting machine.

That machine would have been just as "hackable" as anything electronic today, but people didn't start fearing technology until it went to a computer. That's somewhat understandable because of machines like these ones in Virginia, but the voting machines here in Ohio are much different and have guards in place to prevent tampering as well as the ever important paper trail. There are more human checks now than when I was a kid. The article in the OP never explains why their machines have to be connected to the internet. Ohio's are not and there is no legitimate reason to do so.

What you seemed to miss is that if a voter wants, they can literally "let the f'ing computers read what they mark on the paper ballots instead" as you say. It's their choice. Such voters are given a paper ballot with small circles next to the candidates to fill in with a pencil. That ballot is locked in a box and taken back to the elections board where an optical computer scans it and records the vote. How that allays a fear of computer technology is beyond me.

If one doesn't trust voting on Ohio's current machines, they likely would be suspicious of any process if an election turns out against their favor, including hand counts by possibly corrupt officials. When a conspiracy theorist is presented with a puzzle piece that doesn't fit their theory, they just resort to a mallet to pound it in, and I'll just have to get used to hearing cynics say "the fix is in" when they vote for an underdog.

[cprise]

57. A mechanical hole-puncher is a billion times more transparent

than what occurs inside the logic gates of a computer. Plenty of people with technical inclination can analyze a lever-operated voting machine down to the last 'bit' or decision the machine is capable of expressing.

If you think Virginia's system is so awful, imagine what their corrupt officials think of paper ballots.

As long as a system has standardized on electronic ballots, regardless of whether some exceptions are made for paper, it is open to being skewed using methods that even the vast majority of computing professionals could not detect. The state of computer security is in tatters.

The IT industry cannot even get its own act together in protecting normal transactions; anonymous transactions are beyond their ability partly because the kind of system architecture that has been popularized is designed with a general disregard for security. That checkmark you see next to a name on an LCD screen is a reflection of a reflection that is handled by many different layers of abstraction within that diminutive-looking device.

Deluded fools can bandy about charges of "conspiracy theorist" and "cynic", and give heartening reassurances that security guards are present when trying to defend the inevitability of technical "progress" by microchip. But it seems to me they are the least prepared to debate the issue on technical grounds.

[JohnnyRingo]

62. That's why I like a printed paper trail.

...A paper ballot that is printed in real time right before the voter's eyes, rolled up into the machine, cross checked against the electronic tally at the end of the day, and stored under lock & key for years after in case of a dispute.

I still fail to see how that system, as used in Ohio, is less secure than overworked humans tediously counting them one at a time for hours on end. The redundant manpower and required to keep tabs on workers is an absurd waste considering the reliability of a properly set up and secure computer system. If there's a way to cheat that system, I'd like to hear the theory.

The way Virginia does it is ridiculous and I'm glad to hear they de-certified the machines.

[cprise]

67. That makes voters spend twice the effort on each ballot

because they are in effect having to tend to 2 ballots: The on-screen one and the paper one. That is assuming the paper copy is even considered a real ballot. It also doesn't sound like the voter even gets to touch the paper copy; I can think of plenty magicians who wave pieces of paper in front of people.

And you said there are more human checks in the system now to keep the new system honest. I call that an indictment of computerized voting.

[LiberalLovinLug]

60. Ok, I guess I don't understand your paper receipt usage

And I still don't really. It all sounds so convoluted and complicated. And its amazing to read from another of your posts that as far back as 60 years ago you used some form of mechanical machine instead of paper ballots in boxes. Americans....God love ya. I really do admire your spirit of invention. But I think that can work against you as well. Just because you CAN invent something does not mean it is needed or better than the tried and true method.

mark your choice on paper. Put paper in locked box. Count paper ballots with oversight. Done.

Plus......you avoid any and all questions about security of computer-based systems. Even if you yourself are convinced of their infallibility, and even if, despite various proven hacking tests...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-voting-machine-so-easy-to-hack-it-will-take-your-breath-away/
"Virginia election officials have decertified an electronic voting system after determining that it was possible for even unskilled people to surreptitiously hack into it and tamper with vote counts."


....Like I said, I love and admire the American spirit of innovation and can-do attitude. But you have to know when to realize that some inventions are NOT NEEDED and are actually more of a headache than what you had previously.

Case in point:

http://totallyabsurd.com/absurd.htm


Dog Bumper
US Patent Issued In 1977


Tricycle Lawnmower
US Patent Issued In 1984


Motorized Ice Cream Cone
US Patent Issued In 1999

[JohnnyRingo]

63. Hahaha

Point taken with the illustrations.

[Fred Sanders]

21. No volunteer counters. Professionals trained by a non-partisan, non-political election commission.

Human counting by neutral human counters with no machines, the gold standard in trust, is what democracy deserves.

[JohnnyRingo]

25. I've never seen that description before

"Professionals trained by 'non-partisan' 'non-political'...

Who is that, the Supreme Court? Even then, keep Scalia away from my ballot.

Never mind the astronomical costs involved in such an endeavor to do what machines can effectively do for pennies on the dollar in a fraction of the time, I believe there's no such person. Certainly not enough to staff an entire commission (apparently one that doesn't know who signs it's paycheck).

[Fred Sanders]

30. And I forgot...a paid day off for all registered voters on the bi-annual National Election Day.

[questionseverything]

39. i remember elction nights before computerized voting/counting

the adults set up long tables in the gym ,,,we kids got to run and play in the school hall ways

each race the ballots were separated into piles on different tables, all in plain sight and then counted twice, then recorded on the "report sheets" and in marker on poster board for the room to see...4 or 5 people would sign off on the report but any1 could check that the report and the tally they had overseen were the same...today it could easily be live streamed

back then we had to physically go to the election office to check that our "report" numbers matched what the election board reported.....today this could be shown on line also

4th graders could do the counting,it isn't rocket science

the theory in 04 is that rove redirected the sos website to a mirror website with different results...nothing you have posted would of stopped that

[JohnnyRingo]

49. I see your point...

Counting votes the old fashioned way, or even using the ancient black or white marbles is pretty open and transparent, but with only humans involved there's still a risk of error and sabotage. No system is 100% secure, but cross checks and bipartisan monitoring gives at least the same chance for integrity and less chance of human error with the machines used here in Ohio. To begin with, our machines are not made by one company, we contract with three for obvious reasons.

The computer voting machines only record the votes, people are still involved in every step of the process to insure the count is accurate. When voting is completed for the day, a printed paper record is sealed and locked away for years in the event of a challenge. Knowing that incriminating paper trail exists is probably enough to discourage anyone from signing their name to a falsified report.

Karl Rove was accused of many incredible feats in Ohio back in 2004, but the ones I've seen hold little merit. It was said he could flip individual voting machines via the internet, but our machines aren't connected to the 'net. Some said his henchmen went to each county (88) and installed software in the thousands of machines, but that would take an army of workers sworn to secrecy and compliant county election board employees. The idea that the SofS would get incorrect results from a :mirror site" doesn't take into account that our county knows haw many votes were cast and for which candidate. If the SofS released different results, there'd be a major problem that couldn't be publicly ignored.

I don't know that the '04 election was on the up & up, but paper printers were installed in time for the '08 election when Obama took Ohio. We no longer trust the machine alone, because those printers involve human cross checking every step of the way, from the voter who watches it printed in real time to poll workers who compare the paper tally with the machine count at the end of the day, and no one goes home until it matches. If necessary, we call the county HQ, but I've never seen that happen.

[questionseverything]

65. u r funny,if it wasn't so sad

http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2011/4239

http://electiondefensealliance.org/?q=recount_prosecutions_unraveling_ohio_2004_theft_and_coverup

Indeed, when the Free Press audited all the recount ballots from Miami County, we found the so-called recount results differed noticeably from the official results. If these differences in results were discovered at the recount in 2004, Ohio law should have triggered a hand recount of all ballots in the county. That was never done.

//////////////////

publically ignored while in court 7 years fighting for fair elections

http://www.sweetremedy.tv/fatallyflawed/media/RTA_Fraud_Flyer_3_7_12.pdf

every voting machine company is owned by neo cons....

yes with a hand count afew hundred votes could be stolen in an extremely dirty precinct but with electronic voting and recording thousands of votes can change with no explanation at all

http://bradblog.com/?p=7875

Results Drastically Changed

The election numbers have radically changed in Monroe County since the May 18th election. At least as reported on the SoS website, and as confirmed by local officials.

It's not all that unusual for the unofficial numbers to move a bit following election day, as absentee and provisional ballots are counted and added in to the totals, and as precinct numbers are double-checked for accuracy in the post-election canvass. It is, however, unusual, for vote totals to get a great deal smaller rather than larger in the days following the election. And that's what seems to have happened in Monroe County --- radically so.

Somehow, more than a thousand votes disappeared entirely, as the election results in the Dem and GOP Senate primaries have almost entirely changed.

???

the whole point is our country was built on checks and balances....if the public can not verify that election results are accurate it is not a democracy at all

[JohnnyRingo]

66. Don't insult me.

If you vote in Ohio, you know that governor Ted Strickland took those machines out when he took office in 2007 because they had no printed accountability and replaced them with the system we use today. You may recall that Obama handily won Ohio under the new system in '08 and in '12.

I have a feeling you already knew that but are trying to fuck with me. I thoroughly explained the failsafe process with the paper backup and how the print is compared to the electronic count at the end of the day. Those links you provided are no longer valid, but if you can offer one way someone can cheat Ohio's machines now, I can probably explain why it won't work. I'm that familiar with the system, so instead of 11 year old conspiracy theories, come up with something fresh.

BTW: You may not be aware- though I already explained- that Ohio's machines are supplied by three unrelated companies to avoid any deceptive influence by one supplier. If one company's machines all seem to favor one candidate, that could result in a simple audit of the archived paper printout and would end a lucrative yearly contract. The risk of failure is great, and the reward is slight. That simple equation can keep companies honest. Corporations may not be people, but money sure does talk.

In the future, if you can't make a point without being demeaning, fuck you. I'll assume you're just another conspiracy theorist who uses a mallet to hammer in the puzzle pieces that don't fit your picture.

[Major Nikon]

68. Results...

On Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:28 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Don't insult me.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6525327

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

4th paragraph Ringo is insulting and rude say: "fuck you" Ringo needs to be reminded such insults are not allowed.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:37 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fuck You, grow a back bone
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This was close...
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Well I disagree with Ringo, but he has every right to say what he did...and we are adults here and fuck you is nothing to get upset about.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I hope this alerter also alerted on the post Ringo was responding to, but I won't hold my breath. I'm hiding it for community standards, but I urge the alerter to go about alerting responsibly. Thank you.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[JohnnyRingo]

70. Thanx

That was a close one. Who knew that someone who replied to me in such a caustic manner would be so sensitive? I don't mind being told I'm wrong, but implying that it's because I'm stupid set me off.

[questionseverything]

71. all of my links disproved everything you said

just because obama won proves nothing

and y should any citizen have to trust you or any1 else including ur neocon sos... it is almost always an insider


and if believing what i see with my own eyes makes me ct,i will wear it proudly

[JohnnyRingo]

72. Your links predate the current system

That system was indeed wide open for corruption, but the safeguards put in place in '07 by a newly elected democratic governor make all your links moot. That's not my opinion, it's a fact.

As I said, I can't vouch for the integrity of the '04 election, but it's much different today. I doubt you read even one word I typed earlier because you're so busy, and I imagine you don't understand what could possibly be different today, but it is. Much different.

[questionseverything]

74. as i understand it you are saying because a roll of paper was attatched

that no one looks at...everything is better

i have shown u links where fraud has been proven and admitted to in az and nothing has changed

i have shown u numbers spinning backwards in 2010...nothing has changed

you keep repeating the 3 voting companies...i just shake my head because they are all owned by neo cons

since the mid 60s when electronic vote counting was introduced the country has "gone red"

formerly blue illinois ,ohio and wisconsin recently joining the "red states"

the fairly new soe software that much of the country uses is probably the most dangerous thing in the last 40 years because it is so good at covering (thats the romney company btw)

why do you have such amazing faith in the repubs that run the elections in ohio?

it always amazes me when people deny that a system we can not oversee could be inaccurate

repubs will gerrymander, send flyers stating the wrong day for elections, create barriers like showing an id...the list goes on and on...no one denies that so exactly why would they stop at rigging an election electronically?

[JohnnyRingo]

77. So when a a republican wins, it must be cheating?

How is the West Coast and almost all of New England blue? Are the machines there un-hackable by those shadowy neocons that haunt your dreams every November?

Certainly gerrymandering, voter intimidation, and purging has been more a reality than Karl Rove flipping votes from a master console in his secret underground lair.

For any way you claim the electronic vote can be tampered with here in Ohio, the problem has been acknowledged and effectively addressed since 2004. For instance, unlike those Virginia machines, Ohio's are not connected to the internet in any way and you'd apparently be surprised by how many voters stand and watch their ballot being printed. There's not much else to do during that time in the voting process. That paper count is cross checked with the electronic tally at the end of the day by a bipartisan team of poll workers.

[questionseverything]

79. u refer to how many voted,that is checked but not how they voted

show me in the sos film or literature where it says the count is checked

http://www.ohioelectionstraining.sos.state.oh.us/publicsite/Simulation.aspx?simid=19&s=COonUDFsuyqri5OjC+tGhw

http://www.ohioelectionstraining.sos.state.oh.us/publicsite/PublicMain.aspx?cn=13

After the Voters Have Left the Polling Location

To properly close the polling location, the following tasks must be completed:

In Precincts Using DREs (Touch Screens):

Record the total number of regular ballots voted on the DREs using the public count.

Count and record the total number of paper provisional ballots cast by voters who arrived between 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m.

In case of a court order only, count and record the total number of provisional paper ballots cast by voters who arrived after 7:30 p.m.

Count and record the total number of soiled or defaced paper ballots.

Count and record the total number of unvoted paper ballots.

Count and record the total number of signatures in the Signature Poll Book.

Post precinct results at the polling place as directed by the board of elections.

Record all ballot statistics (e.g., regular, provisional, soiled and defaced, unvoted) on the Balance/Reconciliation Sheet provided by the board of elections.
Double-check ballot statistics, and sign the Closing Certificate and Election Day Balance/Reconciliation Sheet.
///////////////////////////////

for example the checklist of how many might be 250 voters,as long as the numbers spit out of the dre are within the realm of physically possibility (not totaling over 250 votes) the paper roll is not checked

btw ty for kicking this thread with your comments

UPDATE: 1/20/10: Mainstream Press Finally Publishes Explosive Article About Connell And His Death



It has been years that we have been trying to convince the MSM that yes there is a real story underlying the supposed Bush win of Ohio in 2004. Now more than five years later, and only after the strange death of Bush IT guru Michael Connell, has the MSM finally had the courage to allow this story to be published. But no, it wasn’t the New York Times, Washington Post or 60 Minutes but rather, Maxim, a widely read magazine targeting men. We urge everyone to pick up a copy of the February issue of Maxim to read the full 3500 word expose’.



But this story will inevitably lead to greater coverage of the facts outlined by author/journalist Simon Worrall. There are new twists to the story that have previously gone unreported including the fact that Connell’s Blackberry with lots of Bush/Rove info on it disappeared at the crash site; that the site was cleaned up under the cover of night after a lockdown on information about the crash; that the “after action report” detailing the sabotage of Connell’s plane has been received by the NTSB and reviewed by intelligence officials who have indicated that it is genuine; that Connell’s last words were captured on tape and showed extreme surprise at something that happened in the cockpit; that a contract between Connell and the OH SOS shows that they had a subcontract with Smartech to reroute the 2004 election results through GOP servers with remote access, mirroring capabilities, and a Virtual Private Network accessible by anyone with a password; and that Robert Kennedy Jr. calls this case bigger than Watergate. More details can be found at The BradBlog.



UPDATE: 11/9/09: Connell’s Family Speaks Out, Warns Of Wrongful Death Suit Against Rove, Assassination Jackal Tipster Talks Of Sabotage

[fadedrose]

18. Oh no...not again nt

[RKP5637]

28. Yep, it's a perpetual déjà vu as we wander in the same ruts with seemingly little

resolution to provide valid incorruptible audit trail/tracking.

[lonestarnot]

31. Since no one is interested in fixing it that can fix it, are there any counter hackers standing by

as I will not tolerate another fucking rigged pile of crap of an election and all the votes will be counted.

[L0oniX]

33. Stop fucking around with the oligarchy's machines! Hillary must win!

[JEB]

35. Pencil on paper is high tech enough. eom

[KansDem]

36. Remember 2004?

http://mediastudy.com/

[snort]

37. Researchers?

I have a 14 year old neighbor that would have done it for a coke and a bag of chips.

[blkmusclmachine]

42. "We work for the 1%. Trust us."

[blkmusclmachine]

43. URL: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/24/us/replvoting600.jpg

[RiverNoord]

48. 'admin' as the Windows Administrator password?

Incompetence does not explain that. That's deliberate.

[underpants]

53. Mostly in white precincts

I vote on one of those. We don't stand in line in suburbia.

[Zorra]

55. Only idiots and crooks support electronic voting. nt

[DFW]

58. They're already easy to hack

My brother, who does stuff for DARPA, told me ten years ago, "give me a cell phone and a laptop, and I'll make any e-voting machine give you any result you like."

[LiberalArkie]

59. It is very easy to make a truthful secure voting machine.

It take a lot of work though to make them lie and look like they are truthful.

[Liberal_in_LA]

61. I haven't voted on an machines for years. don't see them around la much

[realFedUp]

64. Kicking

Never loved Diebold

[whereisjustice]

69. technocrats say that to preserve democracy, we must spy on citizens and count votes in secret...

It's time we tell them FUCK YOU and kick them off the stage!

[Initech]

73. Didn't some university a while back get Tetris to play on a touchscreen voting machine?

[questionseverything]

75. packman

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7998

and another hack with 26 bucks worth of electronics

National Security Lab Hacks Diebold Touch-Screen Voting Machine by Remote Control With $26 in Computer Parts: My New EXCLUSIVE at Salon
Hack team leader: 'Can do similar things on pretty much every e-voting machine'...
By Brad Friedman on 9/27/2011, 10:17am PT

[UPDATE 9/28/11: I interviewed Argonne National Lab's Roger Johnston on my Pacific Radio show on KPFK today. In the interview, Johnston concedes that it's not only touch-screen systems of the type described below which are vulnerable to this newly developed hack, but that paper-ballot based optical-scan systems can likely be manipulated by the same techniques. My interview with Johnson is now posted here. - BF]

* * *

The Vulnerability Assessment Team (VAT) at the U.S. Dept. of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois has managed to hack a Diebold Accuvote touch-screen voting machine in what I describe at my exclusive today at Salon as perhaps "one of the most disturbing e-voting machine hacks to date."

As noted by the computer scientists and security experts at Argonne's VAT, largely all that's needed to accomplish this hack is about $26 and an 8th grade science education.

[midnight]

78. Here in Wisconsin-Command Central in Minnesota counts our votes. That's how we got Scott Walker.

"In his report of his experience with the November 2010 gubernatorial election for Scott Walker, John Washburn, an election integrity investigator and professional software tester for almost 20 years, states, “I have been to dozens of voting system test sessions and have never seen any of this faux ‘testing’ actually test the voting system software correctly. This is the professional opinion of a software tester testing software since 1994.”


"Last September, Election Integrity investigators discovered that unbeknownst to average citizens of Wisconsin, Command Central sent those 46 districts an offer: trade out your old Optech Insight Scanner for two DRE Touch Screen models, at no charge. The Optech machine is the one that paper ballots are fed through to read and register the votes.

While these machines are also susceptible to hacking (see Rep. Pridemore explain how to game the machine) in the case of a recount, it is possible to physically monitor the paper ballots as they are fed through the machine to see if they match the machine totals.


Edge Touchscreen Voting Machine. Ask for a paper ballot instead of voting on one of these.
With DRE Touch Screens, however, one’s vote could be flipped and one would never know because there is no receipt or paper trail voters receive to confirm their vote was counted as voted. All that is left is a paper tape that shows votes and vote totals. If the machine is hacked, those totals have no other verifiable trail to confirm the results."


http://wcmcoop.com/2012/05/22/meet-command-central-the-people-in-charge-of-wisconsin-voting-machines/