Split Thread Electronic voting

It seems like there is a lot of dishonesty and downplaying of the threat to our election system and whether there may have already been manipulation in past elections.

Normally I would quote parts of the articles but can't at the moment.

What are peoples thoughts regarding the articles below? How much confidence can we have in the accuracy of our voter rolls or election results?

Is the lying and downplaying because they worry being upfront would diminish confidence?

https://www.theroot.com/evidence-shows-hackers-changed-votes-in-the-2016-electi-1827871206

https://www.extremetech.com/interne...alled-remote-access-software-on-state-systems
 
By all means come up with a system that is as secure as paper ballots, and let us try to pick holes in it. Blockchain only solves half the security problem, how do you propose to secure the other half?
We may be close to that already.
We "may" be close to that? You keep shouting "blockchain" as some sort of magic talisman that will magically allow electronic voting to be secure, but give no thought of how it could actually be implemented and used.

I don't have enough knowledge of the originating end of the voting process to make extravagant claims about it (but that doesn't stop others making extravagant claims against it).
Perhaps the reason we make "extravagant" claims against electronic voting is because we have some knowledge and experience with designing and developing computer systems, and know that in order to talk about the security of a system you have to deal with all elements of a system (not just data storage/records keeping.)

I'm a programmer/database administrator/analyst. While system security is not my primary job and I wouldn't say I'm an expert in the field, I have had exposure to security issues. (I've spent many an hour digging out junk PHP code out of a hacked web server, cleaning viruses off windows systems, searching Linux logs for hacker intrusions, and applying various security patches to systems.) When I talk of the potential risks of an electronic voting system, its not some idle "extravagant" claim, its an analysis employing both direct knowledge/experience of the computer field and a healthy degree of skepticism.
I know that you can create voting messages that are unalterable...
Which, as has been pointed out, is only one of the many issues surrounding a potential voting issue.

Creating voting messages that are unalterable is completely worthless if the messages themselves are fraudulent in origin!
...but I don't know how that process can be affected by a malware infested computer.
I know how it can be. In fact, I've already talked about it.

On the client computer you can have:

- Malware that redirects any web traffic to a bogus site (either a fake site that simply discards the vote, or a dead site that prevents someone from voting). Post a link to the maleware on a facebook page or twitter account that favors one candidate over another (The Nazis for Trump site for example), and hundreds of their supporters could become unable to vote when their computer gets infected. These type of viruses already exist. It is not some hypothetical situation. I've dealt with them before. I have real life experience in dealing with them..

- Malware that affects the web browser (or whatever software is used to capture the votes), inserts a key logger and changes the responses in memory before they are transmitted to the server and recorded.

In addition, you also have the risk of:

- Interception of whatever identifiers are used to show who has already cast their ballot, to use in "stuffing" the electronic ballot box. (Maybe you have to enter your social security number to vote, maybe every registered voter is sent an identifier. But, these identifiers will always have security vulnerabilities. Someone steals a list of these identifiers and they can vote multiple times, one for each stolen identifier). We've seen tons of similar data thefts before from banks and government computers.

- Hacking into the server that actually captures the vote before using blockchain for storage. (The problem is, since you haven't given any information about how the voting system is supposed to work, I am making an assumption that there will be a central server the vote is sent to before its recorded.) A hacked site could alter votes sent by the user but before they are written to storage. Again, I've dealt with system that have been infected this way.
 
You do know that right now in the US the present crop of voting machines are in fact programmed using a USB thumb drive don't you.

If a machine has the proper official firmware installed, how is that tested? Why do we trust the people testing it? Or the people making it? It's not just malicious attackers we need to defend against, put a comma in the wrong place and the code could be borked enough to put votes for the GOP in the Green party column.
Not forgetting that most, as far as I could find out, electronic systems use proprietary source code and old machines are (or used to be) available for sale

Who put the seals on the machine after the test? - why do we trust them?
And how secure are the seals? (It's DEFCON, so NSFW language)

Another, non-technical, factor is how many people would fall for social media trickery? A tweet or Facebook message with a "Go and vote!, click here to get the app!!" and a shortened URL. Most peoples awareness of these sort of attacks is pretty rubbish and a dodgy link or two propagated through social groups is pretty easy to pull off.
 
I'm a strong believer in the KISS maxim. Keep it Simple Stupid. I'm 100 percent against electronic voting. Paper ballots provides a paper trail that cannot be matched through electronic voting. This isn't to say that electronic voting can and is compromised. I wouldn't know. Our ability to count electronically while a little slower isn't enough slower to justify the concern that a smart hacker at some point might steal an election.
 
We file our taxes electronically. No reason we can't vote that way.

And there is a tremendous amount of fraud that goes along with that. One way that it is prevented? Past habits. Can't do that with elections. We can say that Joe was married with 4 kids last year. This year he is single and childless. Might want to check. Last year he he made 70K, this year he is trying to claim EITC. Things like that.

Voting is anonymous. No history is collected to compare. Joe has been voting a straight Republican ticket for the past 20 elections. This year he voted Peace and Freedom.

Also, if you filed and someone else filed using your credentials, we can void out the bad tax data and file it proper. A vote? Since we don't tie a ballot to a person, there is no way to void out a bad vote.

Unless we, as a society, want our votes to be tracked, or otherwise linked to an actual person, online voting probably can't happen.
 
We "may" be close to that? You keep shouting "blockchain" as some sort of magic talisman that will magically allow electronic voting to be secure, but give no thought of how it could actually be implemented and used. ...(blah)...(blah)...(blah)...
I conceded ages ago that originating computers (whether they be voting machines or mobile phones) are a potential weakness in an electronic voting system. Why so many novel length posts repeating that same point?
 
I was just about to post that video!

Paper votes are great, the system works and is more or less immune to hacking.

This is the FPTP video I frequently post in other threads.

I think this should be required viewing for all children of school leaving age.


I agree. We don't need to be super-efficient when it comes to voting. The benefit of knowing the results X% faster is vastly outweighed by the vulnerability of the system to hacking.
 
And how secure are the seals? (It's DEFCON, so NSFW language)

DEFCON report here (link to PDF):

https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-25/DEF CON 25 voting village report.pdf

A fun tidbit: One brand of electronic voting machine all had the same, unchangeable password: "abcde" ("That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.")

Another, non-technical, factor is how many people would fall for social media trickery? A tweet or Facebook message with a "Go and vote!, click here to get the app!!" and a shortened URL. Most peoples awareness of these sort of attacks is pretty rubbish and a dodgy link or two propagated through social groups is pretty easy to pull off.

People probably fell for "Republicans vote on Tuesday, Democrats on Wednesday".
 
Not really voting machine related, but it's shocking how insecure ATM's really are. It's not necessarily even the technology, it's that the humans connected to it are fallible. Voting systems would face the same issue.

eg 2 14 year old kids get into an ATM using manuals available online and default passwords.

https://arstechnica.com/information...nual-alert-bank-officials-we-hacked-your-atm/


Man places a skimmer on an ATM in a convenience store

 
After 35 years as a software developer, I simply do not trust electronic voting and never will. I have no idea if any machines or tabulations have ever been hacked, and that's a big problem, but I know for sure that they can be.

Of course they've been hacked, it's well documented. What people are in denial about is if any election outcomes have been changed.

I lean toward, yes, yes they have and it's time to end the denial and fix the problem.

Links pending when I get to the end of the thread.
 
I conceded ages ago that originating computers (whether they be voting machines or mobile phones) are a potential weakness in an electronic voting system. Why so many novel length posts repeating that same point?

Because that's the fly in the ointment. It's the same problem we have now with touchscreen voting software being able to flip a vote before it's recorded, without a trace, so protecting the recorded votes only solves half the problem. There is no avoiding the fact that software is necessary to insert the votes into your blockchain, so that software will be vulnerable.
 
Last edited:

Cheers - I'll have a look at that later

A fun tidbit: One brand of electronic voting machine all had the same, unchangeable password: "abcde" ("That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.")
So even the most basic security got shoved to the bottom of the priority list, sounds like Internet of Things devices

People probably fell for "Republicans vote on Tuesday, Democrats on Wednesday".

Yeah, people fall for The Onion. I think this is the updated "They couldn't put it in the newspaper if it wasn't true"
 
We "may" be close to that? You keep shouting "blockchain" as some sort of magic talisman that will magically allow electronic voting to be secure, but give no thought of how it could actually be implemented and used. ...(blah)...(blah)...(blah)...
I conceded ages ago that originating computers (whether they be voting machines or mobile phones) are a potential weakness in an electronic voting system. Why so many novel length posts repeating that same point?
Because you JUST DON'T SEEM TO GET IT.

Some of your earliest posts stated "Blockchain technology has the potential to make electronic voting unhackable".

Yet after your supposed "concession" about malware being a probelm (which of course you almost immediately walked back with more blather about how secure block works), you

- immediately started pushing more "blockchain is wonderful" rhetoric, even though most of the criticism was about issues other than data storage, with a claim that "it can overcome the current concerns about security and hacking". (Well, no it can't). I posted problems with malware, voter identification, etc. because they are concerns about hacking and your infatuation with blockchain does not address that. You also stated the problem was not in coming up with a mechanism for voting so I posted potential security flaws because they are actual real issues

- Labeled people who actually had security concerns "pseudo experts" (even though it appears that those people have more experience and a better grasp on the issues than you do

- Claim that we "may be" close to coming up with a solution that solves the other (non-blockchain issues), yet you did so without providing any evidence to support your claim. (post 59)

- Suggested that claims of other security vulnerabilities are "extravagant" (post 59)

Your whole "concession" was basically a Trumpism... like his "Russia did not interfere in our elections. Ok, I concede that they did. But they maybe it was someone else". Except with you its "Blockchain will make electronic voting secure! Ok I concede that there may be other security issues. But look how great blockchain is and anyone who claims there are other problems is wrong".

And that is why we felt it was necessary to give more details about how a voting system could be hacked, even if the voting records themselves are unalterable.... Because you just don't seem to have a grasp of all the other security issues, and basically hand-wave away the concerns of others that appear to have more knowledge and experience than you.

The proper thing to do would have been to say "I underestimated potential security problems. Blockchain can make actual vote records secure but there are issues other than data storage that make electronic voting too risky". Instead you decided to attack those who have shown more knowledge and understanding than you, labeling them "pseudo experts" and suggesting their concerns are "extravagant", all with a massive hand-wave dismissal of the concerns.
 
There are some "do you need a blockchain?" flowcharts out there. They generally look like this:


Do you need a blockchain? -----> No.
 
Not only that, you can't have TOTAL anonymity, since you still need to record who has already voted to prevent multiple votes (as well as determining who is actually registered). So somewhere along the line you need some sort of records: "Voter X done. Voter Y, not voted yet".

The UK has a system that is robust with effective anonymity unless an investigation is required when the paper trail can be looked into.

I have no doubt that nobody could find how I voted unless there was a court order.

pencil and paper FTW.
 
America is still reeling after Monty Hatchet, the write in candidate, somehow wins the election just a month after announcing his "bundle the entire federal budget into Russia subsidies" campaign promise. No one in any state has come forward to say they voted for the man with no official party but the results are clear he got 85% of the vote. A figure that is assuredly correct according to noted online experts who say "blockchain is unhackable, the guy that promised all our money to Russia just somehow won!"
 
Because you JUST DON'T SEEM TO GET IT.
On the contrary, I get it very well.

Earlier postings on this thread indicate that despite your expertise, you didn't know:
- How votes would be stored in the block chain.
- How voters could be identified on the blockchain but how they voted would not be available to others.
- How votes could be added to the blockchain without being corrupted in transit.
- Why we don't need a centralized store for the block chain or the nodes.

When I that I could answer each of your objections, you adopted a new two-pronged strategy:
- You accused me of a "blockchain is wonderful" mentality to the exclusion of everything else.
- You repeatedly made lengthy posts about flaws in originating computers.
(I hope your intention wasn't to drown out our earlier discussions).

You may not know how malware infested computers can be prevented from altering votes before they get "put out there" but that doesn't mean that it is impossible.
 
I'm a strong believer in the KISS maxim. Keep it Simple Stupid. I'm 100 percent against electronic voting. Paper ballots provides a paper trail that cannot be matched through electronic voting. This isn't to say that electronic voting can and is compromised. I wouldn't know. Our ability to count electronically while a little slower isn't enough slower to justify the concern that a smart hacker at some point might steal an election.

On the contrary, I get it very well.

Earlier postings on this thread indicate that despite your expertise, you didn't know:
- How votes would be stored in the block chain.
- How voters could be identified on the blockchain but how they voted would not be available to others.
- How votes could be added to the blockchain without being corrupted in transit.
- Why we don't need a centralized store for the block chain or the nodes.

When I that I could answer each of your objections, you adopted a new two-pronged strategy:
- You accused me of a "blockchain is wonderful" mentality to the exclusion of everything else.
- You repeatedly made lengthy posts about flaws in originating computers.
(I hope your intention wasn't to drown out our earlier discussions).

You may not know how malware infested computers can be prevented from altering votes before they get "put out there" but that doesn't mean that it is impossible.

You are missing another point. The people need to understand and trust the process. I have no doubt that you know far more about computer science than me - although that isn't much of a plaudit.

I can explain the UK system in a few sentences

  • Each household receives a form for registering to vote and the householder fills the form in (with it being an offence to make a false declaration).
  • Shortly before an election, each registered voter receives a polling card with the details of the poling station (based in the electoral ward, and nearby and with only a few hundred people - in my constituency, it ranged from 88 to about 1500 per polling station)
  • The polling station opens at 7am and closes at 10pm but if you are in a queue to vote at 10pm, it will remain open until the queue has voted
  • When you go to the polling station, it's easiest to take your polling card, but not necessary. At the polling station, someone looks for your name and gives you a numbered ballot paper, and writes the number against your name.
  • You then go to the voting booth and put a cross in the box by your preferred candidate and put it in the ballot box
  • If there is suspicion of foul play, then the votes can be tallied to the voter but it would require an official investigation, and because the data isn't collated until such an investigation is started, under normal circumstances, there is no chance of leakage of who voted for who.

This system is transparent and easily understood. People can see that the votes aren't tampered with.

With blockchain, the fact that you are saying that people with computer-science backgrounds don't understand how it is going to be secure means that the system is not going to be transparent or trusted.

ETA: And the current systems are far from unhackable. I would contend that electronic systems are inherently vulnerable to advances in technology. Paper and pencils aren't
 
Last edited:
ETA: And the current systems are far from unhackable. I would contend that electronic systems are inherently vulnerable to advances in technology. Paper and pencils aren't

Another facet is that, in a normal environment, old school pen and paper can be subverted but at only at an tiny volume. It's hard to do more than a couple of votes at a time.
If electronic voting is compromised the bad actors could alter thousands of votes at a time, more than enough to swing key seats\states.
 

Back
Top Bottom