3 ms·

I was a heavy Slashdot user before the takeover, and now Hacker News fills the hole in my browsing that Slashdot left. If you're like me, you'll remember the m

I was a heavy Slashdot user before the takeover, and now Hacker News fills the hole in my browsing that Slashdot left. If you're like me, you'll remember the many articles about the vulnerability of Diebold voting machines. This has always been a concern, since at least the early '00s or before. I guess people have a very selective amnesia.

CydeWeys 6y ago
The original Diebold machines, at least, were purely electronic; they did not leave an auditable paper trail like the Dominion machines do. So we've fortunately learned a lot in the intervening decades and have fixed the glaring security flaws.
- david927 6y ago
  We really didn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEuG_ekNT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEuG_ekNT0
tgb 6y ago
Modern machines differ from old ones is a very significant way: they give you a paper ballot that you - the voter - can verify before submitting.
- covidthrow 6y ago
  And how many people do you think review that paper? Probably as many as review their grocery store receipts, I'd guess. Which is to say, practically none.
  - wyldfire 6y ago
    How would the machine predict which voters to deceive? I reviewed my printed ballot before submitting it. I'd guess it is probably more than "practically none". If 0.1% of voters did this, it would be 159633 ballots reviewed. If the tainted machines consistently changed these ballots to the same presidential candidate, ~80,000 voters would have had an opportunity to detect a dishonest voting machine. What ratio of votes would need to change in order to change the outcome? And what ratio would the bad actors predict was necessary in advance of the election? But regardless of the above -- the design change to include printed ballots was a big improvement in security and voter confidence in the election.
    - mountainboy 6y ago
      Don't need to. The reading machines read a QR code generated by the ballot-marking-device. Or so I've seen experts testify. The QR code could mis-match the printed ballot on say 5% of the ballots and nobody would notice a thing. Need a recount? Ok, just run em through again, and they'll read the same (wrong) votes again, no problem. Only a hand count of the paper ballots would catch the mis-match. Did that actually happen? I don't know. But if the machines are truly reading a QR code, that seems a glaring flaw regardless.
  - kingnothing 6y ago
    Probably everyone. I voted on a Dominion machine this year. It prints out a full size piece of paper on thick stock with big font saying who you're voting for. You then have to carry that piece of paper to the ballot counting machine and stand in line for a minute before it's your turn to put your vote in the counter. The piece of paper isn't a receipt, it's your actual ballot. In the case of the elections this year, all of those were manually hand counted as well as being electronically counted and the counts were identical.
    - mountainboy 6y ago
      Did you notice if the ballot had a QR code on it? Did you scan the QR code, decipher its data structure and verify it matches your voting intent? Because according to what I saw presented in hearings, the reading machines actually read the QR code made by ballot-marking-device, not the human readable portion of the ballot. If true, that seems an obvious design flaw (to be nice) right there.
- mountainboy 6y ago
  I am not an expert but what I've read is that in the Dominion system, when a Ballot Marking Device is used, it generates a QR code representing the vote in addition to the human readable ballot. Next, the ballot reader machine reads the QR code, not the human readable portion. Assuming this is true, it would be simple to modify the printing software such that the QR code vote is different from the human readable vote. A recount, by running the paper ballots through the machine again, would come up with the same result as the first time. The only way to catch it would be to hand-count the paper ballots and compare the results to the machine counted votes. Really though, the QR code should be eliminated, so that the voter is able to personally verify what the machine will actually read.
  - tgb 6y ago
    Exactly: it gets caught when doing a hand recount. A hand recount was done in Georgia this year, for example. There were no issues. The conspiracy theories were successfully disproven.

CydeWeys 6y ago

The original Diebold machines, at least, were purely electronic; they did not leave an auditable paper trail like the Dominion machines do. So we've fortunately learned a lot in the intervening decades and have fixed the glaring security flaws.

david927 6y ago
We really didn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEuG_ekNT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svEuG_ekNT0

tgb 6y ago

Modern machines differ from old ones is a very significant way: they give you a paper ballot that you - the voter - can verify before submitting.

covidthrow 6y ago
And how many people do you think review that paper? Probably as many as review their grocery store receipts, I'd guess. Which is to say, practically none.
- wyldfire 6y ago
  How would the machine predict which voters to deceive? I reviewed my printed ballot before submitting it. I'd guess it is probably more than "practically none". If 0.1% of voters did this, it would be 159633 ballots reviewed. If the tainted machines consistently changed these ballots to the same presidential candidate, ~80,000 voters would have had an opportunity to detect a dishonest voting machine. What ratio of votes would need to change in order to change the outcome? And what ratio would the bad actors predict was necessary in advance of the election? But regardless of the above -- the design change to include printed ballots was a big improvement in security and voter confidence in the election.
  - mountainboy 6y ago
    Don't need to. The reading machines read a QR code generated by the ballot-marking-device. Or so I've seen experts testify. The QR code could mis-match the printed ballot on say 5% of the ballots and nobody would notice a thing. Need a recount? Ok, just run em through again, and they'll read the same (wrong) votes again, no problem. Only a hand count of the paper ballots would catch the mis-match. Did that actually happen? I don't know. But if the machines are truly reading a QR code, that seems a glaring flaw regardless.
- kingnothing 6y ago
  Probably everyone. I voted on a Dominion machine this year. It prints out a full size piece of paper on thick stock with big font saying who you're voting for. You then have to carry that piece of paper to the ballot counting machine and stand in line for a minute before it's your turn to put your vote in the counter. The piece of paper isn't a receipt, it's your actual ballot. In the case of the elections this year, all of those were manually hand counted as well as being electronically counted and the counts were identical.
  - mountainboy 6y ago
    Did you notice if the ballot had a QR code on it? Did you scan the QR code, decipher its data structure and verify it matches your voting intent? Because according to what I saw presented in hearings, the reading machines actually read the QR code made by ballot-marking-device, not the human readable portion of the ballot. If true, that seems an obvious design flaw (to be nice) right there.
mountainboy 6y ago
I am not an expert but what I've read is that in the Dominion system, when a Ballot Marking Device is used, it generates a QR code representing the vote in addition to the human readable ballot. Next, the ballot reader machine reads the QR code, not the human readable portion. Assuming this is true, it would be simple to modify the printing software such that the QR code vote is different from the human readable vote. A recount, by running the paper ballots through the machine again, would come up with the same result as the first time. The only way to catch it would be to hand-count the paper ballots and compare the results to the machine counted votes. Really though, the QR code should be eliminated, so that the voter is able to personally verify what the machine will actually read.
- tgb 6y ago
  Exactly: it gets caught when doing a hand recount. A hand recount was done in Georgia this year, for example. There were no issues. The conspiracy theories were successfully disproven.