Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

How to Hack the Vote and Steal the Election

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:06 AM
from the vote-early-vote-often dept.
divisionbyzero writes "Many people have asked for it so that the government will have to deal with it. So here it is: a guide to stealing an election that uses electronic voting machines written by Jon Stokes over at Arstechnica. From the article: "In all this time, I've yet to find a good way to convey to the non-technical public how well and truly screwed up we presently are, six years after the Florida recount. So now it's time to hit the panic button: In this article, I'm going to show you how to steal an election.""
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Lack of ethics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Scott Lockwood (218839) * on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:08AM (#16594838) Homepage Journal
    I agree that this is perhaps THE most pressing issue right now for Americans, but is it really ethical to distribute this kind of information? At what point do you take responsibility for what you post, and NOT diseminate information that, in the wrong hands, will cause what you are trying to prevent?
    • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chrismcdirty (677039) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:11AM (#16594896) Homepage
      I'd go as far to say that it is more ethical to distribute it. The information becomes widely known. Maybe someone will hack an election to make it very obviously hacked, thus forcing a re-vote with an honest, verifiable way to count votes.
      • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BoomerSooner (308737) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:26AM (#16595160) Homepage Journal
        I just hope someone does it. MY PARTY!!! lol... the system is screwed.

        When people give a shit more about some gays marrying in NJ than they do about genocide in Darfur, military and civilian deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan, and people dying in this country due to being priced out of receiving their necessary meds, we have become a country that has lost focus on things that *actually matter*.

        That being said, I'm not optimistic anyone that's in my camp has the guts to steal an election, we'd rather give it away. Liberal media my ass... I wish!
        • by crhylove (205956) <rhy@leperkhanz.com> on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:51PM (#16596872) Homepage Journal
          Which is that we don't have an independent media anymore. Rupert Murdoch is as likely to be a whistle blower as Karl Rove is.

          Unless we have a real free press, with real media outlets (read: TV, radio, internet, magazine, newspaper, etc.), then we don't have a democracy.

          Personally, after watching 911mysteries and other films on related topics, and reviewing the scientific facts for myself, I'm convinced that we already live in 1984, and the only solution is the bloody ugly one that Thomas Jefferson and most of our other founding fathers completely supported.

          You did mention the "liberal" media, so you touched on it, but really, when 3 channels are quoting each other with created facts by obvious pundits who are clearly party members.....

          You don't have freedom of the press anymore, and it's game over for democracy.

          It's been that way since Kennedy got whacked, and on a related issue, that was also our last real election.

          rhY
          • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Plutonite (999141) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:12PM (#16596092)
            To him?

            Mass murder, loss of life due to partial failure of socio-economic systems in some classes, war and chaos are all private matters of concern now? Don't know why I should have to actually say this at risk of karma, but a if a few guys screwing each other in NJ with matrimonial ambitions - if they are more important to us than the above issues, then maybe we have lost a lot more than just "focus".
            • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Jaeph (710098) on Thursday October 26 2006, @01:34PM (#16597756)
              People always play this stupid game - it's about life and death, who cares about [insert lesser issue].

              So we shouldn't build roads, fund museums, build schools, create wildlife sanctuaries, and so on. All of our cash should go to immediate life-saving projects.

              OH, and for the record, while I'm not in either "camp" and don't give a squat about the sexual practices of NJ males, it was never really about that. It's all about the money (government benefits to spouses), and it always is. Both sides put a bunch of nonsense up on the airways and refuse to talk about what matters in grownup land - how much does it cost.

              Personally, I think government should get out of the marriage promotion business altogether and just concern itself with guardianship laws and contract law. But hey, now both sides can target me for not caring.

              -Jeff
                • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by soft_guy (534437) on Thursday October 26 2006, @02:36PM (#16598936)
                  If your complaint is that they now get privileges from the government, there's an easy solution - neither hetero nor homo couples get any preferrential treatment over singles.

                  But the whole point of what the Christians want is to be able to reward people they like (i.e. themselves) and punish people they do not like (i.e. fags). So, taking away their special privledges to put them on a level field does not accomplish this. Giving gays the right to marry does not accomplish this. What they want is the government to send checks to Christians and put the fags in jail. Because, you see, Christians are so "loving".
                  • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:4, Informative)

                    by rblum (211213) on Thursday October 26 2006, @04:07PM (#16600664)
                    Please do not confuse religious fascists with Christians. They might call themselves that, but they are not. There are plenty of decent Christians out there.
                  • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by Deagol (323173) on Thursday October 26 2006, @03:23PM (#16599862) Homepage
                    It is also a fact that raising children is expensive and is a big financial burden on families that singles don't have and they can use some help.

                    "It is also a fact that owning a Hummer is a big financial burden on people that those without Hummers don't have, and they can use some help."

                    See how ridiculous that sounds? People have choice on whether or not to breed, as do they have a choice to own a Hummer. I don't feel pity for the financially strapped family in either camp.

                    (posting from Utah, where 5+ kids is too damn common for my comfort)

                    • " China and India, the two most populus countries in the world, had high population growth, but now that their economy has dramatically improved their birth rates are dropping."

                      Do you actually have a reference to support this or did you pluck it out of your....

                      Amoung others Foreign Policy magazine [foreignpolicy.com] had an article on this. Unfortunately as their online archives is subscription based and I don't have a subscription I can't provide a link. I have to admit though you pointed out something I left out about China, that China has a one child one couple policy. And while rural areas don't directly feel the economic boom in China more and more people are moving from the countryside to cities. Wish I could find one article from "Foreign Policy" but they had an article on one of the fastest growing cities in central China that said thousands of Chinese are moving to every day. This releases some of the economic pressure on rural areas. As for India, farmers are experiencing hardships with many committing suicide. They don't have open access to the industrial nations such as the US and EU, and the US and EU can import into India agricultural products relatively cheaply. That's a big reason the WTO meetings failed in Europe this summer. Because the EU wouldn't talk about opening their markets to imports and the massive subsidies the EU gives to farmers the Indian representative walked out.

                      If China and India weren't benefitting from an economic boom then neither would be able to finance the US national debt, and China and India are the biggest buyers of US Treasury bonds and notes respectively.

                      Falcon
          • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

            by An Onerous Coward (222037) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:22PM (#16596298) Homepage
            No, he left off the words "to sane, rational people who haven't let their vindictive excuse for morality blind them to the real problems." If you're claiming there are valid reasons to prioritize the "dudes kissing" problem over genocide in Darfur and the Iraq war, you're going to have to present them, because I'm pretty damned skeptical.
              • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Johnny5000 (451029) on Thursday October 26 2006, @01:27PM (#16597628) Homepage Journal
                Marriage is the very cornerstone of American civilization, and to allow same sex marriages would fundamentally damage the institution of marriage, and by extension fundamentally damage American civilization. By that reasoning, it must take priority over any external issue.

                Again, I, personally, don't believe that to be a logical viewpoint, but there are others out there who do.


                If people really wanted to defend marriage, they'd outlaw divorce.

                Also, when people pull out the "damage the institution of marriage" I usually ask them
                how exactly the damage occurs, because honestly I don't see how gay people getting
                married affects the marriages of straight people.
            • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:4, Interesting)

              by thrillseeker (518224) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:31PM (#16596470)
              Another way to look at issues is how time critical are the issues at hand

              Well, you still left off the words "to me". The genocide in the Sudan is unlikely to affect the majority of the voters - in any country - regardless of the eventual outcome, hence it continues, to the tune of millions dead even - but what's a few million dead people - over 60% (2.5 million or so) of the Montagard tribe of Vietnam was exterminated after the peace loving Americans forced the US military to cut and run from Vietnam - but hey, they ended the war, eh. The situation in Iraq, etc., due to the rise of terrorism, the importance and quantity of oil, the historical and stated intent of the ruling elite (as we watch Iran pontificate now), and even the historical influence of the Ottoman peninsula, affects many people, and hence the interest. It's "easy" to liberate a Grenada, except for the shitstorm of "unbiased" press reports afterwards, but not so easy in Haiti, for example, nor in Iraq - but Iraq has much more influence, whether for or against, because of location, etc., to the US, and so is important.
      • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:29AM (#16595246)
        > I'd go as far to say that it is more ethical to distribute it. The information becomes widely known. Maybe someone will hack an election to make it very obviously hacked, thus forcing a re-vote with an honest, verifiable way to count votes.

        And if they get away with it, honestly, is that really so bad?

        DATELINE: January 27, 2009 - President Stallman and GNUHSEC announces arrest of Redmond, WA voting-machine hackers.

        President Stallman today announced the disruption of a terrorist plot, allegedly involving electoral fraud originating from a the terrorist organizations known as the Red Mond Alliance and the Darlings of McBride, both of which owe allegiance to a shadowy figure known only as the Monkey of the Thrown Chair.

        "Let the elections of 2008 stand as a warning to all who would attempt to defraud the American public", warned Vice President Eric Raymond. "The GNUTIA (Gnu's Not Total Information Awareness) surveillance programme is fully operational, and GNUHSEC (Gnu's Not Homeland Security) agents will not tolerate any future incidents of voter fraud."

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:03PM (#16595894) Homepage Journal
        Here's my prediction. The control of the House of Representatives in the coming election (which is after all, the most important thing, considering it would give Bush's opponents subpoena power to investigate all the sleazy crap he's pulled), will come down to one extremely close race. This close race will be decided, after a recount, and the Republican candidate will win by less than .01% of the votes.

        It will be a virtual repeat of the 2002 and 2004 elections. You see, all this nail-biting, down to the wire, razor-thin margin bullshit gives the idiots who watch TV the feeling that, well "it MUST be legit because it was so darn close" and "if there was anything crooked going on, they'd win decisively".

        Wednesday, the 8th of November, we will hear how the "values voters" pulled together at the last minute and despite the fact that all the exit polls showed the Dems winning by a huge margin, the Republicans yet again pulled a miracle out of the hat and retained power. Rush Limbaugh will explain that all the prayers of the good Christian Conservatives is what turned the tide.

        Because of the clear crookedness of our electoral system (and did you notice that the regions that the Republicans pulled their upsets in during the last elections were the ones that had Diebold machines?), it is probably too late to expect elections, op-ed columns or clever blogs to make a damn bit of difference.

        No, I'm afraid it's going to take people, lots of people, in the streets, being decidedly ill-behaved if we're going to keep this nation anything like the beautiful experiment that the Founding Fathers produced. If the principles of the Enlightenment are going to survive, we're going to have to act the way the heroes who created this country acted: badly. Civil disobedience and mass demonstrations, general strikes and boycotts. There's going to be some fighting before this power-grab by the Authoritarian Right who have masked themselves as "Conservatives" will end.

        Despite my general laziness and particular enjoyment of online games like Eve-Online, I am prepared to fight, and if necessary, die, for my country. Even if it means that it will be other Americans that I will have to fight to protect the United States of America.

        It's going to take a tamper-proof margin of victory in 11 days if this sleazy little tin-pot dictator in the White House and the crooked pricks who are pulling his strings are going to be stopped. It's the only chance we have to put a little oversight on these bad actors.
          • by jkauzlar (596349) on Thursday October 26 2006, @05:49PM (#16602054) Homepage
            Voting Irregularities in Ohio [ideamouth.com] which used ES&S and Diebold machines. see pp. 28 & 29 [electionarchive.org][pdf]. The first link is irrelevant as proof, but interesting. The second link contains all of the exit poll discrepencies for each state. It was a report done by the exit polling company to investigate the discrepencies. I can't find any lists of where Diebold or ES&S machines are used, but you'll see in which states the largest discrepencies were found. It's a very interesting study, although they don't point fingers, only describe where the discrepencies may have come from.
        • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

          by h4rm0ny (722443) <.h4rm0ny. .at. .tarddell.net.> on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:59AM (#16595824) Journal

          You're joking? The people with the motivation to rig the election are the main parties. They're also best placed to get away with it. Who are these "terrorists" that would want to rig the results? As far as a group like Al Quaeda (who I presume you're thinking of here), both the main parties are pretty much identical. They are, after all, funded by the same players and neither has shown much compassion to the people of Saudi Arabia in living memory.

          Terrorists want attention and to make a statement. Rigging an election is something that has limited benefit once it is publically known. If an election is or has been rigged, you'll find the culprits much closer to home.
    • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Recovering Hater (833107) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:11AM (#16594908)
      Or is it more unethical to have access to information that threatens us all and not say anything for fear that some "bad guy" might use it against us? The truth is that some "bad guy" is already sitting around thinking up ways to to use the information or writing the information down for himself from scratch. Security through obscurity never works for long.
        • Re:But what about (Score:4, Insightful)

          by johneee (626549) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:39AM (#16595412)
          Hannibal is brilliant by all accounts (especially his own...) and one of the few people who understands technology and communication well enough to be able to put esoteric subjects into terms understandable to an intelligent lay person, but he's not anything close to the only person to be able to figure this kind of thing out - especially since he probably didn't spend a whole lot of time on this article compared to the amount of time someone who wanted to actually steal an election would.

          If Hannibal can do this then someone who wanted to steal an election, and could spend a trivial amount of money on doing it could absolutely do the same. It is utterly absurd to think that the analysis he did in the course of researching and writing a single article couldn't be done (and probably was done a long time ago) by any one of hundreds of other organizations if they had a small team working on it for months or years.

          The result? The only people for who this is news are the people who don't have a vested interest in stealing an election - and those are the people who need to know about it. Bravo to my favourite tech site for doing this.

          • Re:But what about (Score:5, Informative)

            by Hannibal_Ars (227413) on Thursday October 26 2006, @02:17PM (#16598590) Homepage
            Ok, cracks about my (in)famous lack of humility aside, you have a great point. This article took me a week from concept to execution, and over half that time was spent making the diagrams. Ultimately, I did a little over two days of basic technical research for this (including email correspondence with security experts in this area). I am not an infosec expert and I don't pretend to be--I'm just good at digesting tech info and turning it into a form that a non-specialist audience can grasp.

            There are many Slashdot readers who could get up to speed on how to really steal an election in about half a day (or less) using publicly available documentation. The hardware isn't that complex at all, and the vulnerabilities in Windows (for the GEMS server) and WinCE (for the machine) are very well-known.

            What I've described here is very, very low-hanging fruit for anyone with real security expertise.
        • Well (Score:4, Insightful)

          by The Creator (4611) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:40AM (#16595430) Homepage Journal
          It's better that many bad guys know of a "hack" that doesn't work anymore, than that a few know of one that still does.
        • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Smidge204 (605297) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:50AM (#16595654)
          People hav ebeen writing reports and letters to the machine manufacturers and politicians since BEFORE the 2004 election warning how unsecure the electronic voting system was. A totally new way to bypass what little "security" these machines have seem to show up on a monthly basis.

          People have given sworn testimony in court about the security issues and how their concerns fell on deaf ears in upper management, or sometimes even met with legal threats and unemployment.

          Quite simply, proper channels HAVE been exhausted. Either nobody gets it or they are deliberately trying not to hear it.
          =Smidge=
    • Re:Lack of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Atraxen (790188) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:22AM (#16595098)
      Correct. As a chemist, I know what harm chemistry can cause - illegal pharmaceuticals, explosives, etc. And so, I demand an immediate crackdown on publically accessible chemistry texts, to ensure a brighter tomorrow.

      Correct. As a firearm owner, I know what harm firearms can cause - killings, accidental shootings, property damage, etc. And so, I demand an immediate crackdown on publically accessible repair manuals, to ensure a brighter tomorrow.

      Correct. As a driver, I know what harm poor driving can cause - vehicular homicide, property damage, etc. And so, I demand an immediate crackdown on access to automobiles, driving instruction literature, etc., to ensure a brighter tomorrow.

      Congressmen should maintain an exemption to all of the above, to ensure they can oversee said systems, and protect the workings of our great society. Public oversight should not be necessary, as I have full trust in the state.
    • by Spaceman40 (565797) <[blinks] [at] [acm.org]> on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:16PM (#16596204) Homepage Journal
      A commercial, and in some respects a social doubt has been started within the last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fallacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and know already much more than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery.

      Rogues knew a good deal about lock-picking long before locksmiths discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done. If a lock, let it have been made in whatever country, or by whatever maker, is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been deemed to be, surely it is to the interest of honest persons to know this fact, because the dishonest are tolerably certain to apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of the knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance.

      It cannot be too earnestly urged that an acquaintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for all parties. Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions in the art of adulterating milk; a vain fear, milkmen knew all about it before, whether they practiced it or not; and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased.

              -- From A.C Hobbs (Charles Tomlinson, ed.), Locks and Safes: The Construction of Locks. Published by Virtue & Co., London, 1853 (revised 1868).

      (c/o Matt Blaze [crypto.com])
  • by SpooForBrains (771537) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:10AM (#16594878)
    1. Make sure head of company that supplies voting machines is a vociferous supporter of your party
    2. There is no step two ...
    • by lixee (863589) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:13PM (#16596130)
      1. Make sure head of company that supplies voting machines is a vociferous supporter of your party
      This actually happened a few months ago in Mexico; http://www.correntewire.com/mexico_calderons_broth er_in_law_wrote_the_vote_counting_software_and_its _already_been_hacked [correntewire.com]

      If you're not convinced the election has been stolen, check out this excerpt from an article by McNeills:
      Victor Romero is a Doctor of physics who specialises in statistics and randomness at the National University of Mexico. He studied the electoral commission computer results closely and he believes there is strong evidence of interference. Dr Romero explained to me a very unusual statistical pattern he noticed with the PRD vote as the tallies came into towards the end. "The PRD was winning and then suddenly at about 70% they start losing and never even gained .01 of a percentage," he explained. It seems incredible that as the last 30% of results came in, the PRD share of votes never increased. "It could be like this and then like that," Dr Romero explains, moving his hands up and down, "More of one party and less than another. But not in order. The order here is completely unexplainable."
      • by lawpoop (604919) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:06PM (#16595952) Homepage Journal
        It's wrong to take away the voting rights of anybody. Just ask them to step down from any position that puts them in a conflict of interest.

        Here in Ohio in 2004, Ken Blackwell was the Secretary of State, who is in charge of running the elections. He was also the head of Bush/Cheney re-election campaign in Ohio. This is was a conflict of interest. He should have stepped down from one position or the other.

        Similarly, if an executive of a company that makes voting machines is giving speeches in support of a candidate, or writing in a fund-raising letter stating that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year," [commondreams.org], that is a conflict of interest. Either work for the company, or work for a candidate/party. Go ahead and vote. But don't campaign or participate in fund-raising events. To do make voting machines and actively campaign for a candidate or party is a conflict of interest.

        The problem is that when a private company is making voting machines, there is no built-in parity of the system. With the old paper ballot system, representatives from *both* parties were physically present during the voting and the counting, to provide oversight. In the case of black-box machines controlled by a private corporation, they do not have to have representatives from both parties witness the development and implementation of the machines. This will lead to fraud and corruption.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:11AM (#16594900)
    All germans, please sign this petition:

    http://itc.napier.ac.uk/e-Petition/bundestag/view_ petition.asp?PetitionID=294 [napier.ac.uk]

    It currently has 13748 votes.

    Thanks!
  • by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:11AM (#16594912) Homepage Journal
    Are you the RIAA, going on about "stealing" intangible concepts that cannot be stolen? You can't steal an election, any more than you can steal music.

        -- The Diebold P2P Network Team
    • Re:Are you the RIAA? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:08PM (#16596000)
      You should be +5 insightful.

      A lot of slashdotters who would argue both those ways without seeing a conflict.

      It's like the iraqi they had on NPR last night.

      A) He wants americans killed and he wants the shiite militia to do it.
      B) He wants the americans to stay and protect him from the suni's.

      he sees *NO* conflict in these two positions.
  • by Quaoar (614366) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:11AM (#16594914)
    It's the only way to be sure...
  • by jon787 (512497) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:12AM (#16594916) Homepage Journal
    Can we use this to create a CowboyNeal option in the next election.
  • Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by A beautiful mind (821714) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:14AM (#16594972)
    I'm not in any way encouraging anyone to actually go out and steal an election. This article is intended solely as a guide to the kinds of information and techniques that election thieves already have available, and not as an incitement to or an aid for committing crimes.
    Why not? I'd rather have a hacker with good intentions to steal or otherwise grossly manipulate an election (libertarian party coming out as first) and get the system fixed subsequently, than to have the republican/democrat party keep themselves in power and dismiss the people complaining about election fraud as conspiracy theorists.

    Since you cannot validate the correctness of the election either way, I'd opt for the path which fixes the situation.
    • Motivation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Original Replica (908688) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:21AM (#16595094) Journal
      (libertarian party coming out as first) and get the system fixed subsequently"
      If you really want election reform you have to make it in the best interest of the the Dem/Rep party. The best way to do that would be to have a third party victory. As long as someone in the Professional Politicians Club get's elected, the powers that be don't care about voting accuracy. They have no reason to.
  • Been done already (Score:4, Informative)

    by MECC (8478) * on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:17AM (#16595012)
    Its already been done. [rollingstone.com]

    From the referenced url: '"Electronic voting machines also caused widespread problems in Florida, where Bush bested Kerry by 381,000 votes. When statistical experts from the University of California examined the state's official tally, they discovered a disturbing pattern: "The data show with 99.0 percent certainty that a county's use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004."'

    'Charles Stewart III, an MIT professor who specializes in voter behavior and methodology, was initially skeptical of the study - but was unable to find any flaw in the results. "You can't break it - I've tried," he told The Washington Post. "There's something funky in the results from the electronic-machine Democratic counties."'

  • Here's hoping (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dlc3007 (570880) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:36AM (#16595364)
    The best thing that can possibly happen for this country and secure elections would be for Buggs Bunny to win 100% of the vote in at least one, preferably multiple districts. Until people see these results come in on election night, they'll never believe that it can really happen.
  • by Aqua_boy17 (962670) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:37AM (#16595366)
    Hotels across the United States reported an alarming shortage of hotel bar keys.
    • by caffeine_monkey (576033) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:32PM (#16596486)

      Unbelieveably, Diebold actually has an ecommerce site where you can buy all their electronic voting machine products online, including memory cards, security tape, and access keys. I'm really hoping they verify that you're an elections official before they actually ship the stuff to you:

      http://www.diebold.com/nasadmk/cgi-bin/desi_cata log.pl?section=9

      Here you go - buy a dozen keys, for you and your friends:

      http://www.diebold.com/nasadmk/cgi-bin/desi_cata log.pl?section=9&id=163

      On a funny/sad note, the front page of their election products site as a glaring coding error (%=rs("newsdate")%):

      http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/

  • too complicated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truesaer (135079) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:51AM (#16595690) Homepage
    That article was way too complicated for the "non-technical public." It was great for tech savvy people, but if he wants to convince the average joe he needs to simplify. We don't need to see 10 different ways the machines can be hacked, just ONE way that is simple, understandable, and presented clearly to the user. Preferably on 1, maybe 2 pages max (before they lose interest).


    Ideally, for the layperson you would simply explain that each pricinct's votes are stored in a small database, and that it can simply be edited with a piece of software commonly included in Microsoft's popular Office suite. Then, show a screenshot of access with the GEMS database opened, highlight the vote tally for some candidate, and explain that you simply click in the box and change the number. Then explain how it would be impossible to know what the vote count could be due to the lack of paper...relate it back to punched ballots (just save the ballots and recount em if necessary), optical scanners (again you have the ballots and usually there is a paper log that prints each vote as it is scanned), etc.


    All of that is understandable to even the layperson. Most people understand what Microsoft Office is. Most people have heard of a database and understand thats how businesses store all their information. Most people have seen a spreadsheet and a screenshot of someone editing an access database looks almost the same.

  • by nuzak (959558) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:55AM (#16595762) Journal
    Go IMMEDIATELY to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ [house.gov] and send them an email/contact form entitled "How to Steal an Election", with the URL http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ar s [arstechnica.com] in the body. Vary the title if you prefer (I'm open to suggestions), and please do add something in your own words about how much the unaccountability and lack of transparency concerns you.

    Repeat this process for http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm [senate.gov] (the Senate's small enough that they just list them all on one page)

    After about a thousand folks do this, a staffer might actually go print out the story and hand it to their congresscritter in a brief.

    I'd also like to ask the Ars Technica people to make an exception for this story and make the PDF available to non-subscribers, as it would really help to disseminate this story to the right people. I'm not really sure how to go about contacting them.

    Here's my letter (slightly munged of course by slashdot):

    I recently came across "How to Steal an Election" at http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ar s [arstechnica.com] which lays out in rather devastating detail how flawed the current system of electronic voting is. I am concerned that our election process has effectively been privatized by a small number of companies, some of which are overtly partisan in their politics, and none held accountable for the numerous and easily-exploitable security flaws in their equipment. One of the equipment companies in particular has taken to smear campaigns and litigation against its critics in an attempt to silence them.

    I understand that voting should and must be accessible to the disabled, but this can be done without compromising the security and integrity of our elections. Slot machines in Nevada are subjected to extremely rigorous design standards for security, while voting machines have no such standards at all. This situation cannot go on -- I urge you to secure our elections with appropriate legislation.

    [signature stuff removed]


  • What should be done. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nrlightfoot (607666) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:58AM (#16595806) Homepage
    The quickest way to get the system changed is to create a scandal by actually stealing an election. I would suggest making a Libertarian, Green, or other 3rd party win the govenor's race. That should make it pretty obvious. Then the person who hacked the election should send letters detailing what they did to a major newspaper and the state election board. I would also suggest backing up the real results so that no real harm is done. That should get us secure voting machines by the 2008 presidential elections.
    • by radtea (464814) on Thursday October 26 2006, @01:36PM (#16597814)
      The quickest way to get the system changed is to create a scandal by actually stealing an election. I would suggest making a Libertarian, Green, or other 3rd party win the govenor's race. That should make it pretty obvious.

      Statistical analysis has already demonstrated fraud in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. There is no doubt whatsoever that significant voting irregularities took place, and that they had the effect of giving the election to Bush rather than his opponent in both cases. There were also, it is worth noting, some anomalies that favoured Democrats, although not by so wide a margin (perhaps they were just playing their cards more closely, or didn't need as big shifts to win in those races.)

      I sincerely hope that some American hero stands up and hacks the upcoming elections in a big way. They will get jailed for some kind of crime, but someone has to stand up and fight, and not say, "Oh, but my career would suffer if I was willing to sacrifice myself for the good of my country." But I have no illusions that such a successful hack would have any immediate effect. It will take many hacks over many elections to convince the idiots who think that election fraud is simply a stick to beat Republicans with, or who dismiss all evidence of fraud as impossible because "they" would never allow such a thing.

      We know Diebold machines can be hacked very easily. We know that they have been hacked in past elections, based on analysis of exit poll anomalies. We know that there is a great deal at stake in the American elections in the next two years.

      If America deserves to survive, there will be at least one person somewhere who is even now implementing a plan that will result in 100% of the votes cast in their county going to third-party candidates. In practical terms it must be third-party, because otherwise the vast majority of voters who cast their ballot for the favoured candidate would simply shrug, spit, and say, "I don't see no problem with that." Nothing short of a third-party landslide victory will put a dent in the partisan complacency of mainstream voters, and even then the lying bastards in power will claim that this was a special-case problem that they know for sure didn't affect any other races. And the complacent sheeple will believe them.

      If no one is willing to take the risk of throwing egregiously throwing the vote in their county then America does not deserve to survive as a functioning democratic republic, and it will not.
  • by spoonboy42 (146048) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:17PM (#16596216)
    I agree with the general consensus among slashdoters that voting machine schematics and source code must be open to the public for inspection. I also think that we can improve election security, while still retaining an anonymous ballot, by allowing voters to check to make sure that their own vote was properly counted. Here's my plan:

    To begin with, the regular voter verification process happens at the door. You go into the polling booth, select all your options, and a confirmation screen comes up for you to check and make sure you selected everything properly. When you confirm, a small piece of paper is printed out that has a serial number and a dynamically generated decryption key on it. Your vote is then sent along to a tabulation server. Your unencrypted vote is added up with the other votes, and the pair of your serial number and your encrypted vote is stored at the same time.

    Later in the day, you can go home, and log onto a special government website. You enter your serial number, along with your decryption key, and the verification server shows your vote back to you. The only identifier attached to each vote is a serial number, and it requires the proper decryption key to view the vote. Nevertheless, it allows individual voters to check to make sure that their vote was counted. As long as source-code can be publicly inspected, we can verify that counting is not being "faked" by saving an individual user's vote for verification purposes but not actually adding it to the overall tabulation, thus preventing fraud by under-voting.

    To prevent fraud by over-voting, the tabulation server will keep track of the total number of votes it receives from each machine. Local election officials will keep a hand-tally of the number of voters who visit each poll. At the end of the day, the hand tally is checked against the server's tally to make sure there is no discrepancy.
    • Re:Premium access ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by HWguy (147772) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:26AM (#16595170)
      Yes, you are missing something. The entire article is available. You just have to click through it page by page. The PDF is a convenience for subscribers. You can make your own PDF with just a little work if that's what you need.
      • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:59AM (#16595828)
        ``Expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 70-75% of the vote.

        That is, expect it to take place in places where Candidate X carries 75-80% of the vote.''

        Why change these results if your candidate already won anyway?

        Why? To win a state and the state's electoral votes (in a presidential race).

        In the US, the president is elected by the Electoral College. Each state sends a certain number of "Electors" to the Electoral College to cast their vote's for that state's winning candidate. So on a state-by-state basis, it's a winner-take-all system. So you want to change outcomes in counties in order to win a whole state. Here's a way to cheat with the above system (minimizing chances of getting caught):

        1. Pick a populous state with a close election like Ohio or Florida or several others.

        2. Adjust the vote for your candidate up by 5 or 10% in counties where you expect him to win. This increases the overall statewide vote for your candidate. Enough, you hope, to push your candidate over the top.

        3. Your candidate wins the state, gets those electors, and wins the Electoral College vote.

        4. Profit.

        • by thrillseeker (518224) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:05PM (#16595940)
          I remember election night in 2000, I was watching CBS I believe. They called Florida for Gore.

          The influence of the provably biased media on elections as they are occurring should be a shameful thing to us and disallowed. I know people who were standing in (a long) line in Florida and heard it'd been called for Gore and so didn't bother to vote (for either candidate) after that - talk about sanctioned disenfranchising.
    • by An Onerous Coward (222037) on Thursday October 26 2006, @12:55PM (#16596984) Homepage
      You know, cynicism is addictive, but it's not attractive. You can't think of a single thing that would be different about this country if Al Gore had won the 2000 election?

      Would we be at war in Iraq? No.

      Would we be running up record deficits? Probably not.

      Would we have slashed public services to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans? Hardly.

      Would we be torturing people in secret prisons?

      Would September 11th have been pumped up into justification for a global war against 'Islamofascism?'

      Yes, both sides are pretty deep in the pockets of corporations. Both sides are often self-serving at the expense of both their stated ideals and the good of the country. Neither side is offering up solutions that really satisfy me. But to say there is "no difference" is just whiny, and promotes the sort of apathy that corrupt systems thrive on.