A new paper, and video, has been issued by the Computer Security Group at the University of California, Santa Barbara. This group contributed to voting system reviews conducted by Ohio and California last year.The 11-page paper was presented in July at the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis held in Seattle.Much of it is comprehensible to most voters.The Group also prepared a 17-minute video, presented in two parts (on page 2) that illustrates several attacks, and shows how security seals are ineffective.
The paper clarifies that security is lacking in both Sequoia and ES&S voting systems: "the electronic voting systems that we have reviewed are neither secure nor well-designed."It spends time discussing the certification process which does not and cannot adequately secure a software driven voting system:
"While most critical systems are continuously scrutinized and evaluated for safety and correctness, electronic voting systems are not subject to the same level of scrutiny. A number of recent studies have shown that most (if not all) of the electronic voting systems being used today are fatally flawed and that their quality does not match the importance of the task that they are supposed to carry out."(emphasis added)
This conclusion corroborates many prior statements made by security experts. Twelve such quotes are reproduced here.The paper states:
"All voting systems recently analyzed by independent security testers have been found to contain fatal security flaws that could compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the voting process.
...
"Our experience suggests that there is a need for a drastic change in the way in which electronic systems are designed, developed, and tested.
...
"Unless electronic voting systems are held up to standards that are commensurate with the criticality of the tasks they have to perform, the very core of our democracy is in danger."
(emphasis added)
While detailing many of the vulnerabilities in touchscreen (DRE) voting systems, which more than half the states have outlawed1, the paper specifically discusses optical scan systems:
"Evaluations of the various optical scanners offered by both vendors followed much the same pattern of the previous voting system components. A patent disregard for cryptographic authentication and integrity checks allows attackers to overwrite a system's firmware with malicious versions and modify or construct election data to be processed by an EMS.
"Physical security measures were also lacking. In particular, the ES&S scanner lock was easily picked with a paper clip during our tests, while the "unpickable" lock on the Sequoia scanner was bypassed by removing a few screws and pulling out the lock cylinder from the scanner's chassis by hand. In both cases, this allows an attacker to access machine internals to potentially execute arbitrary code."
The Computer Security Group at UCSB issued a statement introducing this information, reposted with permission:
Electronic voting systems have been introduced to improve the voting process. Since their inception, they have been controversial, because both the technologists and the general public realized that they were losing direct control over an important part of the voting process: counting the votes.
In 2004, Rady Ananda joined the growing community of citizen journalists. Focused mainly on elections, her blogs also address religious, gender, sexual and racial equality, as well as environmental issues; and are sprinkled with book and film reviews on various topics. She spent most of her working life as a legal investigator for private lawyers, and five years as an editor. She currently serves as a senior editor at OpEdNews.
All material offered here is the property of Rady Ananda, copyright 2006, 2007, 2008. Permission is granted to repost, with proper attribution including the original link.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." Tell the truth anyway.
Because I believe in nonviolence, I believe voters should simply refuse to use the product.As long as voters ignore the futility of voting on systems that are not secure (and are outrageously expensive), election officials will continue to use them.Our letters, our blogs, our movies, our books, our meetings with officials have yielded us nothing toward securing our elections in the four years I've been involved.
Computerized voting systems are the lemon of all voting systems.They epitomize corporate governance.They count the vote in secret on software that is undetectably mutable.There is no accountability; nor can there be – they are electronic.
Next, let's get our money back – that amounts to $3.9 billion in just federal money alone.And given that this information is widely known by our state officials, don't they have some culpability in refusing to reject what the scientific community has condemned?How much of our state funding has gone toward keeping these non-securable systems?
That's our money, and this is our democracy.
by
Rady Ananda (124 articles, 283 quicklinks, 36 diaries, 1061 comments)
on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 10:57:19 PM
that you are against the Article V Convention. at the convention people like you will be able to propose a 28th Amendment which enshrines The Vote in our high law and secures it once and for all from corporate interests.
let's standardize The Vote with the design/implementation of an official u.s. voting unit. and then, while we're at it, create publicly funded campaigns, and/or instant run-off voting, and/or a national holiday to go to the polls, and/or the abolishment of the electoral college, and/or term limits, and/or computer-generated congressional districts to do away with gerrymandering. ringing any bells?
by
john de herrera (36 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 158 comments)
on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 11:42:21 PM
when it comes to discussing the US Constitution. Trusted progressive lawyers insist that an Article V Convention puts the entire Constitution at risk of being dissolved.
plus, we have the 1st, 14th and 19th amendments that address voting (and I think others, but don't have a conlaw lawyer sitting next to me right at the moment). All the case law supports this.
We don't need more laws; we need to enforce the ones we have. (and get rid of some laws, I might add)
so I have to reassert - we need to enforce THIS constitution, not change it.
by
Rady Ananda (124 articles, 283 quicklinks, 36 diaries, 1061 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 12:09:52 AM
...the Article V Convention is an unwarrented step at this point, and a dangerous one. Right now we have an executive branch run amuck that doesn't adhere to the Constitution we have and we have a large group of lawmakers in congress that seem to be allowing them to do this.
What makes anyone think a new constitution would be treated any differently?
By having the convention, we are also admiting that the constitution as it stands is in need of review; that it is somehow flawed. The law, as it stands, is the law. And up until Bush/Pelosi it has served us well.
We don't need to review the constitution, we need to inforce it and "review" the actions of Pelosi and Cheney et al.
by
scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 8:06:41 AM
On the third day of the Republican National Convention, GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin mocked Barack Obama for believing that individuals accused of terrorism actually have rights under the law."Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America,” Palin said, “and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”
"'Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America,' Palin said, 'and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.'
"The implication was that those suspected of being terrorists have no rights under domestic or international law. The line elicited thunderous approval from the party faithful gathered in St. Paul, Minnesota."
And, I might add, the Democratic Party supports the subversion of our Constitutional Rights, given their votes on the various "laws" legalizing infringement of said rights.
by
Rady Ananda (124 articles, 283 quicklinks, 36 diaries, 1061 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 10:10:41 AM
and the Constitution contains the 24th Amendment which provides for no poll taxes and in conjunction with the Voter rights act of the same 1960's period of change a bar from invidious discrimination.
At question before the Federal bar in New Mexico is a case which asserts the dominance of the 24th amendment over the (inferior)( invidious) procedures of the State of New Mexico and its election code. ( see NM 08-0505 MV/DJS
by
Eliot Gould (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 134 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 11:05:01 AM
will you stop to examine why your fears are not only irrational, but illogical? the convention cannot do anything but discuss solutions to a broken government (or a government taken over by corporate interests). the convention clause is part of our constitution for a reason--so that people like yourself can propose ideas the politicians will not (such as an amendment securing The Vote from private interests).
These are only a few of the hundreds of way, many of which are noted in the "Top-to-Bottom Review," in which all voting machines and central tabulators can be undetectably hacked to alter the results of elections.
There are also many ways in which the chain of custody of paper ballots can be interrupted for the few seconds it takes to substitute different ballots. The paper ballots can also be manipulated prior to a recount so as to match the machine count, but this takes a little longer. That is not a problem as the ballots are usually in the sole custody of the elections officials who will perform the manipulations overnight or over several nights between the election and the recount.
If there were ANY way to secure our votes from being stolen and to prevent fraudulently elected officials from being sworn into office, I would not be advocating a total election boycott. As things stand, however, even if you are in the less than 20% of the country where there is a good chance that your vote will be counted accurately, 20% of the votes cannot control a presidential election, so you may get the local and state officials of your choice, but the price you pay is dooming the rest of us to a President we did not choose. Some of us don't think that's very considerate of you.
As long as people are willing to vote in rigged elections, there is no reason whatsoever for a corrupt government spending a million dollars every two minutes on wars that they know full well most Americans do not approve of, to allow honest elections that could put a stop to trillions of dollars in war profiteering.
You as an individual may be one of those rare people who are above temptation. But most people, after they've made a few million dollars in war profits, really would prefer to keep doing it. It doesn't matter if they are very evil people or somewhat less evil people, they've got a good thing going and they know it. So they have no motivation whatsoever to allow honest elections where the popular vote could impinge on their success.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 3:04:13 AM
... with making this an opportunity to voice dissent.
They refuse to read our words or hear our voices. They place these damndable machines in front of us as if to mock us.
I say to HELL WITH THEM!
I suggest, as you have, that we use this election as a protest. All progressives who are not happy with either choice should organize and go in mass to their respective voting places with cameras in hand and tell the poll workers where they can stick their e-voting machines, write down on a piece of paper their choice (McKinney is mine) and tell them they can verify that!
Oh, wouldn't it be nice.
Will it happen?
Sorry to say that the chances of the American people waking-up to the farce that is our election system and demand drastic change, as you put it, are about as nil as Obama and McCain actually becoming real candidates for the people.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 1696 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 8:26:13 AM
I imagine a 35% turnout - something akin to matching support of the neocon takeover.
I need a cartoonist to express my ideas, sometimes, but here goes... John and Jane Q Public stand with their arms folded across the chest - looking down at tiny public officials and e-voting machines. make John & Jane 10 times as big as the fat pols sitting by their fake adding machines.
What will the pols do if John & Jane Q Public refuse to play their rigged game? take their toys and go home, most likely.
But there needs to be a next step; we can't just lead people into inaction; we need to divert that election excitement energy into something constructive... what? citizen run elections?
by
Rady Ananda (124 articles, 283 quicklinks, 36 diaries, 1061 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 9:29:02 AM
Why not? Two days after the "election" when Lieberman has his hands on his new HR 1955 Laws, they'll be kicking in my door anyway. What have I got to lose?
I'm writing by pick (McKinney) on the back of an unemployment application. Maybe kill two birds with one stone.
by
scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 9:30:12 AM
Unfortunately, the "officials" are going to call the elections in Florida as they see fit.
Therefore, our only hope is to swamp them. f we get 60+ percent of the vote, we will have a chance of beating their system. On the other hand, a boycott is a guaranteed loss.
Everyone who is not voting for McCain must be convinced to vote for Barack Obama. We must have as many votes as possible, because the system has been left vulnerable, intentionally, for hackers to steal. We have them outnumbered, so we have to swamp them with numbers.
We are voting for our own liberty to pick our leadership and maintain our individual freedom.
Our only effective weapon is numbers. Massed numbers. Everyone left of Mussolini must be convinced to vote Democratic, all the way down the ballot.
by
GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 124 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM
but in a rigged voting system - imo - is not where the masses need to be. Something else - something new - must be tried.
voting for the lesser of two evils in a duopoly led us to where we are today. buying into that duopoly one more time, cuz "this election really matters" (altho the pundits say that every 12 years or so) is just another trap.
Honestly, I vascillate on the vote boycott - I'm strongly ambivalent about it. on the one hand, I won't vote in a rigged system and think folks ought to do the same - just out of our own integrity. voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. the dems and the repubs are owned by the corporations... blah blah blah . I believe all that; and think these are legitimate points.
on the other hand, I want citizens to do SOMETHING - and if all they'll do is vote in a rigged system, at least it keeps them civically engaged. at least they're thinking about these things.
but really, I keep getting back to we are in such dire straits with two stolen elxns behind us and another one imminent, that we need to do more than play along.
by
Rady Ananda (124 articles, 283 quicklinks, 36 diaries, 1061 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM
We need to be screaming about this from the rafters.
Comment from Ratings: My fear is that another set of excellent candidates will wage a winning campaign only to have it stolen in the count, or stripped from them by the Supremes. It's happened before and my 'gut' is telling me, it most likely will happen again. Maybe America no longer deserves her democracy.
by
Amanda Lang (23 articles, 13845 quicklinks, 431 diaries, 593 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM
The whole elections charade, as it is now accurately described, is a test. The very richest families in America are testing us to see if we are smart enough to govern ourselves.
If we can't run our elections and insure majority rule, then the rich believe they have no compunction to allow us to run wild. Instead, they will rule us with lies, deceit and guns. And we will fall for it.
So the thinking people amoung us are all at serious risk, because the rest of the people are too stupid to rule themselves.
by
GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 124 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 10:41:49 AM
Every exit poll had John Kerry winning Ohio in 2004. And yet - for the first time since the science of modern polling began - the exit polls in that state turned out to be wrong. I'm sure it was just a coincidence (Nudge! Nudge! Wink! Wink!)
This is a situation that should not be tolorated in a democracy. But the American people go sheepishly to the polls - like freaking lemmings into the sea- totally oblivious to what is happening to their once-great nation. Seriously, did you ever get the feeling that you were living in a dark, comic novel?
Today, the GOP has the media focused on Senator Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark, trying to portray it as some kind of sexist crack against Sarak Palin. The country is falling apart and yet, that's all the main stream media has been focusing on this morning.
Consider this: John McCain is seventy-two years old. He is a cancer survivor. He is not in the best of health. At times he seems on the verge of senility. In the best of circumstances, the law of averages forbids him from living to January 20, 2012.
of course I agree with your comments... and exasperation.
let's be careful with the term 'voter fraud' vs 'election fraud' - one done by voters (not likely, rarely proven) and one done by election insiders. the repubs are using 'voter fraud' as THE excuse for stringent voter ID laws and have the public convinced voters easily commit fraud by voting more than once....
in reality (I think it was PEW Center on the States) - when dead people vote, it's election admin insiders who enable that - it's election fraud, not voter fraud.
and, okay, it's long past noon... you can drink now
;-)
by
Rady Ananda (124 articles, 283 quicklinks, 36 diaries, 1061 comments)
on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM
