SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In the run-up to the USA's upcoming national election event:
The FBI has uncovered evidence that foreign hackers penetrated two state election databases in recent weeks, prompting the bureau to warn election officials across the country to take new steps to enhance the security of their computer systems, according to federal and state law enforcement officials.
[...] [three days later] the FBI Cyber Division issued a potentially more disturbing warning, entitled "Targeting Activity Against State Board of Election Systems." The alert, labeled as restricted for "NEED TO KNOW recipients," disclosed that the bureau was investigating cyberintrusions against two state election websites this summer, including one that resulted in the "exfiltration," or theft, of voter registration data. "It was an eye opener," one senior law enforcement official said of the bureau's discovery of the intrusions. "We believe it's kind of serious, and we're investigating."
[...] six states and parts of four others (including large swaths of Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state in this year's race) are more vulnerable because they rely on paperless touchscreen voting, known as DREs or Direct-Recording Electronic voting machines, for which there are no paper ballot backups.
[...] the FBI warning seems likely to ramp up pressure on the Department of Homeland Security to formally designate state election systems as part of the nation's "critical infrastructure" requiring federal protection — a key step, advocates say, in forestalling the possibility of foreign government meddling in the election.
The reason designating election systems "critical infrastructure" requiring federal protection is important is that designation means the Feds devote resources to protecting it and threaten a heightened response to entities messing with "critical infrastructure."
[Continues...]
Related / more info:
- Cyber Storm V: Testing the Nation's Ability to Respond to Significant Cyber Incidents
- White House releases a cyber deterrence policy outlining how the United States will respond to cyber attacks from malicious actors.
- Text of the Cyber Deterrence Policy (PDF)
Have you considered the impact on the US if the election for president is disrupted, with the winner unknown because the results are dependent upon the votes in one or more of the states with electronic-only voting systems? Some people might find it beneficial if the US election is disrupted or contested.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 30 2016, @06:05AM
Here's what I actually overlooked until just now: absentee votes are super easy for a third party to confirm with cooperation from the voter, so targeted coercion is even easier than a selfie in the current system. This negates your whole argument unless you oppose absentee voting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @06:20AM
Yes there are anonymity problems with vote-by-mail and as more and more districts roll that out eventually somebody is going to start exploiting those problems. But at least they still have the friction of physical ballots so scaling the coercion isn't anywhere near as easy as with e-voting. You'd need someone to personally verify the ballot and mail it themselves to assure the coerced vote was actually cast.
Ballot selfies are not a problem because a photograph of a ballot before it is cast is not proof that it was cast.
And what you call a "minor issue" is anything but because, again, scaling. It is no great leap to automate a vote buying scheme where people message their "receipts" and get bitcoin in return. That's 1000x easier than dicking around with ballots in the mail.
And while I haven't mentioned this yet, secure e-voting is impossible too. You can't guarantee that the computer used to cast the vote isn't compromised in such a way that (a) it casts a different vote and (b) intercepts the "receipt" and give you a fake one. For example, everybody who thinks they voted for candidate X but their phone had a virus that voted for Y instead gets the same "receipt" from someone who really did vote for X.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 30 2016, @06:34AM
The whitepaper is actually an interesting read. We're talking about voting in a booth still.
If you were automatically paying anybody for keys that are tied to a specific vote, you're mostly going to be paying people who were going to vote that way regardless. Very cost prohibitive.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 30 2016, @06:51AM
I do see your point about taking a ballot selfie and then requesting a new ballot. I was trying to think of a clever way around it, but I haven't yet.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday August 30 2016, @06:59AM
Oh, wait, here's the clever solution: video transition from selfie to ballot dropping in hole, obviously. Hurpadurpa.