Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrcoolbp on Friday April 24 2015, @11:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the never-trusted-those-things-anyways dept.

From the Wichita Eagle:

A Wichita State University mathematician sued the top Kansas election official Wednesday, seeking paper tapes from electronic voting machines in an effort to explain statistical anomalies favoring Republicans in counts coming from large precincts across the country.

Wichita Eagle's coverage

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:58AM

    by mendax (2840) on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:58AM (#174907)

    These cases only reinforce the argument that all e-voting machines should use open-source operating systems and that the source code of both the OS and the voting software ought to be easily downloadable for inspection and analysis. When every facet of an election is not completely open and transparent, corruption seeps into it.

    Now, on a different subject, if it turns out that this statistical anomaly is indeed evidence of vast electoral fraud, those who are responsible ought to be publicly hanged by their balls or tits.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Sir Finkus on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:15AM

    by Sir Finkus (192) on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:15AM (#174909) Journal

    Something similar to the bitcoin blockchain may work, where everyone gets a private key and signs a public transaction record. The only concern I might have in that case would be anonymity, although I think it could be designed in a way that votes could be traced back to people.

    Of course the problem with that is that I don't see how it would prevent fraud by the creation of new voters. Maybe some kind of goofy web of trust thing. I'm not a cryptonerd.

    • (Score: 1) by dingus on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:53AM

      by dingus (5224) on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:53AM (#174959)

      You could require all keys to be signed by whatever beaurocracy runs elections, and keys are only signed for a limited time on election day.

      Of course, this is all fantasy, many people have a sort of reflexive distrust of any kind of technology, even the kind that is mathematically guaranteed to be trustworthy.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @04:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @04:31AM (#174968)

        And early voting? Because there shouldn't be just one election day. That is merely a means of oppressing the poor.

        • (Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:00AM

          by Sir Finkus (192) on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:00AM (#175282) Journal

          Well, that would be pretty easy to fix. Just make any modifications to the blockchain after election day invalid. They could issue the "votes" as early as they'd like.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:52AM

    by Thexalon (636) on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:52AM (#174913)

    Actually, it's a very very strong argument that a computer is the wrong tool for handling this kind of record-keeping.

    What actually works, and works really well, is a piece of paper with names on it that the voter marks and places in a box. In my home state, after multiple debacles involving the fancy electronic software machines, they switched to that, with a "fill in the bubble" sheet and a machine that can count them automatically. But the key point is that the legal vote is the one that the voter physically handled and physically put in the voting box - they do hand recounts of randomly selected precincts to verify the machines are accurate, and will hand-recount everything if it's really really close.

    One aspect I will never understand about elections, at least in the US, is the silly notion that all elections should be called by 11 PM EST on Election Day.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:02AM

    by tftp (806) on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:02AM (#174918) Homepage

    These cases only reinforce the argument that all e-voting machines should use open-source operating systems and that the source code of both the OS and the voting software ought to be easily downloadable for inspection and analysis.

    This will not help, as you have no way to verify that the software running the machine is not tampered with, or that it was compiled from unmodified sources that you were reviewing earlier. Or that the hardware is executing the program correctly. Or that the touch screen is not off by quarter of an inch. Or that the tape printer that shows you a printout does not modify the data. You can hide an elephant among several microcontrollers that are invisible to a software reviewer.

    A complex voting method results in many vulnerabilities. A simple method, like counting of physical objects, is more reliable.

    If you are intent on electronic voting, it is necessary to ensure that the vote is unchangeable. Someone has already mentioned the blockchain - and indeed that would be a very hard nut to crack if someone wants to change the results later. Perhaps you would be given a certain token; you plug it into your smartphone or a PC and generate a vote; then you submit that vote into the blockchain and wait for confirmations. A token could be a high density QR code, for example.

    In terms of digital currency, at the polling place, after checking your right to vote, you'd be given several different digital coins. each valid for one election/office. You can spend each coin by "paying" to the account of the candidate that you support. You can do it from home, though the polling place might also have a few computers set up - but it would be recommended to vote on your own hardware. The unissued coins will be then submitted to special addresses to demonstrate that they haven't been used "to stuff the box." Some small number of coins will never show up anywhere - because, for example, the voter chose to not vote.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by mth on Saturday April 25 2015, @10:50AM

      by mth (2848) on Saturday April 25 2015, @10:50AM (#175019) Homepage

      A desirable property is if no voter can prove who they voted for. This reduces the ability to bribe or coerce people to vote for a particular party or candidate. That might not be possible if you hand out tokens to be used outside of the polling place. In fact, even if the vote itself could not be traced to the token used after voting, if the token is handed out someone could look over the voter's shoulder as they vote or simply take the token.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TheLink on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:39AM

    by TheLink (332) on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:39AM (#174950) Journal

    May not be so good at fulfilling one of the requirements of a voting/election system.

    https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=6515&cid=157399 [soylentnews.org]

    You missed out one major requirement of any voting system (and elections).
    0) Convincing enough of the losers that they have lost.

    If a voting system can't meet that requirement it's a waste of time and resources and could make things even worse.

    So while there are fancy crypto techniques that can be used to implement a secure online voting system, these systems are unlikely to satisfy that requirement.

    In contrast this requirement can be satisfied by a simple paper ballot box system where voters and observers can see the votes go in, not go anywhere and get counted one by one in front of their preferred side's representatives/electoral monitors/observers. Some magician could tamper with the votes, but you'd need magicians in enough polling stations..

    Convincing enough of the losers they've lost should be a major requirement of any election system. Whether it's rigged or not ;).

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:32PM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:32PM (#175051) Journal

    Sigh...do you even understand what source code IS? It is just that, the source of the code that MIGHT be on the machine. It isn't magical pixie dust that protects you from attackers that control the hardware and to think otherwise is either beyond naive or simply ignoring reality to push your FOSS agenda.

    If there was rigging it was done by people that control the hardware which means it means exactly jack and squat if you have the source because 1.- The source you have may not be what was running at the time, 2.- The source does not in any way stop them from loading malware, and 3.- The source does not magically keep them from removing said malware after the election.

    Source lets you fix bugs IF you are a developer OR have the money to hire some, it does NOT create a magic malware shield.

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday April 25 2015, @10:03PM

      by mendax (2840) on Saturday April 25 2015, @10:03PM (#175179)

      I am a programmer. I think I know what source code is. And I recognize that making it available creates some sort of "magic malware shield", but complete openness makes it harder for someone to do some unkosher (or non-halal if you prefer).

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Sunday April 26 2015, @08:10AM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday April 26 2015, @08:10AM (#175299) Journal

        Alright smart guy lets here EXACTLY how source code is gonna keep an attacker that controls the hardware and has unfettered access from doing any damned thing they want. While you are at it explain 1.- How EXACTLY you are gonna prove that the source YOU have was the source that was running at the time, 2.- That there wasn't malware loaded during the critical election period, and 3.- That said alteration wasn't taken off after the fact.

        Because I really want to hear this because it sounds EXACTLY like you are assigning magical pixie powers to source...so lets here it, elucidate us with your wisdom oh wise one.

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.