
US elections remain 'dangerously vulnerable' to cyber-attacks - pmoriarty
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/13/us-election-cybersecurity-hacking-voting
======
umanwizard
Friendly reminder: electronic voting is totally unnecessary. Many highly
developed democracies (e.g. France) have totally paper voting where the
ballots never leave the public eye.

If the past is any indication, there will almost certainly be a lot of
comments on this article proposing complicated schemes for making electronic
voting secure and verifiable. Consider when evaluating these schemes whether
there is any benefit or upside at all over good old fashioned unhackable
paper.

~~~
liberte82
The best benefit I've heard about paper voting is the mechanism by which trust
in the count is ensured.

With paper voting, all votes are counted by several people, with oversight and
random recounts. It is _possible_ to cheat, but it would require a local
conspiracy for a limited number of votes.

With electronic voting, the counting is done by machines and the mechanism is
obfuscated and unverifiable. If it's working correctly, it should be perfect;
but if the machines were hacked, it could be done through a network and the
impacts could be massive. It would require a large conspiracy to pull off, but
the number of votes that could be affected could change an election.

So in summary: paper voting = higher chance of small irregularities, with
limited impact; electronic voting = lower chance of massive irregularities
with election changing consequences. In paper voting, the trust is
distributed, while in electronic voting, it is centralized.

~~~
florabuzzword
Overall, well put, and those points are tough to discount.

 _> With electronic voting, the counting is done by machines and the mechanism
is obfuscated and unverifiable._

Could a blockchain not address that with public/private keys? Why is this
ridiculous?

~~~
beat
Okay, let's start with the idea that it isn't ridiculous. For the sake of
argument, let's say a blockchain-based voting system could be as verifiable as
paper.

So what problem does it solve? What does the blockchain accomplish that a
paper ballot does not? And what are the costs in terms of user interface and
voter education, relative to paper?

~~~
dqpb
It makes voting faster and less expensive (practically free). That means you
could have the public voting at arbitrary frequency. You could imagine a
system where the public is voting every month, week, or day on what the
country should do next.

I'm not saying this would be good necessarily, only that such a technology
would enable fast, frequent, continuous control distributed across the
population. Such a country would be very different from anything that exists
today.

~~~
sleepingpills
This is assuming that the system would be inherently trustworthy and trustable
with no human oversight. I have a nagging suspicion that over time this system
would still settle in a state where we have just as many humans involved in
ensuring everything is kosher as we have now, but compounded with a system
that is less transparent for someone who is blockchain illiterate.

Assuming that voting would become effectively free, the second point does
sound quite intriguing. It's the sort of direct democracy that is practiced by
some countries (e.g. Switzerland). It does require a certain level of voter
education though - so people look at the longer term. Otherwise you'll never
push through an initiative that raises taxes for example.

------
davidw
Worth repeating: Senator Ron Wyden has a bill that would require paper
ballots. Worth calling your lawmakers to support.

 _Edit_ : press release with link to the full text of the bill -
[https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-
gilli...](https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-gillibrand-
markey-merkley-murray-and-warren-introduce-bill-to-secure-elections-)

~~~
beat
I would love to see Democrats pick up a blanket ban on paperless electronic
voting as an issue. The GOP won't, for, um, reasons. This is a marvelous
partisan opportunity, if the Democrats are wise enough to pick it up.

~~~
komali2
Republicans won't for the very simple reason that it's supported by democrats.
The Republican party made it abundantly clear for the last decade that their
primary platform is "don't let the left have any wins."

~~~
jumelles
Party over country.

------
MichaelApproved
It's insane that we have systems using 100% electric vote counting.

Any system, even 100% paper ballots, are hackable. They key is making the hack
difficult to scale.

Computer systems are easy to hack from a distance and in large numbers.
Theoretically, one person could hack many devices from another country.

Paper ballots require someone to change/stuff in person. One person can do
limited damage and would have to be in the country. You'd need to recruit
large numbers for an effective operation.

Electric assistance is fine but ultimately you need a paper result that a
human can read.

A computer can help you make selections and fill out the ballot but the voter
must be able to read the printed result and confirm their vote was properly
printed.

I'd be against any computer counting for the initial count. Manual is slower
and expensive but it's worth the added cost to have a more secure voting
system.

~~~
antris
_> A computer can help you make selections and fill out the ballot but the
voter must be able to read the printed result and confirm their vote was
properly printed._

And that would essentially make the voting machine a very expensive pen.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Which is perfectly fine. Remember the hanging chad issue from 2000
presidential election? This expensive pen would eliminate that issue. Also,
with clearly filled out ballots, manual counting would be more reliable.

------
ciconia
I think there's a good chance the 2016 US elections were in fact manipulated,
and the upcoming mid-terms are not gonna be any different.

"[The hackers] wouldn’t need too heavy a hand... just a couple of tweaks here
and there." [1]

Sadly, it's in the interest of the ruling party to look the other way.

[1] [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-russia-could-
steal-...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-russia-could-steal-the-
midterms/)

~~~
InternetPerson
A hostile nation targeted our elections in 2016. We know that much.

In February, the NY Times writes, "The Justice Department charged 13 Russians
and three companies on Friday in a sprawling indictment that unveiled a
sophisticated network designed to subvert the 2016 election" [1]

OK, so Russia had this expensive, sophisticated operation to influence the
election. It wasn't a half-assed effort.

So why wouldn't this operation include attacking voting machines? Especially
if the machines are vulnerable and virtually unprotected?

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-
indi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indicted-
mueller-election-interference.html)

~~~
mistermann
> A hostile nation targeted our elections in 2016. We know that much.

I hope there can be some sort of a partial agreement that Noam Chomsky isn't a
partisan hack, let's see what he has to say on the matter:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vVXlLgifxQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vVXlLgifxQ)

I encourage everyone to watch the whole video, as there is some interesting
(in that is it rather contradictory to the current mainstream narrative)
footage of various Democrat opinions on Russia, and the degree to which they
should be considered a threat to America. I feel fairly confident this footage
predates "Deep Fakes" technology, if anyone suspects it isn't legit please let
me know.

~~~
Bendingo
I appreciate your attempt to have a rational, polite discussion about this
issue.

Unfortunately, your desire to apply some critical thinking, places you in a
minority.

This is confirmed every time I see a post such as yours, and the inevitable
downvoting.

~~~
mistermann
It took time (in hours, and years) to get to this point, it will take time to
get back. The human psyche has never been subject to this level of propaganda
before, in volume and sophistication, you can hardly blame people.

I'm patient, and stubborn.

------
MichaelApproved
This numberphile video does a good job explaining why electric voting is a
terrible idea. [https://youtu.be/w3_0x6oaDmI](https://youtu.be/w3_0x6oaDmI)

------
empath75
I think we’re going to find out that election machines have been regularly
hacked since they were first released and that they were in fact designed to
be insecure. It’s been well known that they were broken and unauditable going
back to the Black Box Voting days of 2004 when everyone thought Bev Harris was
some kind of paranoid nut job.

~~~
liberte82
Former CEO of Diebold, in 2003 when the first electronic voting machines were
used (back when it was controversial, and people hadn't given in to this idea
that it is inevitable and inherently "better" than paper voting):

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

------
gonmf
Just to add my 2 cents. I participated in elections before, both as a
candidate and as member of the voting table (at instances at the same time as
well). If there is some complicit agreement you can see certain leaning votes
being discarded as not being clear enough, mostly because they are too left
for the table or the inverse. This is widespread and a mostly unknown
phenomena, since no one is going to recount a table for a small percentage of
discrepancy.

I don't know anything about electronic voting but if it can guarantee there is
no personal opinion in the middle, good.

------
maxxxxx
Considering how militant US politics is I wouldn't be too surprised if the
people in power are actually OK with cyber-attacks as long as they go their
way.

Coming from Germany I don't even comprehend how the US is not able to run
elections in a way that can be trusted. The 2000 Supreme Court decision should
have been a big warning. I really believe there are a lot of people who don't
want to fix the system because it would take away the opportunity to create
more theater and conspiracy theories along party lines

~~~
elif
After the 2000 (record speed) SC ruling, many people were vocal and
protesting.

Then that died out around September...

~~~
maxxxxx
When Trump came out claiming that millions of illegal voters had voted there
should have been a huge alarm and everybody should have worked on making sure
there are no doubts. Instead it seems the partisans are perfectly fine with a
lot of citizens not trusting the election system.

This is a really dangerous game. Once people don't trust elections or the
judiciary democracy is in grave danger.

~~~
liberte82
Why do you think Trump is continuously attacking the integrity of the very
institutions that are meant to keep democracy intact? (the legislative bodies,
the judiciary, and the fourth estate).

------
marviel
Can anyone on HN provide me a good article or explanation as to why digital
voting machines could be considered better for democracy?

My intuitive reckoning is that making the "verifiability check" for a given
vote something that non-technical people could carry out would increase the
number of eyes on both sides which could point out inconsistencies.

EDIT: added/removed words for clarity

~~~
giarc
I don't have any articles, but I think I could come up with one reason why
electronic voting may be preferred.

The last time I voted was a municipal election in my city. I was given 3
separate ballots (mayor, my city councillor and my school board trustee). My
understanding is that many elections in the states also have multiple
propositions and other things the citizens are asked to vote on. So the paper
system could become cumbersome and confusing with many issues on the ballot.
Therefore, an electronic system where you are presented a single item at a
time could be easier.

I'd still argue that paper ballots are better for security issues, but the
above could be one argument against paper ballots.

------
Mbioguy
Doesn't going paper-only make it difficult to switch to alternative voting
systems like RCV (as Maine is) or multiple-member districting at anything
beyond a local level? FPTP is fairly simple to count by hand and other methods
can be more labor-intensive as the total number of votes increases.

I am all for having a paper trail, mandatory audits, and secure
infrastructure. I agree with those who thing the current private sector
systems for voting have huge issues. What I don't understand is what I see as
media pushing a false choice between paper or digital.

Estonia has been using e-voting alongside paper ballots for years without
serious issues. (Of course, they have national ID and have digitized a lot of
their gov't functions, so maybe this is a special case.)

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/18/estonia-the-
di...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/18/estonia-the-digital-
republic)

There are a lot of ways to improve our elections, from social engineering
(France's media blackout a few days before elections, moving voting day to the
weekend, making it multiple days, or just using the mail system) to improved
systems like Scantegrity or increased use of optical scanning.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scantegrity)

The cynic in me fears this is a push designed to make it harder for us to use
things like RCV and entrench FPTP.

~~~
ghostly_s
How are paper ballots at all an obstacle here? RCV is just a different format
for the ballot. You can still input the votes and calculate the runoffs
digitally to save time, you just have the benefit of verifiable paper records
for the raw data.

~~~
Mbioguy
Paper ballots are not the obstacle. (I like paper ballots with optical
scanning, as in my main post.) The obstacle is that there are some who want
there to be no machine involvement in tabulation of results.

Media is hyping the fear of 'election hacking' to the point where people I
know personally want everything to be done manually, no machine or computer
involvement at all.

~~~
nonbel
>"Media is hyping the fear of 'election hacking' to the point where people I
know personally want everything to be done manually, no machine or computer
involvement at all."

Whats wrong with this?

~~~
bluGill
It takes time - we wouldn't know who was elected president until several days
after the election was over.

I tried to write that in a neutral tone. However you might find it as amusing
as me to read it (with required word changes) in different dialects. I think
the stereotypical "valley girl" best captures how I feel about it.

~~~
nonbel
That doesn't seem like much of an issue to me when the alternative is nobody
trusts the results.

~~~
bluGill
To you. But it is a big deal some someone else. Your task is to figure out
who, and why. (why tends to be obvious once you realize who)

~~~
nonbel
Why are you speaking in riddles?

~~~
bluGill
there is more than one correct answer.

I come up with the news media who need to excitement of the vote to not wane.

------
beat
Electronic voting without paper trail should be illegal. Flat out.

But it won't ever be so, which is curious.

------
40acres
Congress recently failed to pass a bill which would add election security
funding, so we know where they stand.

~~~
0xfeba
But VoterID!

------
olivermarks
"It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the
votes."

------
brbrodude
Karma

------
kryogen1c
>Donald Trump publicly invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email server

I find statements like this to be immediately discrediting of journalistic
integrity. The intent was not to enter into an illicit agreement with a third
party. Reacting in this ridiculous fashion only aids in his popularity. I
think Democrat (obviously false) hyperbole is in danger of giving us a second
term

~~~
pjc50
>"“I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to
find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you will probably
be rewarded mightily by our press.”

The president was encouraging a foreign adversary to illegally hack into
messages by a former secretary of state that might contain sensitive
information, then release them publicly."

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/russia-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/russia-
hacking-trump-mueller/565157/)

Did he or did he not say that?

~~~
cgriswald
It is a fact that he said those words.

It is not a fact that "[He] was encouraging a foreign adversary to illegal
hack into messages by a former Secretary of State...." That is an
interpretation of the fact. Likely he is aware that Russia and other
adversaries have already attempted such hacks.

One can disagree with him making such a statement without offering
interpretations that are more complex than the obvious: a jab at Clinton. And
one can offer more complex interpretations without resorting to obvious
hyperbole.

The media "on both sides" is filled with hyperbole and rhetoric, and I am
saddened that it is controversial to point this out, just because the
underlying event is controversial.

The GP's point seems to be that we should attack things on merits rather than
resorting to hyperbole and mischaracterization. In any other context, I think
most of HN would agree with this idea, but whenever politics are mentioned, HN
posters and voters seem to become a microcosm of American politics at large:
anything is justified because the other side is wrong.

~~~
liberte82
Give me one example of a criticism of Trump that his supporters feel is "valid
on its merits"?

The beginning and end of support for Trump is that we he says, goes, period,
and anything that criticizes him is being unscrupulous in some way. There is
no way to legitimately criticize Trump in the eyes of his supporters. It is a
cult.

~~~
belorn
I am sorry but this kind of cult behavior is a major part of political
polarization and occurs on both side. After the DNC leak and people started to
accuse Clinton of not playing fair a lot of Clinton support rejected that
criticism and accused those that did of being unscrupulous in their
conviction. It would not be called polarization and extreme-right and extreme-
left if those voters accepted criticism based on its merits.

What is left is the wast majority in the middle and both left and right depend
on their support to win elections. Those voters are usually receptive when
politicians are criticized and may swing. The 2016 election had both side
accusing the other of committing crimes worthy of jail time, which is when
criticism in politics took a very dark turn. When you ask the public to
conduct criminal trials through public debate and voting it should come as no
surprise that criticism based on merits will fall on deaf ears at both camps,
and anyone suggesting any validity in the criticism are labeled a traitor to
the cause.

