Sharon Machlis's picture
Sharon Machlis

Machlis Musings

Argonne security experts calls voting systems insecure

No, it's not just paranoia: Voting machines really are insecure.

The latest expert voice on the subject is the head of Argonne National Laboratory's Vulnerability Assessment Team, Roger Johnston.

"In many cases, we see security devices or electronic voting machines where we really have to wonder, 'Did anybody spend 60 seconds figuring out the security issues?" he told NBC Chicago.

From the NBCChicago.com report yesterday, Easy Breach:

[Johnson] said he's found that most voting machines have almost no security to reveal tampering. Thus, he said, it's a fairly simple matter to tinker with the electronics while machines are in storage or being transported by the truckload. He has even demonstrated how he can turn cheating mechanisms in voting machines on and off by remote control.

The ability to hack voting machines has been on HBO (documentary Hacking Democracy), on CNBC when Bev Harris demonstrated how to alter an election result in 90 seconds, bypassing election-tabulating software's password protection, and in many other media. Tech experts have raised numerous serious concerns, such as a team at Princeton University showing that "it takes about 7 minutes, using simple tools, to replace the computer program in the [Sequoia] AVC Advantage with a fraudulent program that cheats."

How much more evidence do we need before our right to vote is protected?

A paper trail is necessary so if questions arise about an election results -- say, results significantly differ from scientifically valid exit polls, a standard used to check for fraud by election overseers in other nations -- there's a way to double-check results that can bypass potentially flawed software counts.

Sharon Machlis is online managing editor at Computerworld. Her e-mail address is smachlis@computerworld.com. You can follow her on Twitter Twitter @sharon000, on Facebook or by subscribing to her RSS feeds:
articles Machlis RSS | blogs Machlis RSS.

What People Are Saying

Electronic Voting

Can anybody give one proven case of fraud involving electronic voting machines? The answer is no because it has never happened.

By your logic

By your logic, if there hasn't been a court case it never happened. Or as in Star Wars Episode 3, "If the planet is not in our archives, it doesn't exist!"

Attack of the Clones

That was Kamino in Episode II.

YES, FRAUD has been proven!

2008 NH Presidential Primary-

Fraud by machines prompted a GOP candidate to pay for a recount- because 4 voters in one family- who voted for RON PAUL did not have their votes reflected in the precinct tally. It showed ZERO votes for Ron Paul. This particular family went through the unusual step of checking the vote tally's (rarely do any citizens do this) and they discovered the fraud !
the machine did not tally their votes-
the question that was never answered was how many other votes were not tallyd for Ron Paul and where did those votes go? were they added to Romneys numbers or to McCains numbers?

Exit Polling data showed Rommey should have been the winner, but McCain won-

It is up to election officials to PROVE to voters the votes are being tabulated as they intend- not the other way around.

It only takes switching or padding only a few votes per precinct to change the outcome of an election. Think about that!

We can only trust a vote count if it is on paper ballots and is counted in public view before they are allowed to leave any precinct- then those results need to be immediately posted on the door until certified so that citizens can cross check to make sure they are transerred the state and tallyed there correctly- not altered en route.

If you would like to see more expamples of e voting fraud- go to www.electiondefensealliance.org

Purely intentional

The weak security of voting machines is purely intentional. They are intended to be tampered with. The intentionally fraudulent presidential election in Florida was the perfect cause to pass the "Help America Vote" act, which has only one purpose: pass on tax money to companies who spent a lot of money on political campaigns. In return the political parties have an excellent tool to skew results their way. That is much easier than redrawing voting districts until they look like a bowl of spaghetti.
Other countries have a plain simple paper ballot where voters mark a rather large circle next to the party or candidate. Anything from a line, cross, dot, doodle, or whatever is counted as long as it is in one circle. Counting is done manually by volunteers and it is open to the public to view. Sure, there are still ways to stuff the ballot box, but voter registration lists are also public records and you need a photo ID - unlike in the US where you can just go to a polling station, say your name, and if they find it in the list you are good to go.
Some say that using electronics machines tallies the votes quicker. While I see the benefit of that I rather wait a day for the results and have them be correct than get fake results within a few minutes.
It is really embarrassing that the US governments are so inept. Countries considered banana republics have a more transparent and democratic election system in place. As Adenauer once said: Every nation gets the government it deserves.

agree

"Paper voting" may be easier to tamper with, but only on a small scale.

Quite the contrary, voting machines can be tampered with on a much bigger scale.

Maryland used to have what I

Maryland used to have what I thought was the perfect system, a mark-sense ballot where you filled in the body between the head and tail of an arrow pointing to the selection. No hanging chads, ballot was optically scanned into the system, and the hard copy could be audited if need be in a recount. Now we have one of those smart-card based systems. Many times newer is not always better.

I agree

Paper trails all the way. And after some years, the paper can be recycled.

On a lighter note, is this why CW ditched voting on their front-page articles?

Watching the fanboiz spin the voting app to favor their own posts or positions was highly entertaining. And at the same time, very obvious.

Voting

Computerworld articles can still be voted for using the "Recommend" button at the top of the story, or by using any of the social media buttons found in the left margin.

Voting on comments was removed to be consistent with our blog comment system, and to prevent manipulation that was allowing for artificially inflated vote counts, as you observed.

We are always considering alternatives that we hope will allow us to offer these and other features to Computerworld readers.

Ken Gagne
Associate Online Editor
Computerworld.com