5 ms·

We trust computers to: * Count and record our money * Operate and monitor medical equipment * Monitor and control planes, trains, ships, and cars * etc To

We trust computers to: * Count and record our money * Operate and monitor medical equipment * Monitor and control planes, trains, ships, and cars * etc To think that we cannot use a computer to record votes is insane.

talmand 10y ago
>> Count and record our money I think recent history has shown this hasn't worked out quite that well in many cases, and that in other cases was easily manipulated for purposes of fraud. There are entire sections of various law enforcement agencies that focus on this very topic. >> Operate and monitor medical equipment What would be the benefit of manipulating this? >> Monitor and control planes, trains, ships, and cars What would be the benefit of manipulating this? I would second guess anything that uses a computer to keep a record of something that someone would have a direct benefit if manipulated. It's not a matter of whether it works or not, it's a matter of how easy is it to manipulate for a particular goal.
- devopsproject 10y ago
  > What would be the benefit of manipulating this? Killing people. Imagine a StuxNet type attack that targets medical equipment or an attack that can drop planes from the sky (https://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-commandeered-plane/ https://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-com...) > I would second guess anything that uses a computer to keep a record of something that someone would have a direct benefit if manipulated Then you better move to the woods. Basic economic principals (scarcity) mean that every resource has value to an interested party.
  - talmand 10y ago
    >> Killing people. I can only see the benefit of a targeted assassination for a very specific subset of a subset of a subset of people, not large scale killing of people. Warfare maybe? For fun? Not as obvious as fraud for monetary gain, there is a scale issue to consider. I worry more over bugs that kill people on the operating table or in the air as opposed to someone manipulating the equipment for some unknown benefit. >> Then you better move to the woods. I think you're exaggerating just a bit.
    - devopsproject 10y ago
      > Warfare maybe? For fun? Not as obvious as fraud for monetary gain Wars are extremely profitable for some. > I think you're exaggerating just a bit. I think you are being myopic. We trust computers with thousands of important tasks. If we can't trust them for voting, we really have to reconsider their usefulness.
      - talmand 10y ago
        >> Wars are extremely profitable for some. That is an excellent point. But, reading back over the posts I see that I introduced the concept of warfare even though the original points I questioned did not. So, back to my first questions; who benefits from manipulating medical and aircraft equipment on a large enough scale to be compared to potential financial fraud? Wait, targeted assassination that starts a war... That's been done before, but unlikely. >> If we can't trust them for voting, we really have to reconsider their usefulness. It's not that I don't trust the computers, it's that I don't trust people.
        devopsproject 10y ago
        > I introduced the concept of warfare I assumed "killing people" was broad enough to include obvious cases such as war :) > So, back to my first questions; who benefits from manipulating medical and aircraft equipment on a large enough scale to be compared to potential financial fraud Competing corporations via corporate espionage. A targeted hack against Siemens infusion pumps would force hospitals to consider alternatives. > It's not that I don't trust the computers, it's that I don't trust people. Every system in the world has been created by people with their own biases and faults. If we are really going down that path, then you must seriously consider going off the grid.
closeparen 10y ago
Banks, hospitals, airlines, rail systems, and automakers are all on the hook - if their system does the wrong thing, someone will notice the unbalanced books, bodies, or wreckage (other banks, Treasury, NTSB, NHTSA), and the institution will suffer serious harm. How will you know if an electronic voting system produces a wrong result, except by running a paper voting system in parallel? Do municipalities choosing voting machine contractors have incentives aligned to promote election integrity? Can they critically evaluate security properties of what they're being sold? I don't think so.
- devopsproject 10y ago
  > the institution will suffer serious harm The republic is experiencing significant harm. If it was not, people would not be talking about it. > How will you know if an electronic voting system produces a wrong result, except by running a paper voting system in parallel? Audits? Open Source? Checksums? Hashes? We have many tools to verify the integrity of electronic data (I also never claimed it had to 100% digital) > Do municipalities choosing voting machine contractors have incentives aligned to promote election integrity? Can they critically evaluate security properties of what they're being sold If the choice is federally verified company A or federally verified company B, then yes.
DamienSF 10y ago
The article doesn't conclude "computers can't count correctly" but instead it says "voting machines are set-up to enable election fraud".

talmand 10y ago

>> Count and record our money I think recent history has shown this hasn't worked out quite that well in many cases, and that in other cases was easily manipulated for purposes of fraud. There are entire sections of various law enforcement agencies that focus on this very topic. >> Operate and monitor medical equipment What would be the benefit of manipulating this? >> Monitor and control planes, trains, ships, and cars What would be the benefit of manipulating this? I would second guess anything that uses a computer to keep a record of something that someone would have a direct benefit if manipulated. It's not a matter of whether it works or not, it's a matter of how easy is it to manipulate for a particular goal.

devopsproject 10y ago
> What would be the benefit of manipulating this? Killing people. Imagine a StuxNet type attack that targets medical equipment or an attack that can drop planes from the sky (https://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-commandeered-plane/ https://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-com...) > I would second guess anything that uses a computer to keep a record of something that someone would have a direct benefit if manipulated Then you better move to the woods. Basic economic principals (scarcity) mean that every resource has value to an interested party.
- talmand 10y ago
  >> Killing people. I can only see the benefit of a targeted assassination for a very specific subset of a subset of a subset of people, not large scale killing of people. Warfare maybe? For fun? Not as obvious as fraud for monetary gain, there is a scale issue to consider. I worry more over bugs that kill people on the operating table or in the air as opposed to someone manipulating the equipment for some unknown benefit. >> Then you better move to the woods. I think you're exaggerating just a bit.
  - devopsproject 10y ago
    > Warfare maybe? For fun? Not as obvious as fraud for monetary gain Wars are extremely profitable for some. > I think you're exaggerating just a bit. I think you are being myopic. We trust computers with thousands of important tasks. If we can't trust them for voting, we really have to reconsider their usefulness.
    - talmand 10y ago
      >> Wars are extremely profitable for some. That is an excellent point. But, reading back over the posts I see that I introduced the concept of warfare even though the original points I questioned did not. So, back to my first questions; who benefits from manipulating medical and aircraft equipment on a large enough scale to be compared to potential financial fraud? Wait, targeted assassination that starts a war... That's been done before, but unlikely. >> If we can't trust them for voting, we really have to reconsider their usefulness. It's not that I don't trust the computers, it's that I don't trust people.
      - devopsproject 10y ago
        > I introduced the concept of warfare I assumed "killing people" was broad enough to include obvious cases such as war :) > So, back to my first questions; who benefits from manipulating medical and aircraft equipment on a large enough scale to be compared to potential financial fraud Competing corporations via corporate espionage. A targeted hack against Siemens infusion pumps would force hospitals to consider alternatives. > It's not that I don't trust the computers, it's that I don't trust people. Every system in the world has been created by people with their own biases and faults. If we are really going down that path, then you must seriously consider going off the grid.

closeparen 10y ago

Banks, hospitals, airlines, rail systems, and automakers are all on the hook - if their system does the wrong thing, someone will notice the unbalanced books, bodies, or wreckage (other banks, Treasury, NTSB, NHTSA), and the institution will suffer serious harm. How will you know if an electronic voting system produces a wrong result, except by running a paper voting system in parallel? Do municipalities choosing voting machine contractors have incentives aligned to promote election integrity? Can they critically evaluate security properties of what they're being sold? I don't think so.

devopsproject 10y ago
> the institution will suffer serious harm The republic is experiencing significant harm. If it was not, people would not be talking about it. > How will you know if an electronic voting system produces a wrong result, except by running a paper voting system in parallel? Audits? Open Source? Checksums? Hashes? We have many tools to verify the integrity of electronic data (I also never claimed it had to 100% digital) > Do municipalities choosing voting machine contractors have incentives aligned to promote election integrity? Can they critically evaluate security properties of what they're being sold If the choice is federally verified company A or federally verified company B, then yes.

DamienSF 10y ago

The article doesn't conclude "computers can't count correctly" but instead it says "voting machines are set-up to enable election fraud".