Last week we told you about D.C.'s intention of running an insane live experiment on live voters in a live election with an untested, wholly unverifiable, easily-manipulated Internet Voting scheme this November, and about just some of the computer security and election experts who have been desperately trying to warn them against it.Just in case you think this is an isolated incident, Brad Blog gives you a veritable buffet of hacking goodness.
And now we find out that the very short planned pre-election test phase, in which hackers were invited to try to manipulate the system, has been abruptly aborted in the wake of a, um, disturbing (if not wholly unpredictable) development.
The failed system in D.C. was developed with the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation, an outfit that is working with election officials around the country to push Internet Voting everywhere, along with other computerized voting schemes. Simply because a system is "open source" does not mean it's secure, particularly when it relies on concealed vote counting, as all of their e-vote schemes do.
- Sequoia AVC Advantage DRE, 2010, Pac-Man hacked onto machine by scientists from University of Michigan and Princeton University without breaking "tamper-evident" seals.
- Sequoia AVC Advantage DRE, 2009, hacked by computer scientists at UC San Diego, University of Michigan, and Princeton University by swapping out its chips in a matter of minutes, with no access to source code or other "closely guarded technical information."
- Sequoia Edge DRE, 2007, hacked by computer scientists at U.C. Santa Barbara (video release in 2008)
- Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, and Hart Intercivic systems, 2006 & 2007, Independent tests commissioned by the states of CA, OH, and CO all found they were able to hack every system tested. In seconds.
- Diebold Touch-Screen, Op-Scan Systems, 2007, Physical key to all Diebold voting systems (same one is used for every machine) confirmed by Princeton computer scientists as accurately copied from photo of key posted by Diebold in its own online store.
- Diebold touch-screen system, 2006, hacked by computer scientists at Princeton
- Sequoia tabulator, 2006 accidentally hacked by Michael Shamos in PA (while trying to demonstrate that the system was not hackable)
- Diebold touch-screen system, 2006, hacked by Harri Hursti in Emery County, UT
- Diebold optical-scan system, 2005, hacked by Harri Hursti in Leon County, FL (video)
The Real Effect
Now I share your concerns - What could possibly be wrong with taking the bedrock of our nation and placing an already unverifiable system and making it significantly easier to falsify the results? After all it's not like the results are important.
Who wants to wager on how long it will take the genuises designing this utopia of American freedom to declare it "safe" and "foolproof, like a lockbox"? And how long after that until the entire U.S. Congress decides that implementing this system worldwide is a brilliant idea?
No comments:
Post a Comment