

Clinton E. Curtis, programmer, testifies to Congress about fradulent voting machine source code - rms
http://www.videosift.com/video/From-The-Programmers-Mouth-How-The-2000-Election-Was-Fixed

======
brianr
In high school I wrote a simple web-based voting app for school elections (an
election I was running in, no less)... had I wanted to rig the election, it
would have been trivial to do so and cover my tracks. As downer articulated,
there's absolutely no reason to believe that electronic voting results aren't
being manipulated.

Seems like voting might be one of the few areas where more technology is _not_
a good thing.

~~~
angryprofessor
I agree with you, to a point. But lets not ignore the drawbacks of paper
voting: a bunch of old ladies counting paper ballots can have error rates
approaching 1%.

Better electronic systems are possible.

In NJ, we have an electronic machine which is just a bunch of buttons and
lights: push a button, a light in row 1 goes on, push the commit button, and
"Row a, column b" is recorded. A translucent paper ballot indicating the
meaning of "Row a, columnb b" is placed on top of the lights/buttons, so the
machine doesn't know which row/column corresponds to which candidate.

Using a machine like this, and physically randomizing the rows/columns machine
by machine on election day (which isn't done in NJ), software fraud would be
difficult.

Of course, none of this will stop fraudulent voting (which is very easy),
zombie voting and other old fashioned trickery (google the washington
governor's election, seattle district in particular).

I voted under a phony name in 2006, due to bad handwriting. After I discovered
this, I called up my old roommate, who voted under my name (rather than his)
in my old town. Vote totals were unnaffected, but only because we were honest.

~~~
brlewis
Random 1% error is easily dealt with. When the election is close they do a
supervised recount.

~~~
angryprofessor
There are certainly no problems with supervised recounts. Look how well they
go:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_electi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_200...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000)

I'm not saying electronic is definately the way to go. I'm just saying that
paper ballots also have big problems, and that one can protect reasonably well
against _pure software_ hacks.

~~~
brlewis
You've pointed out exactly why supervised recounts with paper ballots are so
much better. You can look how well they go.

------
rms
There is not a single comment suggesting that electronic voting machines are
acceptable. I take this as a sign that the hacker community is unanimous in
condemnation of our disenfranchisement.

Is there anything we can do about it? Or does it take millions of dollars to
have any impact in America anymore?

------
astrec
The mere fact that the source for these machines is not available for public
scrutiny is a pretty clear indication that voting machines threaten the
democratic process.

I wonder if anyone has tried to use FOI laws to gain access to the code, and
if so, how much of it was redacted?

~~~
rontr
Having the source code wouldn't be much of an assurance. How do you know that
this code is really the code that is deployed on the machine during the
elections? How do you know that the memory cards that store the votes are not
tampered with? How do you know that the machine's hardware works "as
advertized"?

Without a paper trail, we should assume every voting mechanism is rigged. The
stakes are just too high to do otherwise.

~~~
astrec
My understanding was that what has been tested (and ruled on) in court is
whether the code comprises a trade secret, and whether as a trade secret the
code should be disclosed.

I still don't get what's wrong with the mkI pencil and ballot paper!

------
jwp
I remember seeing this video in a very sobering HBO documentary:
<http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/>

------
hhm
Direct YouTube link: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-
YXvxYbck&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-
YXvxYbck&feature=related)

------
falsestprophet
Thats quite the pick up line:

Hello. My name is Clinton E. Curtis, programmer.

------
nextmoveone
odd how not many people here care to comment.

~~~
rms
There's not much to say. It's sobering to think that it is somewhat likely
that the voting machines were rigged and that there is absolutely no way of
confirming it.

~~~
downer
"Somewhat" likely?

Here's how normal paper ballots work: After the polls officially close, they
count them up, in full view of whatever members of the public care to observe.
In hotly-contested areas, this will usually include members of both/all the
major political parties. This mutual distrust keeps everyone honest. Fraud is
obviously not impossible, but is more difficult to get away with.

Here's how electronic voting works: A private, for-profit corporation TELLS
you what the numbers are, with no paper trail and using unauditable practices
protected by "trade secret" (court ruling).

What else do you need to know? People will scam other people for a buck, let
alone control of the entire country. The burden of proof should be on the
voting process to show that it's correct, not on those who challenge it;
because the very lack of auditability is a virtual guarantor of fraud. It is
not an _accident_ when ATM companies produce voting machines with no receipts.

In the 2004 election, exit polls tracked closely with the official counts in
the paper ballot areas, but were way off the "official" totals in the
electronic voting areas. E.g. <http://www.nogw.com/images/exit_poll.jpg>

Hackers make ZERO difference. Hack all the votes you want going in; the voting
machine company is a black box, and it will produce whatever totals it wants
as output.

It's ESPECIALLY not going to announce if it were breached and is now
completely untrustworthy; it's going to produce numbers that look plausible to
save its _own_ ass, leaving aside any _nefarious_ reasons. Even if all their
voting data was corrupted, they could just get the exit poll or pre-election
survey numbers and tweak by a few percent in the desired direction in a few
key areas and voila.

How many people need to be in on this? One guy with root access.

~~~
rms
Alright, I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2000 and 2004
elections were rigged, but I didn't want to sound like a crackpot. It's too
bad there is no political process left in America.

~~~
downer
But who says it's a crackpot theory? Mainstream media, owned by...

I think more generally this is exposing the problem with majority rule, whose
time should come to an end anyway. What if there IS a legitimate >50%
Idiocracy? Just look at the birth rate among different political groups and
you can see which way we're heading.

I didn't consent to be ruled by _anyone_ , let alone the people "in charge"
now. I didn't agree to all these rules, or all these laws, that claim to
govern every aspect of my existence.

The next step in human liberation is freedom from those who seek to control
others. Given the scarcity of natural resources, but effectively infinite
virtual resources, you can do whatever you want in your own _virtual_ reality.
It will be freedom for your mind.

------
mynameishere
The geezers who typically volunteer during elections probably don't mind
manually counting up ballots.

