VOTE-FLIPPING DIEBOLD MACHINE REMOVED, QUARANTINED IN CO

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG, Colorado Independent, Aurora Sentinel

Vote-Flipping Diebold Machine Removed, Quarantined in CO!
Karen Long, Adams County Clerk Takes Action After Voter Sees Vote Flip Repeatedly to Republican Candidate in State With Long History of E-Voting Failures
Watchdog Group Issues Press Release Calling for No 'Recalibration', Immediate Removal, Impounding of Such Machines...

A county clerk in Colorado has finally done the right thing for the voters by removing a touch-screen voting machine from service, and quarantining it, after it was discovered to be flipping votes from one candidate to another. The failed machine in this case was a Diebold Accu-Vote, a frequent flipper.

Long is to be lauded for being the first election official in the country so far during the general election (that we're aware of) to have taken the correct action in such a vote-flipping case.

Late last night VelvetRevolution.us (a non-partisan, non-profit election watchdog co-founded by The BRAD BLOG) issued a press release calling on election officials to not recalibrate systems mid-election, but rather remove and impound them, and offer voters paper ballots as needed instead. The complete press release is posted at the end of this article.

Colorado has a troubling history with electronic voting, even as the Secretary of State found all of the state's machines to be faulty and easily hackable in late 2007, but has capitulated to pressure from election officials to allow them to be used by voters again this year anyway...

FULL STORY, COMPLETE VR PRESS RELEASE: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6592

In case you missed this yesterday...
More Vote-Flipping in TX by Machines Other Than Those Made by ES&S
Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems Made by Hart InterCivic and Diebold Also Reportedly Now Flipping Votes From Democratic to Republican in TX...
UPDATE: 7 TX Counties Now Reporting Vote-Flipping!
FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6584

For much more, also see...
SPECIAL BRAD BLOG COVERAGE PAGE ON
TOUCH-SCREEN VOTE FLIPPING 2008
http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=6577

Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6592

[SharonRB]

1. This is a start, but we've got a long way to go

Heard you on with Thom today.

[ThatsMyBarack]

84. Exactly what I was thinking!

"This is a start, but we've got a long way to go" :hi:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

98. Arrest the people who placed the Diebold machines!

if they can't produce proper machines then they should be held accountable. People should demand that any flipping machines be pulled out and if the election officials won't then there is one simple answer pull the cord. We can't have this.

[EFerrari]

2. Great work, Brad.

K&R

[bjobotts]

153. Failed to mention the vote flipping from repub to dem in TX was bogus

[bjobotts]

154. It was turned in by a republican election chairman with no evidence except his word

[bjobotts]

155. No one else can validate the claim of repub fliping to dem.. in TX.

[emlev]

156. Do you mean TN? n/t

[rucky]

3. Which way were they flipping?

as if I really have to ask

[valerief]

40. Oh. Come. On. ;-)

[burythehatchet]

53. It's a one way street

[AzDar]

82. That is SO peculiar, isn't it?

:mad:

[Terran]

71. There was a piece a few days ago about a machine flipping

from McCain to Obama, in Tennessee I think...but I believe it turned out to be a hoax. :banghead:

[SoCalDem]

163. actually, it beeped three times, whirred & issued a bus ticket to Omaha

:rofl:

couldn't even bring itself to mark Obama in error mode:)

[Gregorian]

4. THE machine.

She better think. It's time (with hours left) to start looking at all of the machines. What are these people thinking? Have they been in cryogenic suspension since 2004?

Bless you Brad for all you've done.

[TankLV]

139. Try since 2000...

[nichomachus]

5. If they steal this election, there will be blood in the streets

just a prediction.

[newburgh]

137. Really? When did I hear that before? 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006...

what's different now? The Democrats have sat back and blah-blahed about this every time it happened...
and then did nothing.

Brad Friedman is a hero to our democracy- and barely anyone's paid attention to him. It's a little late now.

Where's the blood going to come from? From those self-inflicting wounds on themselves for not fighting for action all these years?

[clear eye]

149. Even worse, the volunteer lawyers at the polls are not insisting on quaranting machines that flip

votes. They are sitting on their hands "recording" the problems for possible suit later. If Obama wins the suit won't happen even if it affects the outcome of races down ticket. This stinks.

[wolfgangmo]

213. I agree. Americans don't have the stones anymore.

There will be no blood on any streets in America.

American's no longer deserve democracy. They deserve Bush.

I predict that if McSAME wins that nothing will happen except a few channels will be flipped and a few websites visited.

[stevedeshazer]

6. Excellent news, Brad

Thanks for your tireless efforts on this issue. Having free and fair elections is the beating heart of democracy.

[sellitman]

7. They should flip them into the Colorado River

Only then will they be fixed

[paparush]

29. Heck No! Inspect it. Prove its been tampered with. Investigate. Indict. Imprison!

[yellowdogdemocrat2]

90. Right on!

paparush...I agree 100%. This is going to be the longest 5 days of my life. You know they are going to cheat.
yellowdogdemocrat2

[CADEMOCRAT7]

91. My thoughts exactly !

Do not touch them, get a software engineer in there, and look at the memory card. Whatever it takes ! This is a great start. We are on to them !

[DBoon]

152. Get a computer forensics specialist on this immediately!

they needs to follow rules of evidence

[Doodler71]

115. Exactly! Don't just say it's a "glitch". -nt

[loudsue]

199. Exactly! I want heads to roll.

This has been the cause of the last 8 years, and probably before that....probably since 1994 when the repukes took over congress.

In order for there to be new legislation protecting our elections, we need some prosecutions, and a whole helluva lot of publicity about what this has caused.

[Kierkegaard]

104. They're already 'fixed.' They need to be broken...

[sandnsea]

8. Finally, good work - but be careful

We really only need a few of them to figure out what is going on. We don't want to disenfranchise voters with too many machines pulled off line. This will give Republicans another method of suppressing the vote.

[clear eye]

126. Not to worry. Giving paper ballots is not going to disenfranchise voters.

In fact more people can vote at once on paper than can use the machines. We want them to do more than "figure out what's going on". We want them to remedy probable theft everywhere as soon as it rears its ugly head. Since no one seems to go to jail for electoral theft it has just gotten more prevalent. Leaving wildly inaccurate machines misreporting the vote is the ultimate disenfranchisement. Unfortunately that's exactly what's happening in West Virginia and six other states using DREs where instead of quarantining machines that are flipping votes, election officials are allowing unsupervised access to techs from the same companies that set these machines up in the first place to "recalibrate" them every morning as they continue to flip votes every day.

[Devil_Fish]

206. Pull them all off line!

Sandnsea wrote:

"We really only need a few of them to figure out what is going on. We don't want to disenfranchise voters with too many machines pulled off line. This will give Republicans another method of suppressing the vote."

I disagree.

If all the machines are not pulled off line this in fact would disenfranchise voters and here is why:

These machines can be programed in a variety of ways. They can be programed to not show the flip to the user/voter giving them the impression that nothing is wrong. I think the few machines that do show the flip is in fact a smoke screen for the machines that do not show the flip. The voters are aware of the flippers, and if they do not see the flip they think that their machine is ok. This is not the case. The flip still occurs, only out of the view of the user/voter. Since there is no paper trail, there is no way to verify the vote. the user/voter is tricked into thinking that there is do the the fact that the final screen pops up showing their vote for their candidate, there for they believe that they have verified their vote when in fact they have done no such thing since the soft ware can simply flip it after the fact.

I don't think it would disenfranchise voters if they were not able to vote because of lack of machines any more then it would if they vote on un-verifiable machines. In fact, they would be disenfranchised more by voting on these fraudulent machines then if they could not vote at all. if they vote on these machines, their vote can be used any way the programmer wants, quite possibly to off set the vote on verifiable paper ballots. If the machines were scrapped as I believe they should be and now, then the only votes that would count would be the verifiable paper ballots.

I would be all for throwing out the non-verifiable votes cast by machines and only counting the verifiable paper ballots. I would bet you my pay check that you would see an incredible shift from Republicons to democratic candidates. I would further bet that the Republicons would get less then 15% of the vote in a completely verifiable election.

Edited to remove a double negative.

[qanda]

9. I just heard on the news today that Maryland will be getting rid of its electronic voting machines

They said they are not reliable and are moving back to paper ballots. Unfortunately, we wasted a lot of money on this little experiment, but I'm glad we are going back to having a paper trail.

[eagertolearn]

105. We're wasting a lot of money keeping them too....

Look at the mess this administration has left us in by using those damn machines to win in the last two elections!

[clear eye]

122. Great News! n/t

[tosh]

169. Actually, Diebold should have to repay at least part of the cost of those machines.

Wouldn't it be cool if all states using Diebold demanded refunds for faulty equipment in the same year?

[trudyco]

192. Then we can say Diebold is too important to fail and the Obama

government can take them over.

[Blues Heron]

10. Good

K&R

[glitch]

11. Absolutely necessary! Excellent Karen Long! K & R nt

[jimshoes]

12. There is no good reason to continue using these

worthless machines. I have yet to hear of a hand marked paper ballot mysteriously flipping candidates. Not even once. Outlaw those vote stealing/changing, useless, unverifiable machines.

[connecticut yankee]

56. Unless

several thousand of them get "lost."

[heliarc]

62. Or the card stock is bad..

Or the tabulator is rigged/manipulated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quFtd5P2Q8g&feature=related

The question is not whether paper systems failed... it's why did they fail? Were they sabotaged to promote Electronic touch-screen systems? Or was it a direct attempt to shift the election? Either way, there are problems in oversight.

[sandnsea]

129. Or "found"

I can't believe people refuse to see how easy elections are stolen with paper ballots.

[TankLV]

141. I call bullshit.

With paper you have a TRAIL.

There is no such thing electronically.

A program vanishes/flips votes into thin air.

Paper ballots are the ONLY way to go.

[sandnsea]

158. They're fine

They're still open to theft. There's no fool-proof system.

[heliarc]

61. Not even by the computers that count the hand marked ballots?

Ink-a-Vote and Card-stock punch style vote systems still have tabulators that count the votes as they are analyzed... I can think of a number of scenarios where paper systems could go wrong, and in the case of Sequoia this is a known issue. Check out what Dan Rather and some of the workers at Sequoia have to say. It is particularly in relation to the card stock used in Palm beach county.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quFtd5P2Q8g&feature=related

[pleah]

13. K&R

[KamaAina]

14. Quarantined? Does it have a virus?

:shrug:

[Xipe Totec]

19. A Trojan Horse n/t

[file83]

205. ...named 'W32_The_GOP_Exploit' n/t.

[paparush]

27. So it is not "un tampered with" before it can be inspected by the State's Attorney General's office

I hope.

[El Fuego]

58. Yes, it works EXACTLY like a virus.

The Princeton University study: http://citp.princeton.edu/voting/advantage/

Apparently you can switch out a chip in one machine to get the malicious vote-switching software into that one machine. But when the vote count on that machine is read by manual insertion of a reader card into the machine, the vote stealing software copies itself onto the reader card, and then as the reader card goes from machine to machine to collect votes, they are each newly infected with the malware. And it spreads like an STD.

(That's the way I understand it from the videos I watched.)

[progressivebydesign]

97. I read that too, and it was scary, and infuriating, and fascinating.

This stuff is happening, and once we get a Democrat in office, we can have REAL voting reform.

[bobshin]

204. The Democrats are going change all of a sudden?

Talk about an ignorant statement. They've had the power and money and scads of lawyers to resolve this since 2000. Maybe you know something the rest of us don't. If the Dems win, watch them sit on their laurels just like they did two years ago.

[JohnWxy]

15. Great! Quarantine that thing until the proper authorities can examine it with software and

hardware engineers.

time to start a proper investigation of Diebold or Premier Election solutions, as they now call themselves..


thanks for this post. Will never hear about this on corporate networks.

recommended!

[rniel]

20. Proper authorities

Too bad proper authorities are all part of Bush's good ole boy network.

[clear eye]

130. Except on Rachel Maddow

tonight.

[slackmaster]

16. Tagscribed

:nuke:

[shadowknows69]

17. They need a federal judge to order Deibold to release the source code too

[SprintSpeed]

18. First legislation Obama should sign is outlawing these machines

[Blue State Bandit]

33. I'll second that!

[Twinguard]

81. We have a motion on the floor to outlaw these voting machines

All in favor signify by saying "aye"

All opposed signify by saying "nay"

I'll go first -- AYE

[denverbill]

21. Has there ever been a documented case of votes flipping to a Democrat?

If so, I have yet to hear of it.

[frog92969]

45. Actually there was a report of one (I think) in VA

I'm sure that was real and rare malfunction.

[bettyellen]

51. there were two (disproven) in TN - by family of a Republican Party leader....

trying to confuse people who noticed the flip occurs in one direction only.

[chknltl]

64. DEBUNKED....well sorta, you decide: DU link

Tennessee is the thrust of this particular topic but if I recall accurately, there is worthy discussion here re the entire, (very VERY few), supposed McCain to Obama e-vote flips that may have occurred:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=509810

[TankLV]

142. That was a hoax. There is NOT ONE INSTANCE of vote flipping from repuke to Democrat...

[frog92969]

165. That's what I suspected

More smoke and mirrors

[harun]

208. They have yet to find someone willing to vote for a Republican

[louis-t]

22. Hoo-rah! Should be impounded and taken apart.

No more secret software. Re-calibrate, my ass. It's not a calibration problem, it's a programming problem. How many of you use video games in bars with touch-screens? Anyone EVER have a problem with one?

[Matariki]

23. Excellent. And hopefully the impounded machines will have the code scrutinized

by an army of honest and brilliant programmers. Let's see what they find.

[Eric J in MN]

24. Finally, an election official who didn't blame the voters. NT

NT

[baldguy]

25. DON'T LET DIEBOLD OR ANY REPUBLICAN TOUCH IT!

[dysfunctional press]

34. they may not have to...

when i was election judging in chicago, the electronic tabulator had a wireless reciever to remain in contact with the election office...i don't know if the individual diebold nachines in question have that kind of capability- but if they do have a wireless card- it might be possible to reprogram them remotely.

[ieoeja]

49. I could think of some other ways too.

Something in that machine probably has a date mechanism in it. Wouldn't be too difficult having the software cleanse itself after the election. Which is why it really needs to be investigated now, not later.

And I am only a financial applications developer. I'm sure operating systems or firmware programmers could do much more. I'm pretty certain these machines use firmware rather than software from what I have heard (and don't ask me to explain firmware; I don't exactly understand it myself).

[crikkett]

92. but, not if it's unplugged.

[Twinguard]

85. Don't let DieBold or any republican touch it!

To be fair, don't let a democrat touch it either. That way the rethugs can't piss and moan about those damn crooked libruls.
Find a brilliant and completely non-partisan programmer/engineer to autopsy it. Go to Switzerland if you have to. Find someone to inspect and analyze, and then give a detailed report as to the cause of the voting inaccuracies.
Read the report and fight the corruption at the source--it may be a political party, the designer of the machine, or the builder/maintainer of the machine. Whomever the culprit is, PROSECUTE!

[Matariki]

26. What surprises me, if this is intentional (haha), is why it's not kept hidden?

Why does it flip on the screen where voters can see it?

[whopis01]

117. Easier to explain later or hide in the code.

If the code was set to display the vote one way, but count the vote the other way, it would be very obvious that the data is being tampered with.

The vote is not really cast until the voter hits the "complete" or "finish" button at the end - and at that time the machine records the vote exactly as it is displayed to the user - so it is just their fault if they didn't notice that they had "accidentally hit" the wrong choice - whereas if it displayed one choice and recorded another, there is no possible way to blame it on the voter.

[Matariki]

119. Interesting theory, but since voting is annonymous, why would it matter?

If I think I voted Democrat, and the screen shows me my vote accurately, but the tally at the end of the night is flipped, who would know?

[emlev]

157. I'd wager it's INTENDED to be hidden and usually is

and that the flips seen by voters are the tip of the iceberg, likely to be cases where a machine is both rigged or hacked AND malfunctioning.

Although one reason for voters to be shown the flips is so they'll call pollworkers over, who will ask for the machines to be recalibrated, thus giving access to rigging during the election when the testing of the machines has been completed.

Nobody should be allowed near these machines with a memory card during an election!

[Matariki]

201. Hmm. Your're second paragraph is interesting.

But don't poll workers recalibrate? I think I read that they are supposed to recalibrate each morning. Is that the same as getting access to the memory card? I admittedly know little about how the machines work.

[emlev]

217. I don't think so. Can you find where you heard that? n/t

[AzNick]

28. As a database developer ...

I am extremely angry at these colleagues who agreed to code a voting machine to make it switch votes or over tabulate them.

They are a disgrace to my profession.

I think that these people should do hard time, and then be unable to approach a keyboard.

Also as an expert in this field, the only voting method I would trust is the paper ballot, one election at a time.

[MetaTrope]

43. As an expert in the field,

why do you think these machines are actually displaying the flipped votes, rather than just flipping them in the electronic transmission?

[ieoeja]

50. Agree 100%. It doesn't make any sense.

Can I be the only person in the world who has had touchscreens at registers, ATMs, etc flip up the wrong selection on numerous occasions? I hate these machines.

[bettyellen]

54. many people wouldn't even notice it happen

and they can blame the voter for doing it wrong.

[clear eye]

146. I use ATM's frequently and I've never, not once, had that happen to me.

Sometimes it takes a few tries for my touch to register at all, but it's never been misread. You should complain to the owner of the machine you use. That's not normal.

[eridani]

171. Those errors are correctable, and you have a lot ot time to do the correction

This clearly does not apply to voting.

[Ms. Toad]

60. Because what voters are witnessing is a calibration problem

No self-respecting hacker is going to program the machine to show you that it is switching your vote.

The point made above is a good one. If there is something more than calibration going on, examination of a few machines will show it. At this point, 5 days before the election, it does more harm than good to take massive quantities of machines out of service.

Too few machines will result in very long lines and people dropping out because they don't want to stand in line that long. People stood in line in Ohio until 3 or 4 AM in 2004 - I am relatively certain that quite a few got discouraged long before that and left.

Paper ballots as an alternative are a good thing - provided they are already printed. Printing them at this late date would probably cause more problems than it would solve - with all the required rotations within each race, precinct variations, etc., and delivery of the proper ballots to the proper place after they are printed, returned from the printer, and proofread.

Whether you believe the machines are rigged or not, taking them out of service at this date - unless there are paper ballots already printed - will cause chaos that will not serve us well.

The best use of time for people in jurisdictions using touch screen machines probably consists of (1) GOTV efforts and (2) reminding every voter to check at every opportunity to make sure that their selections are accurately reflected on the screen when they make them and again before they press the cast ballot button.

[BradBlog]

100. No, it's a MACHINE problem...

The machined don't work, can't be trusted, drop votes, break down and are 100% unverifiable, as discussed in the full linked original article.

That said, while calibration issues may be to blame for some of the problems, as also discussed in the article, allowing access to the systems to calibrate them during an election is insane. Not to mention that calibration fails to work. See the video here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6576

[Ms. Toad]

110. The issue is, given that machines are not always

displaying the voting selections the voters make, and that it is 5 days before the election, is it better to encourage voters to carefully mark and check their ballots OR to try to take out the machines.

Given the long lines are anticipated - even if every machine available is being used, and the difficulty of correctly printing, proofreading, and distributing the correct paper ballots to the correct polling places to use as an alternative in 5 days, two of which are weekends, I think it is far more important to make sure people know how to best use the machines that are there.

Voters need to know that they cannot assume that when they touch their selection the machine will accurately display that selection - so they need to look when they make the selection, again when they have the opportunity to review their entire ballot, and if there is a printed version of the ballot to review that as well.

If the machines are rigged, they will be rigged in a way that is not obvious. What is shown in the video may be really bad calibration, choice of touch screen hardware that doesn't hold its calibration well, or a number of other things - but any hacker who is stupid enough to be that obvious about switching votes is too stupid to figure out how to really switch the votes behind the scenes. And, at any rate, if the correct selection can be made - even if it takes several tries - and we can get people to make the effort to really check the screen - we will be ahead of the chaos that will be created by a concerted effort to take the machines out of service at this late date.

I've seen the video. I've seen really bad calibration - both in the video and in other circumstances (to the point where I'm being pretty rough with the screen to get it to record any selection - or the correct selection). I don't see anything more nefarious than really bad calibration - and if there is, as I said earlier, grab a few machines. If there is vote changing code, we can follow the logic and work backwards to correct any changes it made.

[clear eye]

143. What is your agenda?

You can't really believe that having election officials remove the machines affects how often the Democratic volunteers instruct the voters in careful use of machines, so what is the real point of that comment?

Rigging the machines to record anything other than what's on the screen would be immediately obvious on test. It would not be sneakier than rigging them to flip every, say, 4th Democratic vote and flash the result briefly on the machine. That they can get away with, with the help of people like you.

There are absentee ballots already created for each precinct. All that has to be done is print more copies of the ballot pages. It will take a little time to get those to the polls, but I think democracy is worth the inconvenience.

Voting on paper is decreases lines, not increases them, since more people can vote at any one time on paper than can use the machines. The only thing that is slower is the count, but it is still manageable as most precincts have only a few hundred voters and 2 - 4 pollworkers. I think democracy is worth that, too.

[Ms. Toad]

147. The point of my comment is

that 5 days before the election it is too late to do anything other than to try to make sure that everyone knows to watch the screen carefully. Exit polls indicated that most people didn't even bother to check the paper print-out when it was provided - I suspect quite a few don't bother to do the final review the screen before pressing "cast ballot." People need to understand that is important to check and double-check.

Printing ballots (or anything else that is going to be read by a machine) is not the same as just pressing copy on a copy machine. Anyone who has ever worked with optical scan tests, surveys, or anything else should be able to verify this for you. In the alternative, call your local board of elections and ask what the last possible day they could have gotten the ballots to the printer - or call a printer yourself and ask them for their turn-around time. The ink, paper weight, precision of printing, and cut are all critical - and the paper is not likely in stock in sufficient quantity to print ballots for everyone in every precinct in the 4 days between now and Tuesday, two of which are weekend days. Once they are printed, they have to be reviewed, sorted by precinct/polling center, and delivered to the precincts. That will likely end up in quite a few wrong ballots being delivered to the wrong places. Starting a month ago would have been tight - starting 4 days ahead of time is not realistic.

My agenda is to encourage everyone to make the best of a situation, given the situation as it is today - not as we wish it might have been.

Unless sufficient ballots are already printed, removing machines from operation(which will make the lines longer) will result in people avoiding voting rather than wait in line to vote.

[clear eye]

160. Not so.

There is such a thing as a rush printing job. The job has been already set up at the printer who produced the absentee ballots or the emergency paper ballots. These hand-marked ballots will be hand-counted, so none of those issues about the criticality of paper, ink, etc., applies. Since they will be produced by precinct, they will already be sorted by precinct. Yes, it's possible that a couple of delivery errors may be made that would need correcting, but that hardly compares with using machines that steal the vote wholesale.

Most places already have some paper ballots to use in the event of an emergency, so there is some lead time before the new ones have to be ready. (I'm sure it differs from place to place.) Not allowing voters to use paper while the election officials try to get the machines to work is what causes lines and disruption. Letting machines be recalibrated by techs from companies who almost certainly have installed malware in the past, leaves machines with firmware and software that no outside group can swear is what they certified. And there's the fact of Brad Friedman's expertise. Since he's been on top of every detail of the voting situation for the last couple of years, I tend to believe him when he says we'd be better off going to paper.

Any other reason we should not call for removing vote-stealing machines?

[Ms. Toad]

177. I'm relatively certain

that setting up emergency printing for enough ballots for every person who wants to vote on Tuesday has not been set up, and after watching them try to deliver extra generic voting machines that were already on hand to precincts which had unexpected crowds on voting day, I know our local board of elections does not have the capability to manage an emergency distribution of ballots - particularly if they are expected to be doing anything else that day. (In my county, we use optical scan - so it is a moot point - our ballots are already printed and may already have been delivered. Just using them because I have personal knowledge of them trying to make emergencies deliveries on election day of something.)

At this point in the game, I still think efforts are better spent by making sure people are aware they need to make sure that the selections displayed on their screen are actually what they intended - far too many votes go astray because people don't bother to (or don't realize they need to) verify that the machine "heard" them.

[BradBlog]

182. "Relatively" is not good enough

I know our local board of elections does not have the capability to manage an emergency distribution of ballots

That you guys are in far more trouble than you know.

Every jurisdiction that uses DREs needs to have enough paper ballots on hand to allow every voter to vote on paper since a) the machines often simply break down entirely, b) there won't be enough (wholly unverifiable) machines to service the unprecedented numbers heading to the polls on Tuesday and b) many states, example OH and CA, allow every voter to vote on paper if they wish, no matter what voting machine the county has chosen to use as it's primary system.

Finally, as I've reported many times, including in the originally linked article, no matter what voters notice they have selected on the screen (or that the machine has selected for them, by error or by maliciousness) there is absolutely NO WAY to know that the machine has recorded the vote as per the voter intent. None. Zero. Scientifically impossible.

Thus, vote on paper ballots at all costs (and not provisional ones!) any way that you can!

[Ms. Toad]

198. You are right - relatively certain is not good enough

4 days before the election to disrupt the procedures already in place. If each of the boards of elections currently using touch screen units is certain that it can produce and properly distribute enough paper ballots for every voter, then you have my support. The evidence I have seen says that they can't.

I'm not arguing - generally - whether machines need to be replaced or not. We may be in deep doo-doo - but that cannot be fixed 4 days before the election. There are, however, ways to make a difference by engaging in efforts to make sure every voter is aware of the crucial importance of checking the screen display.

[AndyTiedye]

109. This May Not Have Been Done By a Self-Respecting Hacker

The actual ballot definition files are presumably created at the local level.
Suppose the ballot displays like this:



But the ballot definition is set up to work like this:

[Ms. Toad]

111. If that is the case,

(stupid hacker), then s/he likely to have the brains to carry out a scheme that will effectively and predictably swap votes without detection.

As to local definitions - if the touch area is defined locally (1) it will only impact local votes, (2) under your illustration you would have 0 (or close to it) votes for Obama and no one would believe that, and (3) people wouldn't ever (or rarely) be able to correct the selection.

Besides which, I don't believe that the selection area is defined locally - who goes on the ballot is certainly defined locally - but I think the ballot structure (including the selection area) is part of the overall software application.

But - my point is not to argue about whether or how the machines might be rigged.

My point is - it is five days before the election. It is way too late to make changes now - even changes to paper ballots that have not yet been printed. The best option AT THIS POINT is to (1) get people to the polls and (2) teach voters to double check to make sure that AT LEAST what shows on the screen accurately reflects how they intend to vote.

[slackmaster]

181. Such a configuration would be easily detected in testing

So it's great that a suspect machine has been "captured".

Let the testing begin.

[whopis01]

120. You don't know much about hackers.

First off, no self respecting hacker would be involved in this. Hackers are not evil, destructive people.

http://www.hackersarepeopletoo.com/about.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hacker+vs+cracker&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=


People that break into systems learn to be very good at covering their tracks. There are many reasons why attacking the system at the touch screen side is much easier to hide than other places in the software. It is much easier to blame errors on the hardware than the software.

[Ms. Toad]

151. Depends on whether you are talking about

white hat hackers or black hat hackers - I have actually worked with hackers who, at various times in their lives, wore both hats.

Your last comment supports the point I was trying to make. Someone trying to rig the election wants it to be effective - they are not going to make it so obvious that you can see it being done. Bad calibration doesn't have to be (and isn't likely to be) anything more than just bad calibration. Doesn't mean it should be reviewed and fixed - it just means that machines which appear to be working are just as likely - or more so - to rigged.

In fact, that might be part of a clever scheme. Make some machines so poorly calibrated that everyone thinks they are rigged and calls for their removal and testing. The others with perfect calibration actually are the ones that are rigged. That way when the poorly calibrated ones are tested after the election, their code is proven clean. Meanwhile, the ones left in service are the ones actually rigged and are above articulable suspicion because they appear to be functioning properly. Rig the election - and get a clean bill of health in the process. Not a bad scheme.

[whopis01]

161. Lack of tracibility is key.

Having been in this field for many years, I can assure you that no self respecting hacker would consider anyone who does something like this a true hacker. It is just a matter of professional pride. While some people misuse the term 'Black Hat' to refer to the ones who would do something like that, that is not what it means within the community.

Getting back to the point, they key is that many of the flippings would go unnoticed. And beyond that, the user's vote technically has not been altered, but rather the user was tricked into casting the wrong vote. Nothing counts until they hit the 'vote' button, and prior to doing that, they can see exactly how their vote is going to be cast. This really works to build in a good layer of plausible deniability should the system ever be investigated. If a vote was displayed one way and recorded another way, there would be no other explanation for it - but with what is happening, there are all sorts of 'plausible' explanations.

If a user 'thinks' they hit one selection, but another lighted up, the explanations include:

1) The user actually hit the other choice
2) The user hit the area between the two choices and it registered the other one
3) The touch screen hardware is not properly calibrated and it is not registering the touches in the right position
4) The touch screen hardware is not working properly, possibly due to users being too rough with it
5) The software was designed to do that

If the machine displays one value and records another, the explanations include:

1) The software was designed to do that


One important aspect of software vs. hardware:

Software doesn't break. Software doesn't wear out. Software doesn't begin to malfunction in the field.
Hardware, however, does break, wear out, and being to malfunction in the field.

[indep_kidd]

173. RECEIPT or PRINT-OUT???

So do these machines give people receipts or print-outs?

Seems like that would be one of the easiest ways to ensure that their vote is properly conducted.

[Ms. Toad]

174. I agree with your analysis of why what is being observed

Although I would qualify both of your software explanations that "designed to" does not necessarily require an intent to achieve the result (otherwise there would never be any need to update software to fix those unintended bugs that are present in the code of any significantly sized application).

>>Getting back to the point, they key is that many of the flippings would go unnoticed.<<

That is the point I have made repeatedly - and my point doesn't depend on which of the 5 reasons you have listed for the screen displaying something other than what the voter intended. If the screen displaying something different than the voter intended, it is critical for the voter to keep working to fix what shows on the screen. Far too many people skip this step (i.e. an unintended vote goes unnoticed). If you can't make the screen register the intended vote, I would agree that (inconvenient or not) it should be taken out of service.

My concerns are that (1) the effort is being spent trying to take machines out of service (on the assumption that displaying an unintended vote is caused by deliberate rigging) would have a far better payoff if it were spent getting out the word that voters need to review and verify that the display screen accurately reflects the vote they intended to cast and (2) actually succeeding in taking a substantial number of machines out of service at this point in time will make voting even more difficult by creating longer lines for the remaining machines and will discourage voters from waiting to cast their votes (because it is too late now to print paper ballots for every voter - if they are already printed, this concern is moot.)

[clear eye]

138. Sorry, your elaborate comment is wrong on every point.

It is in the basic function program to record the vote as it is on the screen. Changing that would cause every single vote for Dems to be misrecorded and lead to an immediate removal of the machine on test. Also, if the malware is introduced after testing by the firmware key, as is demonstrated in this video: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00147.htm , and it flips only a percentage of the vote while flashing what it records briefly on the screen, there is plausible deniability for the manufacturer/programmer. Getting away with the fraud is an important consideration to the criminals.

Paper ballots will actually speed the voting process since more people can vote on paper at any one time than can use machines. Counting will be a little slower, but not unmanageable as each precinct generally has only a few hundred voters and at least two pollworkers.

All the states have absentee ballots, and the page with the ballot on it can be used for voting at the polling place as well.

Removing the machines takes no time from volunteers. How that would affect anything else they are doing is incomprehensible.

I'm not journal-pimping when I suggest you follow a few links from my entry "Best Sources of Election Integrity News and Analyses (to bookmark) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=509829&mesg_id=509829

You sorely need information.

[Ms. Toad]

150. I have plenty of information, thank you.

How long would it take the printers to obtain paper in the proper weight and size, and potentially the special ink needed, and print all of the ballots for every single potential voter - even if they have the templates already.

Add to that the time to review the ballots when they get back to the board of elections, and to sort and deliver them to the proper precincts.

There are 4 days left - not going to happen.

If you have to use machines because paper ballots are not available, and you remove machines from service, the lines will be longer because more people will be using fewer machines.

[clear eye]

162. As I said above,

None of that paper, ink thing pertains since the ballots will be hand counted.

Sites using machines have some paper ballots for emergency use, so there is some lead time before the new ones are needed.

Not allowing voters to use paper while the election officials try to get the machines to work is what causes lines and disruption. Letting machines be recalibrated by techs from companies who almost certainly have installed malware in the past, leaves machines with firmware and software that no outside group can swear is what they certified.

[Ms. Toad]

176. Have fun finding a printer that can handle that job,

and a board of elections that can properly sort and distribute them once they are printed. Heck, lots of places can't even get correct ballots to the polling places when they have the luxury of time because it was planned - so even if you don't intend to use machines to count the ballots, it is not a manageable task at this point.

As to hand counting - you want Obama to be inaugurated in January, right? Cuyahoga County's unintentional experiment with hand counting a mere 18,000 shorter primary ballots a few years ago took about a week working pretty much around the clock.

[BradBlog]

186. Kinkos...

...Can have it done in about an hour.

That you suggest these ballots must be of the "proper size and weight" and couldn't be counted before January, suggests that you have either fallen hook, line and sinker for the vendor-based electoral-industrial disinformation, or you are purposely misleading folks. I have no reason to believe it's the latter, but your vociferous (and often disinformational) defense of e-voting in all forms, putting machines first and voters a distance second, is troubling.

I will continue to believe, for the moment, that you mean well. But your arguments are extraordinarily off-base, as well as exceedingly naive on the technical issues in question.

[Ms. Toad]

203. Are you familiar with Cuyahoga County's

2006 hand counted paper ballot primary? They counted around 18,000 absentee ballots. Working nearly around the clock, it took approximately a week. That's a reality based experience, not under the control of any vendor. Check the news reports from the time.

Cuyahoga County expects to have to count 880,000 ballots come Tuesday. Even if they could keep up the same rate during the entire count, and had the identical length ballot, it would take about 5 weeks. They found they couldn't even keep up the rate they started out at for one week - by the end of the week they were taking longer breaks and working fewer hours because of the tedious detail oriented nature of the work. Tuesday's ballot this is longer. Realistically, under the best of circumstances, it would probably take around 10 weeks. That isn't short enough to meet many statutory certification deadlines, if memory from 2004 serves me correctly, and would be cutting it pretty close to allow for recounts, or other post-count challenges.

Nothing I have said is a defense of e-voting. It is an opposition to trying to switch systems 4 days before the election and a suggestion as to a productive thing that can be done to work with the system that currently exists to minimize errors (whatever the underlying cause). You would be hearing the same opposition from me if you were suggesting it would be a good idea to switch from hand counted paper ballots to electronic voting 4 days before the election - although the specific concerns would be slightly different (setting up and testing the machines, and training the workers - as opposed to printing and distributing ballots).

As to being technically naive, you have the wrong number there. Although my technical degrees are in other fields (as was the norm for the period in which I went through college), I taught programming for a number of years.

On the other hand, I would suggest that it is more than a bit naive to think that Kinkos could handle printing the massive numbers of ballots required in an hour.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

212. the key word is "self-respecting"

another one that fits is "careful". Whether the machines are rigged is debatable (and I am on the side that knows they are) That they CAN be rigged is not. We should not be voting on equipment that can be rigged, because if it can be, it will be (and already has).

[Matariki]

112. My question also.

[backscatter712]

114. VOTER INTIMIDATION AND VOTE SUPPRESSION.

To answer your question, yes, it is possible, and in fact, easy, to program a Diebold voting machine to accept the user's vote for Obama, display a vote for Obama on the screen, then silently record a vote for McCain.

But mere stealing of votes isn't the only thing that the Rethugs have in mind. Remember that their election strategy is vote suppression.

And for that, vote-flipping is the perfect thing to do. It's DESIGNED to be observed by the voter, because the machine is sending a message. That message is "Your vote doesn't count. We're cooking the vote anyways, so you don't matter."

The direct message to the voter is just the beginning. What do you think happens when a voter encounters vote-flipping?

Oh, yeah, he calls over election staff, they fiddle with the machine, "recalibrating" it, messing with it, and creating a scene observed by dozens, if not hundreds of other voters. At the same time, the machine's out of service, the lines are backing up, and a shitstorm is created.

Mission accomplished. One vote-flip "malfunction" could conceivably disenfranchise dozens of voters - not just the voter who directly observed it, but other people pissed off when they observe the election workers fiddling with the machine, as well as people who now have to wait in long lines because one machine's out of commission, they have to get back to work, pick up kids, etc.

This is classic social engineering.

[whopis01]

118. Because it is easier to blame it on user error or malfunctioning hardware.

If a user 'thinks' they hit one selection, but another lighted up, the explanations include:

1) The user actually hit the other choice
2) The user hit the area between the two choices and it registered the other one
3) The touch screen hardware is not properly calibrated and it is not registering the touches in the right position
4) The touch screen hardware is not working properly, possibly due to users being too rough with it
5) The software was designed to do that

If the machine displays one value and records another, the explanations include:

1) The software was designed to do that


One important aspect of software vs. hardware:

Software doesn't break. Software doesn't wear out. Software doesn't begin to malfunction in the field.
Hardware, however, does break, wear out, and being to malfunction in the field.

[Sinti]

133. plausible deniability

hand counted paper ballots please

[slackmaster]

74. As a Systems Admin with experience as a DBA, QA analyst, and tech writer I don't understand

How a deliberate, organized effort to program machines to systematically switch votes, especially in a non-random manner, could survive this many years without being "outed".

Like most non-management people, software developers are not loyal creatures at heart. They will turn on you. (I was married to one for 10 years.)

[bertman]

87. They have been "outed" numerous times by numerous people including some Republicans

who couldn't stomach what was being done to our democracy.

[Pavulon]

124. g code and plc systems here

very difficult to write. The whole negative vote logic is childish at best. came down to a guy screwing with a memory card, one at a time.

Having used and designed programs for touch screen systems for years screen calibration is a constant problem. especially in systems where users (elections office people) can place objects on screen. That invites soft corners.

The access back end was disturbing, but not surprising in a low bid system.

[DubyaSux]

148. This is bullshit...

We've been having this debate for years.

There is a fundamental flaw with this entire "blackboxes are evil" mantra - it assumes republicans are smart enough to pull this off using a grand conspiracy while democrats are too dumb to find out.

I'm a software developer that has sparred with Brad which-his-face, Bev Harris, the late Andy Stephenson, et al and it's always the same kooky fears.

As noted, nobody is going to allow you to see your vote flipped. Clearly, this is a touchscreen calibration issue and/or a technical issue. But the original article doesn't seem to be available anymore. Secondly, you can print accurate receipts while flipping internal votes, so I don't know what a receipt does for you except make you feel better.

But for voting machines to be rigged, here's what has to happen:

1. Some really smart person puts malicious code in that every developer that works there would never see. If you've worked in a multi-developer environment, that's not going to happen. Groups work on the same code. Code relating to what can be deemed as the "money shot" would be scrutinized by everyone and somehow missed. Implausible on many levels.
2. So, we somehow get it past democrat developers too dumb to see the "bug".
3. The machine is shipped to Podunk, Iowa to be used in a local election. Levees, amendments, dog catcher, etc are voted on using these machines. The machines aren't used for just presidential elections - they are used for any election. The software is very generic.
4. Somehow, the "malicious code" knows you're trying to vote for Barack Obama and flips the vote. Even though the software design doesn't know shit from shinola in terms of what election it is.
5. Voting officials run mock elections on the machines to certify them and the machine works perfectly.
6. During the course of the election, the machines are constantly audited. They continue to work perfectly.
7. Every machine in every precinct in every state would have to work to same to upset the results of an election. It would have to get by all the good people there.

The guy at Brad Blog knows this entire machine rigging premise is bogus and even the queen of crackpots - Bev Harris - has conceded the implausibility of this and has moved on to the more plausible tabulation process (where the results are uploaded to a central location).

Nobody has ever EVER found a rigged machine because they don't exist. No company is going to invest billions of dollars into their product to allow it to be rigged and put out of business. If you want to rig an election with machines, you have to cheat the process - not the machines. And that won't happen because contrary to popular belief of the black box conspiracy theorists, election workers on both sides of the aisle aren't the retards they make them out to be.

It's far more likely to have an unskilled person stuff ballot boxes then some grand conspiracy like what is being pimped here.

[Seldona]

166. Have you seen the Princeton hack video?

They not only hacked the machine, they were able to insert the code in under a minute without a security key for the card slot cover. Not only that but they were able to write software that knows when you are in testing mode and to let everything run as normal. It only kicked in when the real election began, and flipped the entire 'real' election.

Further, it is able to delete itself when done as well as propagate from one machine to the other using tabulating cards that have been infected with the virus. The cards are inserted into many machines per election and can infect a large population of machines rather quickly. Mind you this virus was written over two years ago, as well as the white paper on it on how they did it, and was released in Sept 06'.

Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WMG34cv0zM

The glitches could be the result of a conflict someplace if the machines are infected, or they could be completely unrelated. Viruses are well known to not always be the cleanest code.

If this has been debunked I missed it. Not hard as no one can keep up with everything. But as far as that video is concerned imho those machines are a menace to Democracy.

[slackmaster]

179. The Princeton hack video depicts what COULD be done

It says nothing about what actually HAS been done.

If this has been debunked I missed it.

What's to debunk? The Princeton people clearly demonstrated a potential vulnerability. Nobody has seriously questioned that.

[DubyaSux]

187. Yes, I've seen it....

...they start with the malicious code already running. Do you see a problem here?

To put this code on a machine, you need tools. I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd bet money someone might notice you bringing a handful of tools into a voting booth and start tearing stuff apart. Just a hunch.

Secondly, you'd need to do this to many, many machines to make a difference. So, you'd need a lot of oblivious poll workers to pull that off.

Lastly, if you go under the presumption that someone would do it before the election started, you'd need to get by a lot of honest hard working poll workers. People, these poll workers are not functionally retarded - this is what these theories imply. Ari Rueben had to back off on his conspiracies after he worked an election in Baltimore. For every dishonest poll worker out there, there are 100 from all parties who are honest and would never let something like this happens. The Prineton video - along with all the other kooky ideas floated out there - pretend no election procedures and controls are in place.

[slackmaster]

190. Conspiracy theories are very hard to kill

The dedicated conspiracy theorist has two convenient outs for any kind of evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory:

A. Expand the conspiracy (e.g. so it includes thousands of poll workers), or

B. Contract the conspiracy (e.g. attribute it to a handful of uber-genius software engineers who can predict future events over which they have no control).

Add to the mix highly motivated promoters who exploit frightened people by luring them to their Web sites, and you have a self-perpetuating conspiracy machine that will probably survive an Obama landslide victory.

[slackmaster]

178. You're making way too much sense, DubyaSux

Thanks for having the courage to say it out loud.

[BradBlog]

189. The bullshit is your strawman argument(s), Dubya...

There is a fundamental flaw with this entire "blackboxes are evil" mantra - it assumes republicans are smart enough to pull this off using a grand conspiracy while democrats are too dumb to find out.

Actually, the flaw here, at least, is in your phony argument. When have the democrats ever tried to "find out"? Please share, as I've unaware of any such attempt, or any time that a request to find out has been allowed by the companies who get to decide.

As noted, nobody is going to allow you to see your vote flipped. Clearly, this is a touchscreen calibration issue and/or a technical issue. But the original article doesn't seem to be available anymore.

While my personal belief is that most of the vote-flipping stories that we hear about are, most likely, machine/programming error, I fail to see your point, or why that matters. These are failed machines, and 100% unverifiable at that. So whether it's hardware/software failure or malicious tampering, the difference is what exactly?

The guy at Brad Blog knows this entire machine rigging premise is bogus and even the queen of crackpots - Bev Harris - has conceded the implausibility of this and has moved on to the more plausible tabulation process (where the results are uploaded to a central location).

"This guy at Brad Blog" (me, Brad Friedman) knows no such thing. Neither has Bev Harris "conceded" any such thing. You have just pulled to points wholly out of your ass, and except that the rest of your unsupportable argument(s) should be accepted on faith?

Nobody has ever EVER found a rigged machine because they don't exist.

"Nobody has EVER found a rigged machine", because nobody has been allowed the access to do so. In the meantime, I can cite you a dozen or so incidents which have never been explained because of that (in 2000, in 2002, in 2004, in 2006, in 2008). OR, as you argue, maybe they don't exist, even as you concede they easily could. Either way, the difference is what exactly?

They CAN exist, they CAN flip an entire election without possibility of detection, and in the meantime, they are 100% unverifiable, wholly faith-based voting systems. And you refer to reporting to that effect as "bullshit"?

I'm sorry to hear that you don't give a damn about transparent, citizen-verifiable democracy. I do. Best of luck in your fight.

[DubyaSux]

202. One of these days....

....you might have your Drudge moment, but this ain't it. All you are doing is inciting distrust and cynicism.

Not once have you, black box org, or anybody shown one concrete example of nefarious behavior on the part of voting machine companies. But like the dumbshits on the runup to the Iraq war spouting "the absence of evidence doesn't mean the absence of evidence" crap, we're hearing the same thing from guys like you trying to be the leader of a news story. And you are factually incorrect in rebutting my statement of Bev Harris's concession that hacking at the machine was not a plausible way to swing an election. I'm the guy you invited to write a column for your BLog rebutting these claims. I declined because I don't want to be the dart board for 10,000 uneducated cynics (from a technical standpoint). There is not one person educated in electronic voting that will claim elections can realistically be rigged by hacking voting machines. Hell, Ari Rueben doesn't even believe that and he's the crackpot that started this. Now, if you want to discuss the tabulation process (feeding the results into a central computer), there are plausibilities that might exist there.

I don't give two shits about the voting machines or the companies that make them (the usual invective lobbed at me during these discussions every election year). What I DO care about is accurate counting by all. I don't want my vote counted by someone checking for dimpled pregnant hanging chads. I want the visually impaired to be able to vote in private instead of someone doing it for them. I don't want the ballot boxes stuffed by 8 year olds or poll workers leaving bags of ballots in their trunks.

For every unproven reason you have against electronic voting, I can give a real-life example of how the current system sucks. We have election controls and procedures in place to minimize cheating. It will never be perfect. But to believe someone would allow another person to rig an election is absurd.

After all this years, give me concrete proof. Anybody can purchase an evoting machine. Buy one and prove me a liar.

[JohnWxy]

30. The most unreported crime of our time. Corporate news - dedicated to mis-informing the public.

[BradBlog]

101. I agree...therefore...(to rob from Colbert): Pulitzer Please!!!!

;-)

[bleever]

128. This is the best I can do:

But you have my deepest gratitude!

[BradBlog]

191. I'll take it! :-)

Whatever I can get! Can I sell it for enough to buy a sandwich? (Not really asking much here, as you can tell! This "Progressive Election Integrity Blogger" thing isn't exactly the windfall one might think at first blush!)

[Blue State Bandit]

31. Bravo VR and Brad! Score one for the little guys!

I hope that someone we can trust, possably someone from BlackBox or someone Brad knows, is standing outside the door, or in the room during this impoundment period.

We need eyes on at all times to prevent evidence tampering.

[Blue State Bandit]

37. And for god's sake...

tape over the IR sensor!

[vanboggie]

32. Outstanding! K&R n/t

[Dangerously Amused]

35. THANK YOU MS. LONG!!

FINALLY, a true American patriot!


:patriot:

[derby378]

36. One touchscreen down, 999,999 to go...

:woohoo:

[yy4me]

38. Someone===KO and Rachel should know this if they don't

already. I don't have addresses, someone send this info to them?

[valerief]

39. If we get a congress brave enough to outlaw these unconstitutional machines,

Brad Friedman deserves to get the medal of honor for his tenacious coverage of this assault on democracy.


:patriot:

[newburgh]

140. Here here! I second that emotion!

[Window]

41. Those damned LIEbold machines are still boldly lying.

:grr:

[superconnected]

42. Excellent news. May the makers of the machines be arrested next.

[Abugface]

44. I think we should be concerned ...

from the Brad Blog - Blogged by Brad Friedman on 10/30/2008 11:33AM:

The Obama campaign has made much of the fact that it has thousands of lawyers on the ground to ensure that this election is fair and everyone's vote is counted. "Unfortunately, these lawyers, the lawyers for McCain and the lawyers for the DNC and RNC are AWOL and asleep at the wheel," continued Friedman. "We insist that they keep their promise to the voters by demanding that these machines be taken out of service immediately. We should not have to wait until after the election for a candidate to sue because voters were not allowed to properly register their votes."

Where are the attorneys?

[bobd0]

46. Send that machine up to the boys at Princeton who demonstrated how easy these machines are to hack

Princeton publishes how-to guide for hacking Sequoia e-voting machines

http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/24/princeton-publishes-how-to-guide-for-hacking-sequoia-e-voting-ma/

Princeton scientists Hack Diebold Voting Machine Demo

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8d_1194275446

[slackmaster]

48. The machine needs to be extensively tested before anybody cracks it open

Lots of witnesses, all recorded on video. Any out-of-spec behavior must be carefully documented in an objective manner.

[bobd0]

57. The boys at Princeton will know exactly what to do in an objective, scientific, irrefutable manner.

[clear eye]

144. "How to Hack a Sequoia Touch-Screen Voting Machine" was done by UCSB

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00147.htm (Scroll down to view the video--in 2 parts.)

[slackmaster]

184. That is irrelevant

We're talking about a different kind of machine here, and one that was deployed in a real election.

Could be done is not the same as was done.

[BradBlog]

194. Hardly...

We're talking about a different kind of machine here, and one that was deployed in a real election.

Could be done is not the same as was done.

And the difference is what exactly? If it could be done, why would you allow any voter to use such a system?

The hack linked to above was commissioned by Sec. of State Debra Brunner, who promptly decertified the machine in question after that UCSB report.

Nevada still uses that exact same system across their entire state.

You're in support of that?! Even though you've been shown an almost untraceable way to hack DRE/touch-screen, including it's "voter verifiable paper trails" in such a way that even a full 100% hand count of those "paper trails" would fail to reveal the hack? Because "could be done is not the same as was done?"

Do you work for the Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans by any chance?

[slackmaster]

196. Brad, I've stated my real position on this many, many times but here it is again

I favor paper-based systems because they are much more transparent and easier to secure than electronic ones.

Electronic systems are OK with me if they add some value to the process (e.g. make voting more accessible for visually impaired people or provide a cost-effective way to deliver ballots in multiple languages), but the following two items are non-negotiable requirements for an acceptable electronic voting system:

1. Open, auditable source code and

2. A secure printed audit record that is visible to the voter (e.g. captive paper tape).

Beyond that, the same kinds of chain-of-custody and physical security that is necessary for any voting system apply.

Do you work for the Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans by any chance?

No, I am a computer professional with 25 years' experience working with a lot of different systems, at all levels from hardware through user interfaces.

[BrklynLiberal]

47. That is good news. I wish this could have started 2 years ago.

[DFW]

52. There is one more, very vital, thing that needs to be done!!!!!

This machine needs to be examined by a top notch forensic computer expert
(my brother does this stuff for DARPA, so I know for a fact there are such
people) to determine if the machine was deliberately programmed to act in
this way. This CAN be determined, and IF it is so determined, ALL Diebold
machines need to be taken out of commission and their programmers and execs
need to be sent behind bars for a few decades in order to show that America
does take its elections being tampered with lightly.

[KansDem]

65. Do two things --

1) Put armed guards around it 24/7
2) Call your brother and his team to come in and examine it.

Hell, I'll pitch in some $$$ to pay his fee! :woohoo:

[DFW]

175. My brother would LOVE to get a shot at that machine!

The trouble is, the people who give him his marching orders
are probably not at all interested in his getting involved
in any such thing. They want to know stuff like whether a
Russian air attack on Pakistan might succeed (NOT a real
example, he can't discuss real projects, obviously) or stuff
like that. Minor things like preserving/regaining a degree of
fair voting in the United States, who cares about little crap like that?

[King Coal]

68. If we get the House, Senate, and White House, maybe we can get fair elections guaranteed.

We deserve as much.

[Gadzooks1]

55. It's about time, God damn it!

ALL the machines that flip votes need to be quarantined and inspected. These machines are so friggin' hackable, and the hack is always written to delete itself, usually when the fucker is powered back up and connected to the tabulator. They need to be inspected by an independent, vetted tech before that happens.

[vinylsolution]

59. There are a lot more of these machines in Colorado....

... you can bet Republicans will be hoping no more of these programmed-in 'glitches' will be discovered before voting ends.

[yardwork]

63. Why did it take so long? But thank goodness somebody finally grabbed one.

[Overseas]

66. K&R for the electronic election fraud file. Glad it was quarantined.

We want no one to touch it until it can be examined by a bipartisan group, analyzed on film.

[JuniperLea]

67. Proprietary software will make it hard to figure out why...

Unless you have access to the software, I doubt anyone could figure out WHY or HOW this is happening. They covered their bases.

Still, if enough of these are taken out of service, there's hope!

[bobd0]

73. They didn't cover their bases as well as they'd like. :)

Diebold source code has been "leaked" so it isn't proprietary any more.

I found these articles on Diebold source code leaks in a quick Google search.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/1172/9052

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/diebold-source-public-jul29.pdf

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/10/20/Hndieboldsourcecode_1.html

[LiberalMachine413]

69. McCain Voter Fraud!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGF-HEd6XnA

Holy crap. Check this out.

[MagicKenny]

70. When Did We Lose Faith in the Pencil?

Yes, I know - the "chad-tastrophy" of 2000; still, I put my faith in pen/pencil and paper any day. Nobody can hack, and change, my hand.

Nice work, Brad - but damn, do these stories make me NERVOUS.

[bobd0]

89. America doesn't like pencils. Reminds me of the story of how the space pen was invented.

NASA spent a small fortune inventing a pen that could write in the zero gravity of space.

The USSR space program used pencils.

[Shardik]

72. K&R Never again.

[Myrina]

75. What happens to the voters who already used it?

Do they get a Mulligan? :shrug:

[bulloney]

76. Have ALL of these discrepancies with voting machines favored the Republican candidate?

It seems like it.

[lelgt60]

77. Something's strange. Giving visual feedback of illegal flipping makes no sense.

No one who programmed these things to falsify the vote would ever give any visual feedback and wouldn't need to. You have to be an idiot.

This is clearly the work of an incompetent (criminal or not).

[xchrom]

78. recommend

[LaPera]

79. Thanks Brad...it's only going to get uglier & much worst Tuesday.....Looking to hear

more tomorrow from you - 5 pm on the Peter B Collins Show!

[The Brethren]

80. Diebold, what a surprise......NOT!!!

This is what should've done even sooner. I'm glad it's place in CO, but what about WVA with clear evidence of screen flipping votes, are all of those votes going to be retaken with paper ballots or something other valid means? If not, then all of those votes were wasted.

[jazzjunkysue]

83. Any IT undergrad could analze the code to find the vote flipping piece.

I say, get the technology dept. heads from 10 ivy league universities into a sealed room to inspect it and make a declaration.

They can release the part of the code that is illegal. They don't even have to release the whole program.

This is total BS. Anyone who wants this hidden has something to hide.

Remember when we were losing our rights to privacy and the freepers said they didn't care because they had nothing to hide?

They were happy with guilty until proven innocent on that one, so, why won't they admit they're rigging the vote. Do they have something to hide?

[backscatter712]

86. In MY COUNTY? Sweet Zombie Jesus!!!

I didn't think this would happen in my own turf. Just makes me very angry.

They'd better keep that machine locked up until a credible, reputable computer forensics firm can pick that machine's firmware apart byte-by-byte.

And they need to find the son-of-a-bitch who wrote the code for these vote-stealing and voter-intimidating machines and having him hung, drawn and quartered.

[bertman]

88. "a frequent flipper"

now that's funny.

I needed that. This shit is getting me down.

[ailsagirl]

93. Are they going to interrogate it? Torture it?? They should

[harun]

209. A pic of the impounded Diebold machine...

[ailsagirl]

211. LOL!!!

:rofl:

[progrocktv]

215. That's CLASSIC!

Good one:-)

[Kip Humphrey]

94. DIEBOLD, die!

[DuaneBidoux]

95. This is why we need to win by a MINIMUM of 5%.

[DuaneBidoux]

96. Assuming we don't get cheated out of victory 1st priority must be fixing this "system"

[Kajsa]

99. Excellent!

Now, they can remove the rest of the Diebold machines,
all of them!

:)

[happygoluckytoyou]

102. 2009 AGENDA.... take power... fix voting... OWN THE COUNTRY!!! when every1 does vote DEMS WIN ! ! !

[happygoluckytoyou]

103. i hear the POLICE are being prepared for RIOTING (a lot of alaskan women might riot if they lose!)

[reflection]

106. Hurrah!

Finally someone does the right thing. Good for everyone involved.

[eagertolearn]

107. The problem is that they wrapped it up and will be giving it to their Secretary of State.

Isn't she republican and hasn't she been purging the new voter registrations like crazy. I bet you anything that someone in the GOP is on there way right now to "help" her to figure out the problems with the voting machines. I wish we can have that guy from Princeton look at it first! We can't get out of this cycle until we get rid of this current corrupt administration! Thanks Brad Blog for all that you are doing but how do we solve this problem?

[Canuckistanian]

108. SEIZE THAT MACHINE and tear it down

The FIRST target is the EPROM or FLASH chip that contains the code that runs this particular machine.

THEN, analyze the code to find out WHETHER it flips votes based on the PROGRAM or the INPUT circuitry.

And please, don't let this ONE machine fall into the wrong hands for ONE SECOND.

Thanks, Brad, for all the work you do.

:thumbsup:

[april]

113. THESE BASTARDS ARE NOT GOING TO STEAL THE VOTE AGAIN

[KalicoKitty]

116. They are sure trying hard to.

[upi402]

121. Thanks Brad, Does this action mean there's fewer machines to vote on? n/t

[BradBlog]

195. At least one fewer. Thank god...

...So hopefully more people will be able to vote because more people will get paper ballots. But we'll see if the officials in the county continue to be responsible, and assure enough paper ballots for all. Breath not being held.

[lonestarnot]

123. K & R and keep it under 24/7 guard, and do not let ANYONE touch it!

[Imagevision]

125. Dems & Repugs are responsible - 8 years & the probs still remain. gimme a fucking break!

[Imagevision]

127. Diebold's ATM's have no problem providing avalid receipt - vote machines are a scam...!

[Imagevision]

131. 2004 in Ohio, carry a video camera and get knocked - arrested by local cops...

[Human_Flavored_Tofu]

132. Followed the links and I guess the site is down ... I wonder if the republicans didn't like those

headlines. They don't like people to know they steal elections because they don't have the truth on their side.

[Human_Flavored_Tofu]

168. The site is still down. WTF?

[StrictlyRockers]

134. Finally! And WHY do they ALWAYS flip from Democratic to Republican? HMM?

Curious....

[slackmaster]

180. How do you know that they do?

:shrug:

[Indenturedebtor]

135. You are now officially a pillar of Democracy!

Seriously way to go man :D And kudos to that ballsy clerk as well! :applause:

[slackmaster]

183. Shall we lobby to put Brad's face on Mount Rushmore?

:rofl:

[Indenturedebtor]

219. Hahaha only if there's room left after Colbert goes up :D n/t

[FVZA_Colonel]

136. It's not the end, but at least it's something.

I'm glad they caught this before the 4th.

[Mark D.]

145. THE REAL PROBLEM

Isn't just catching machines flipping votes we can catch. It's the tabulation of votes. So what if a machine works 100%, with every Obama vote appearing to go to Obama by its check mark. It doesn't fucking matter. It's when that and others are tabulated in a central computer, and that central computer is overseen by a right wing/GOP operative secretary of state or whatever that 'confirms' it is fine. And in that machine the code simply changes every 5th Obama vote to McCain. Then it's a close win for McCain in that district instead of Obama as it should have been. Close in a battleground state, 'could have gone either way', well, no recount.

Well guess what, the fucking machine doesn't spit out a paper trail, there can be no recount. This is the 'elephant' (pun intended) in the room we have to see. We MUST have one simple two part voting system. All paper ballots, easy to fill out, and scanned. Machines only for those who can't write on a paper ballot due to disability. But they only fill out that same ballot for them (they do not record votes). Then they are all scanned for a PRELIMINARY total. So on election night we have our 'immediate result' so many are willing to risk security to have, but it is just that. Just preliminary, and thus the MSM and AP only says 'preliminary'.

It's not official, until a complete HAND COUNT (no recount likely needed, since every vote is counted twice this way). As brad says, by hand, in public, non-partisan, judicial oversight and audit, etc. Then you have two totals that should be virtually identical. Case closed. If one is WAY off (ie. scanned votes way out of sync in favor of the GOP) you have the bastards making the machines caught red-handed. It must be this way in every city / town in America. With no more electoral college, and a simple central database very thoroughly protected and audited for voters, to end partisan GOP hacks in GOP states knocking voters off the rolls illegally.

[petgoat]

159. UH OH! Tinfoil Alert!

Think of DU's credibility !

We can't have this stuff on the greatest page!

:tinfoilhat:


Just kidding!

[illuminaughty]

164. Insert surreal moment

I'm reading your thread while listening to Thom online and your segment just came on. I was on your website last night trying to get a comprehensive list of states this is currently happening in.

How many states so far? WV, CO, TN, TX, is what I understand. I was involved with the Missouri election 2004 and subsequent No Stolen Elections group and the oddities were mind boggling. I sent some info to Obama campaign but we all know this won't change until we're rid of the machines for good. Thanks for your work.

[RavingMadwoman]

167. Vote flipping machines

DIEBOLD! Keeping America safe from democracy since 2000!

[radfringe]

170. when was the vote flipping discovered?

before or after voting began? was it in use at the polls this time around?

if so, what happens to the votes that were cast on it?

[indep_kidd]

172. Investigaton?

You'd think this would have a huge investigation behind it.

In my opinion stuff like this should be akin to a national security issue.

I can't believe they're even using machines if the machines are this "unpredictable" (read: tampered with) still.

[Haole Girl]

185. I had a feeling about CO. First FL, then OH... now CO

:-(

[KansDem]

188. Has CorpMedia reported on this yet?

I listened to NPR this morning and didn't hear anything about this. Seems to me this would be national news...

[slackmaster]

197. They're not going to report on it until there is a high-quality video of vote-flipping in progress

Preferably being demonstrated by a physically attractive person.

They care about visual appeal more than content.

[BonnieJW]

193. Send this article to your

respective governor and SOS. Let them know that this is the CORRECT procedure to follow should a voting machine prove to be malfunctioning. The machine should be removed, quarantined and another machine should be sent as a replacement.

[Pooka Fey]

200. Finally! K&R Go Bradblog

[Kurovski]

207. Thank you, Brad.

As always. K&R.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

210. Twenty bucks sez that machine has already disappeared.

[bobbolink]

214. Thank you, BRAD! I hope this means Velvet Revolution is blanketing Colorado!

We certainly need all the help we can get here with the (#_!@()%U#$!!! MACHINES!

There was NOthING on this in the news.. either TV or print.

GRRRRR!

[Kurovski]

216. Kick. (nt)

[Augdog20]

218. This is great / vote: Obama's winning percentage

This should happen everywhere - down 2/ diebold

Check out my blog for analysis on the politics & economics of the season:
http://bluesunited.blogspot.com

Also, vote your prediction of his winning percentage at my blog's poll.