Voting Machine Vendor Changes Story, Admits They Put Remote-Access Software on Machines for Years. The country’s leading manufacturer of voting machines has switched gears and admitted that the company installed remote-access software on…
http://biblebeltsite.wordpress.com/2018/07/21/voting-machine-vendor-changes-story-admits-they-put-remote-access-software-on-machines-for-years/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Weight loss is more than calories in and calories out. Research using a pool of 10,000 participants. People tend to gain weight back. Differ...
-
We were in Edmonton so I took the opportunity to visit the Microsoft Store, check out the Go and finally purchased it. I knew there was a ... -
Have you checked out your google info? Now much clearer! https://www.androidcentral.com/google-account-page-android-updated-new-ui-and-featu...
Computer technology should be able to make voting and counting ballots easier, more efficient and more accurate. The problem is the trust people have with them because of security vulnerabilities. It's interesting that people trust paper ballots because there are continually recounts and some of those recounts have resulted in a change in the results. People don't seem to criticise the inaccuracy of using paper ballots as vigorously. No one is saying, "Hey! Why is it that when you count things twice, you get different results? How can we trust that everything else you counted isn't wrong?"
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with the architecture of voting machines. What I do know is a bit about the architecture of the computer systems that control the NASA space shuttle. The architecture involves three separate independent systems designed and built by three separate teams. When a command is issued to say maneuver the shuttle, all three systems do the calculations on which thrusters to fire and how long. At least two of the three have to agree before the thrusters are applied. This ensures that if there is a bug, it would only cause one of the systems to be wrong and it is extremely unlikely that two or more independent teams building the independent systems would make exactly the same error.
The voting machines or systems need an architecture like this. They need multiple independent systems to independently register and tabulate the results. It would also result in the voting technology to be more secure as an attacker would have to successfully attack multiple different independent systems. It would also possibly be easier to detect any issue with the systems if one does not agree with the others.
I'm not sure how electronic voting systems are designed, but I am a little wary if only one company is behind any system.
Jesus wept. Prison time for everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteGene Chiu I know they scan barcodes so the ballot goes in and out. They do know they numbers of ballots. They should be able to scan the completed ballots as well because it's the mark one space thing. Perhaps it's because two people are always counting at the same time?
ReplyDeleteAs far as voting machines; I trust Interac and tap to pay so there's no reason I shouldn't trust a voting machine. It's just the ones the US use seem to available to change with no checks/balances. Diebold by itself isn't a bad thing. They make bank machines so they can make secure devices.