Researchers Hack Voting Machine For $26 | Fox News

What’s wrong with electronic voting?

Hey even the crazy leftists at Salon denounced the Diebold voting machines. The lefties always tell on Republicans getting elected in suspicious circumstances but never ask why they kept counting votes in Michigan until Al Franken won and then stopped finding uncounted votes. The voting skeptics yearn for the transparency of the cameras that spied on the vote-counting in South Florida in 2000.


Diebold’s voting machines business is now owned by Dominion Voting Systems, and they are now used in about 22 states, or at least that many states have some electronic voting machines.

With all that scrutiny from the nation in Miami-Dade County’s counting of votes in 2000, the election officials put in the electronic voting machines, no doubt using federal funds from the hastily enacted legislation passed by Congress that encouraged touch-pad voting.


The evidence: There’s always a disclaimer on software that you have to check off that you won’t blame them and you’ll swallow all the losses if your system creates errors in your accounting and the IRS fines you a trillion dollars or if it blows up in your dining room and causes a fire and kills your firstborn. I could bet you real money that every election board that has these machines has signed off on such a disclaimer.

Not even software makers trust their own software, which goes through development-level testing by developers themselves, then goes through at least one QA testing level by sophisticated users, then goes through a beta or “pilot” test by a small fraction of the real-world production user base, and only then is it rolled out to the rest of the user domain, with spot checks to make sure it’s functioning correctly.

And still, the not-so-secret trade secret of the industry is that some glitches keep messing up the numbers for years before they’re caught.

The problem is, how do you re-do a vote if the machines doing the first-line tallying are suspect themselves? How do you “undo” a vote that the machine flipped upside down for the opposite party or candidate if the audit trail itself is created after the flip, or disappears into the ether?

Now it’s 22 states using electronic voting machines?! This is an outrageous abuse by by software hustlers of the public mystique about computers being the answer to all things numerical. The trade secret of the software industry, people, is that WE PROGRAMMERS DO NOT TRUST OUR OWN SOFTWARE! EVER! It’s pre-tested by the programmer, QA tested by sophisticated users in IT departments, reviewed, and then when it goes into real-world production use, it’s checked to make sure it works right.

The best of software coders that produce the best quality, are included in that mix. The ones that almost never get a glitch, it’s still after testing their own code, but nobody can tell that under all conditions it will be perfect. And that’s a rare coder.


There is an even worse issue, although not the worst issue, illustrated by the above-referenced story about the crack using simple means to reverse the votes cast on an evoting machine using remote access. In other words, it’s not just “accidental” random software glitches, but intentional hijacking of the machinery to change the vote.

Banking software is among the most security-checked in the world, but even that has been hacked numerous times that we know about because the incidents were reported, not counting the ones we don’t know about.

Remember, early on in popular Internet history, even the tech-savvy CIA had its home page defaced.


Worse yet, there is the ==>MORAL HAZARD<== issue, which is exactly the trap that Wall Street and the hedge fund managers and funds brokers and mortgage brokers fell into. We all saw how that blew to pieces. (The House the Fed built. House of straw.)

Like was exposed by Beverly Harris’ Black Box Voting activists, Then, there’s the even worse fact that You cannot protect the software from its administrators.

Stalin said, it matters not who casts the vote, it only matters who COUNTS the vote. That should be enough to demolish the idea that invisible magnetized bits in copper or silicon-based circuits are secure against tampering by even the officials entrusted with the process.


One Response to “Researchers Hack Voting Machine For $26 | Fox News”

  1. E-Voting Machines More Dangerous Than First Thought | Craig Peterson - Tech Talk Radio Show Blog Says:

    […] Researchers Hack Voting Machine For $26 | Fox News ( […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: