Want To Examine E-Voting Machines That E-Voting Companies Won't Let You See? Do You Have $82?

from the that-wasn't-so-hard... dept

In the ongoing debate over the security of e-voting machines, one thing has stood out. The e-voting companies continually insist that they shouldn’t let security researchers examine their machines, often claiming that these well-respected researchers would simply hand over the details to other irresponsible parties. In other words, they were basically admitting that their machines weren’t secure, but were hoping that security-by-obscurity would protect them. Unfortunately, security-by-obscurity rarely works — because the obscurity is never quite as obscure as people hope. It appears that a Princeton professor was able to get his hands on five e-voting machines from Sequoia by bidding $82 in a government surplus auction. He’s now examining the machines, and while he says they appear more secure than Diebold’s machines, there are still problems with them. Sequoia has responded that it doesn’t matter, because any machine that was tampered with would have obviously broken seals. Unfortunately for Sequoia, it’s already been pointed out that such seals are easily removed and replaced without anyone noticing, and it seems to happen quite often. However, the bigger point, that Sequoia seems to be ignoring, is that by relying on a security-by-obscurity policy, e-voting companies are assuming that no one with malicious intent would ever get their hands on these machines to inspect them. However, if all it takes is $82 from a government surplus auction (for five of the machines) it seems pretty clear that anyone who wants to examine these machines for vulnerabilities (for either good or bad purposes) can easily get their hands on one. That knocks out the obscurity — and, with it, whatever “security” that came with it.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Want To Examine E-Voting Machines That E-Voting Companies Won't Let You See? Do You Have $82?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
30 Comments
Mike (profile) says:

Re: voting machines

You wackos never quit, do you? The “well-respected” researchers would do anything for a buck, let alone a few million. I’ve met a few, and was quite surprised to learn exactly whose payroll they were on.

Ah, yes, and you resort to name calling rather than giving an actual response. That seems credible.

All because your candidate lost. What a shame.

Talk about a non-sequitor. What do you mean my candidate lost? I’ve never publicly supported any candidate, and my complaints with the e-voting system have remained steady no matter who was in power, and will remain that way until the system is more transparent. It has nothing to do with who won or lost. It has everything to do with the system itself.

And, I like how all of the comments that are trashing this post come from the same IP address…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: voting machines

I like that point about the same ip address, if it’s so fucking trivial to manipulate votes, don’t you think a IP is too? I guess two of us are using the same proxy, ya think?

I’m not name calling, I’m pointing out a fact. Just in case you are new to this thread, let me repeat myself.

The voting machine wackos are on the payroll of the voting machine companies.

All because your candidate lost…. so sad.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: voting machines

I like that point about the same ip address, if it’s so fucking trivial to manipulate votes, don’t you think a IP is too? I guess two of us are using the same proxy, ya think?

Oh, of course. So you’d manipulate IP addresses of two separate people to make it so you’d appear as the same person? That makes a ton of sense…

CaribbeanChick says:

voting machines

I am an American living in the Caribbean, and living out of the US in 3rd world countries has helped me show how Americans will do or say anything just to get a stupid point through. You guys must have nothing better to do. Sign up for Care or the UN and do something useful. This article was pathetic and a waste of my time. Like Jane Doe said, if it bothers you that much, go to Canada eh?

Human Number 532-38-5594 says:

No Comment

Looks like there might be a divorce in the Doe’s future…

Anyway, back on a real subject, these people really need to learn that they don’t know how to make technology and they arent’ going to be able to fix it themselves. Let’s just have one of the researchers go to one of these auctions, buy a few, and then, because the company will not give them the current ones, assume all of the problem they find with the ones they bought also apply to the ones in use.

John Doe, it’s not the payroll they are on, or even if they are well respected. It’s the fact that the company won’t let the machines be tested by a source other than their own, which is probably inacurrate.

Jack Sombra says:

Woooosh

“The “well-respected” researchers would do anything for a buck, let alone a few million.”
Why would anyone pay them a few million? As this article proves it only requires $82

But as the point of the article seems to have have gone over your head, will try explaining it a different way.

Not allowing people to examine the machines because they might “reveal secrets” is a load of hogwash, because if someone wanted those “secrets” there are many ways they can obtain them…like the local Gov. surplus auction

vapiddreamer says:

#2 and #3

I think I think I have to agree with #4— crawl into a deep dark hole and die you freaking artards. Remember #3, it’s not that our candidate lost (thereby making us a nation of losers led by the King of the Intellectually efficient) it that the security testing on these machines never happened, meaning that for all we know the vote was more pointless than usual. Yeah, supporting the use of untested technology in choosing the leader of the most dangerous country in the world is a great freaking GREAT idea. I repeat, GO DIE you morons.

Roo says:

Democracy

How could anyone object to the taking of steps to ensure the integrity of the electorial process. The fact is that we have had proven anomolous results; such as the Florida precinct that reported a negative vote total for a candidate.

Voting is what makes a country and it’s people free. The Judicial, Legistlative, and Executive branches derrive their powers from electorial mandates. If that process doesn’t work, then the society is not truly democratic.

So why not have open source voting software run on standardized hardware? The best protection is to have lots of eyeballs keeping everyone honest.

Roo

Chris says:

Glad someone finaly shares some of my sentiments.

Yes for the great majority of people out there trying to act as though they’re the authoritative entity in which all mannerism of related knowledge should be filtered through I highly agree you need to stop speaking, dieing is probably the quickest way to insure that.

E-voting machines are trying to be pushed as the next implementation of improving the entire voting process. As it currently stands the popular vote hardly counts for anything, as the majority of voters today are bible thumping evangelicals told to vote on the basis of a religion that our four-fathers were smart enough to acknowledge has no place in politics. Even if that’s not the case when a court decides the final outcome of a vote, then why vote anyway? There’s the fantasy world, and then there’s the real world. If you want results you pay for them, and that’s what’s been happening behind the curtains for decades.

So when you have investors who put billions into a product to get the result they want it’s no wonder companies such as Diebold will not allow anyone to access their product. They think they should be protected under the same laws as any other business. Well when you make something for a nation that decides the fate of the entire world, Americans aren’t going to be the only people who want some sort of insurance policy. So to have these companies subjected to certain levels of security scrutiny is a good thing. The harsher the more beneficial it will become. If you make something open-source then anyone who might care to could try to crack the system, and make such vulnerabilities known thus improving the overall quality of the system in place.

…and to the person who said go join the UN to help the world, well that’s just laughable, not to mention the complete irony of your post. Then again you are a “chick,” and I think any woman would agree, you probably have difficulty seeing things from someone else’s perspective.

Jim (profile) says:

The real world

“Sequoia has responded that it doesn’t matter, because any machine that was tampered with would have obviously broken seals. Unfortunately for Sequoia, it’s already been pointed out that such seals are easily removed and replaced without anyone noticing, and it seems to happen quite often.”

I am an election judge. Not only am I an election judge I am an equipment manager election judge. My job during an election is to make sure the machines are running and fix common problems. We use the Sequoia touch screen machines. The memory sticks are in the rear of the machine with a seal on them. The thing that the so called experts claim that they can be tamperd with isnt reality. The machines are sitting in front of 4 election judges. Who are bored out of thier minds half the time because people dont vote. No one is going to be able to take off the seal, insert anything , then reboot the machines without taking a free ride in a police car. The machines have voter verifiable print outs that can be used if there is a suspected problem.
The problem is some people think up all the problems, but most of them cant happen in the real world. Its like saying, watch out your car can get stolen. Well it can. But if the car is locked up and 4 police men are looking at it, it will be there when you return.

Michael O says:

heated "debate"

okay mud slinging. whatever. the facts of the matter are such: diebold execs literally promised the elections to rebublicans. It’s clear that they managed to “bend” the elections they were interested in by about 5-8% by a combination of things. only a small fraction of the bending of the vote was done using vote tampering directly. Other tampering was done by “oopsing” the election rolls and by making it difficult for voters in democratic areas to vote, requiring ID (once again ensuring that poor democratic voters would not be able to vote) and so on. However the republicans thought at that point they could get away with anything; and absolute power is the same as it ever was. So suprise, the voters voted them out so hard that even the bag of tricks wasn’t enough.

This isn’t to say that democrats are free of corruption. They are at least somewhat less corrupt at this time. It’s up to us to see that the election system is fixed.

Audit trails (like, say, banking computers use). No security by obscurity (open source is good). If we use e-voting, then the ability for voters to take their paper recipt, enter the tracking info on line, and personally verify their vote even after they get home, this is a good thing.

As Stalin said “it’s not who gets voted for, it’s who counts the votes” and it’s up to us all to stop hating, and start working for our political future in which the rights of the majority and the minority are heard and respected.

A functional elections system is of primary importance.

By the way anytime someone tells you to ignore exit polls, be concerned. Exit polls are the best tool we have for showing corruption in the voting process.

Jim (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You mean in the central warehouse, when they are locked up and guarded?
But even if there could be a problem. Realize there is no such animal as a way to run an election that cant be subject to cheating. Even paper ballots can be forged.
Thats why there is a voter verifiable paper trail. If there is any question as to what should have been counted we can go back and check the paper print out.

Chris says:

Learn to read for the love of god.

“Well obviously the UN has problems like ANY NORMAL ORGANIZATION OR BUSINESS. i have never heard of a company that has no problems…”

I didn’t say the UN didn’t have problems, as a matter of fact I didn’t say anything at all about the UN. I said something about your comment on the UN, in which case you can make the argument I implied they have “problems” which really means they’re a corrupt institution that tries to portray themselves as ALWAYS helping. In which case your response is completely invalid because you can’t compare an organization that can impose sanctions onto a country that completely effects their entire government, society, and the general way of life. If you know of any one single company who has that type of power, let me know because I want a job. I’m sure the pay is phenomenal.

Big Fear man says:

Their *real* biggest fear is themselves

They have thousands of employees, there are billions of dollars at stake by rigging an election and many foreign powers who would jump at the chance. They have no way of ensuring every employee is totally honest and never taken a bribe. They’re selling a complex product with lots of opportunities to rig an election.

Their biggest fear is what’s in their own product, because they don’t know themselves.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...