What if...the Russians hack voting machines for Trump?

[sdifox]

I've thought that recently, what if China puts something in smart phone, tablets, PCs and laptops. I really feel its similar to boat building the Government should subsidize a US business to make some of this stuff. I know its long term and complicated but its not impossible.

I don't think subsidy is necessary. Put out a rfp and let the bidders come forth.

 

[hal2kilo]

I've thought that recently, what if China puts something in smart phone, tablets, PCs and laptops. I really feel its similar to boat building the Government should subsidize a US business to make some of this stuff. I know its long term and complicated but its not impossible.

Now all equipment planned for new systems have to be thoroughly tested (and how they are testing is classified) for embedded malware due to us not requiring military equipment contain only US manufactured hardware. Of course it would be impossible to do due to globalization of everything. I liked the good old days with US made 16 bit, 24 bit, and 34 bit custom made computers. That was the reason for the existence of the company I work for which is to collect all this different data and format it into standard data formats for analysis. This part of our business will go away in a few short years.

 

[dullard]

Excellent questions! I'll try to answer each the best I can.

Thanks for your detailed response. I'm left with one question though. How do you know that the machine you got and the software that runs on it originally wasn't compromised? Locking a bad computer up doesn't fix it. Not that I have any proof that the manufacturer was purposely doing anything wrong, but they have every incentive and capability to do so.

We are in completely different fields (I'm an engineer designing medical equipment). But, I wouldn't be able to get any test plan through my supervisors without at least 13 tests (minimum number from many different standards). My wife works in the pharmaceutical business and her company won't do any fewer than 30 tests on any piece of equipment. Three voting counter tests (including before and after) is necessary. But it sounds a bit skimpy. That is, unless each of those tests were repeated many times oin those three days.

 

[Perknose]

Thanks for your detailed response. I'm left with one question though. How do you know that the machine you got and the software that runs on it originally wasn't compromised? Locking a bad computer up doesn't fix it. Not that I have any proof that the manufacturer was purposely doing anything wrong, but they have every incentive and capability to do so.

We are in completely different fields (I'm an engineer designing medical equipment). But, I wouldn't be able to get any test plan through my supervisors without at least 13 tests (minimum number from many different standards). My wife works in the pharmaceutical business and her company won't do any fewer than 30 tests on any piece of equipment. Three voting counter tests (including before and after) is necessary. But it sounds a bit skimpy. That is, unless each of those tests were repeated many times oin those three days.

For me, the takeaway from this discussion is that there's either a present or a huge looming problem, which we, as a nation, simply must take seriously. We must address this problem starting now, in a decisive and technically comprehensive manner. To me, this means, at the very least, that the Federal government has to take the lead, just as the Federal government took the lead in getting us to the Moon, or in fighting World War II. By that I mean that the funding and the broad technical outlines have to come from the one instrument we as a nation have to combat existential crises or opportunities of this seriousness and magnitude.

Wannabe Libertarians and "starve the beast" Republicans, please put your ideology and partisanship aside in this matter. This is serious stuff.

 

[dullard]

For me, the takeaway from this discussion is that there's either a present or a huge looming problem, which we, as a nation, simply must take seriously.

I agree with your post. I personally think it is a looming problem, not an actual problem today.

Voting machines are easily hacked* (I love the part where the encryption code is not encrypted), but you have to hack so many of them to really make a difference. But the fact that the most powerful and one of the most respected Democracies can't even have national standards and tests for voting counting is just sad.

* http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...w-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144

 

[glenn1]

For me, the takeaway from this discussion is that there's either a present or a huge looming problem, which we, as a nation, simply must take seriously. We must address this problem starting now, in a decisive and technically comprehensive manner. To me, this means, at the very least, that the Federal government has to take the lead, just as the Federal government took the lead in getting us to the Moon, or in fighting World War II. By that I mean that the funding and the broad technical outlines have to come from the one instrument we as a nation have to combat existential crises or opportunities of this seriousness and magnitude.

Wannabe Libertarians and "starve the beast" Republicans, please put your ideology and partisanship aside in this matter. This is serious stuff.

LOL, your side was the one with no interest in a comprehensive suite of voting and election reform when Voter ID was included because you thought it was an imaginary problem. Now you want a Manhattan project level effort to stop a hypothesized Russian hack that you fear will keep Hillary from being elected President. And now you're the one with the balls and lack of self-awareness to say it's the other side that has the problem?

 

[Perknose]

LOL, your side was the one with no interest in a comprehensive suite of voting and election reform when Voter ID was included because you thought it was an imaginary problem. Now you want a Manhattan project level effort to stop a hypothesized Russian hack that you fear will keep Hillary from being elected President. And now you're the one with the balls and lack of self-awareness to say it's the other side that has the problem?

Voter ID laws are an answer to a problem that the FACTS show doesn't exist, i.e., in-person voter fraud. They are nothing more than Republican attempts at voter suppression, AND AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (NON) ISSUE from voting machine vulnerabilities.

Either you are TOO STUPID to see the difference or you are posting in conscious bad faith. Either way, I am beginning to have real contempt for the bullshit way you post.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

LOL, your side was the one with no interest in a comprehensive suite of voting and election reform when Voter ID was included because you thought it was an imaginary problem. Now you want a Manhattan project level effort to stop a hypothesized Russian hack that you fear will keep Hillary from being elected President. And now you're the one with the balls and lack of self-awareness to say it's the other side that has the problem?

NM Perk ^

 

[dullard]

LOL, your side was the one with no interest in a comprehensive suite of voting and election reform when Voter ID was included because you thought it was an imaginary problem. Now you want a Manhattan project level effort to stop a hypothesized Russian hack that you fear will keep Hillary from being elected President. And now you're the one with the balls and lack of self-awareness to say it's the other side that has the problem?

Glenn1, if you don't know what the other side's argument is, how can you possibly convince anyone in an argument that you are right or that they are wrong?

Democrats have said over and over again that they care about the potential for real voter fraud. You may be able to create an army of fake IDs, fake voters, and happen to show up at exactly the right polling location before the real voter votes, and maybe swing a vote by a few dozen votes. Not enough to matter in just about any election. Or, with a few minutes of work, I could hack a voting machine and change the tally by thousands.

Which is more likely and which is more likely to be caught? Think about it honestly.

 

[zinfamous]

I'll create a GUI interface using Visual Basic. See if I can track an IP address.

Sounds legit.

 

[glenn1]

Glenn1, if you don't know what the other side's argument is, how can you possibly convince anyone in an argument that you are right or that they are wrong?

Democrats have said over and over again that they care about the potential for real voter fraud. You may be able to create an army of fake IDs, fake voters, and happen to show up at exactly the right polling location before the real voter votes, and maybe swing a vote by a few dozen votes. Not enough to matter in just about any election. Or, with a few minutes of work, I could hack a voting machine and change the tally by thousands.

Which is more likely and which is more likely to be caught? Think about it honestly.

If you don't fix both and all other vectors for fraud you're not being serious and should be treated thus.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I found a pic of the OP

As the election stands now, things look pretty rosy for Hillary. But what if the Russians want to change that?

The good news is not all states have hackable voting machines. Even fewer have voting machines that can be hacked undetectably. So let's assume the Russians don't want to make their hacking easily detectable.

There are five states where, if the voting machines can be hacked, there is no paper trail to detect the hack. Two of those, Louisiana and South Carolina, were going Republican anyway. Two more, New Jersey and Delaware, are so Democratic it would look weird if they went Republican. That leaves Georgia, which was leaning Republican anyway, but now in this scenario we can take it off the table for sure.

There are ten more states that have at least some voting machines without a paper trail. Most of these were going Republican anyway: Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. That leaves three hackable states, but they're important ones: Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.

Let's assume the Russians somehow turn all three of those states for Trump. Marking Arizona and Utah for Trump produces a map like this:

According to 270towin.com, that means Hillary would have to win both Ohio and North Carolina to win. Possible, but not easy.

What's the point of all this? If I see a map like this on election night, with Virginia or Pennsylvania in particular going to Trump, I'll suspect Russian hacking.

 

[Mandres]

Thanks for your detailed response.

Thanks, I hope I'm not coming off as defensive or arrogant. I tried to answer precisely and I know that sometimes comes across harshly. I'm really interested in this topic both in my role as a County official and in the larger national picture and it's fun to think through different scenarios where the process could actually be corrupted.

I'm left with one question though. How do you know that the machine you got and the software that runs on it originally wasn't compromised? Locking a bad computer up doesn't fix it. Not that I have any proof that the manufacturer was purposely doing anything wrong, but they have every incentive and capability to do so.

Most Counties, in TX at least, replace their voting machines every 10 years. We've been using the same ~90 voting terminals and 2 central counting stations now for as long as I've been involved. I can't imagine a scenario where the manufacturer would build in a time-bomb to fix an election 10 years down the road. Even if they wanted to - different Counties replace their systems at different times. So even if version X.1 of the system had some secret coding to fix a race, not everyone uses version X.1. Not to mention there are 3-4 different manufacturers of this type of equipment just in my State. I couldn't even guess how many different makes/models of electronic voting systems are in place nationwide. The idea that they could all be compromised at the manufacturer-level in a coordinated way to produce a desired outcome for one election seems very unrealistic. Again, these things are offline sitting in a vault. They don't phone home for updates between elections, and other than maintenance/repairs the manufacturer doesn't touch them much once they're sold and delivered.

We are in completely different fields (I'm an engineer designing medical equipment). But, I wouldn't be able to get any test plan through my supervisors without at least 13 tests (minimum number from many different standards). My wife works in the pharmaceutical business and her company won't do any fewer than 30 tests on any piece of equipment. Three voting counter tests (including before and after) is necessary. But it sounds a bit skimpy. That is, unless each of those tests were repeated many times oin those three days.

To clarify: the 3-tests procedure is carried out by every County elections official across the state for each election (local, primary, run-off, etc.). It's done mostly to make sure that the coding for that election is correct - that every touch screen is correctly calibrated and able to register a vote for every candidate on the ballet, that every race has an entry in the results database, that all the names are spelled correctly,. etc. It's not meant to be an exhaustive audit of the systems design. That happens on the front side at the state level. I can't speak to what kind of testing the system manufacturers undergo during development of these systems but I can only imagine it's intense to make sure they pass certification. The State of TX certification process for election equipment is exhaustive. It takes years to get a new system certified and there are basically no updates/patches/firmware unless they also pass.

 

[dullard]

If you don't fix both and all other vectors for fraud you're not being serious and should be treated thus.

But vote fraud by suppressing votes is okay?

 

[glenn1]

But vote fraud by suppressing votes is okay?

Strangely even the lawyers who argued against the Indiana style Voter ID law couldn't come up with a reason why it would do that. Indeed the trial lawyer fact finding stated the petitioners had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.”

 

[WHAMPOM]

As the election stands now, things look pretty rosy for Hillary. But what if the Russians want to change that?

The good news is not all states have hackable voting machines. Even fewer have voting machines that can be hacked undetectably. So let's assume the Russians don't want to make their hacking easily detectable.

There are five states where, if the voting machines can be hacked, there is no paper trail to detect the hack. Two of those, Louisiana and South Carolina, were going Republican anyway. Two more, New Jersey and Delaware, are so Democratic it would look weird if they went Republican. That leaves Georgia, which was leaning Republican anyway, but now in this scenario we can take it off the table for sure.

There are ten more states that have at least some voting machines without a paper trail. Most of these were going Republican anyway: Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. That leaves three hackable states, but they're important ones: Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.

Let's assume the Russians somehow turn all three of those states for Trump. Marking Arizona and Utah for Trump produces a map like this:

According to 270towin.com, that means Hillary would have to win both Ohio and North Carolina to win. Possible, but not easy.

What's the point of all this? If I see a map like this on election night, with Virginia or Pennsylvania in particular going to Trump, I'll suspect Russian hacking.

How would the Russians do that? Send agents to each polling place to reprogram each machine, they are not hooked up to the internet.

 

[Mandres]

For me, the takeaway from this discussion is that there's either a present or a huge looming problem

I really don't see a huge looming problem. Yes, it's easy to hack one voting terminal. It's also easy to rob one bank teller, but that doesn't mean there's an existential threat that Russians might steal all our money.

Every time one of my friends raises the question of election security the conversation goes the same way: I start explaining the process and the controls in place, his eyes glaze over, and then I say Look, it all comes down to whether or not you trust your local election officials. If you trust me to accurately count paper ballets then electronic voting is really no more and no less secure. There are no boogeymen pulling computer tricks trying to cheat you, it's your local officials following the exacting rules of the state. Come observe the process if you're concerned, which is your right in TX at least, and I'll show you how it works.

 

[Ken g6]

I found a pic of the OP

I mainly posted this map as an example of what a hacked election might look like. For instance, Trump winning Virginia and Pennsylvania, especially if he doesn't win North Carolina or Ohio, would be very suspicious. I don't really expect to see this pattern on election night.

 

[dullard]

Strangely even the lawyers who argued against the Indiana style Voter ID law couldn't come up with a reason why it would do that. Indeed the trial lawyer fact finding stated the petitioners had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.”

No one is complaining about voter ID laws that let everyone vote. It is the voter ID laws that have been restrictive and have been rejected repeatedly by the courts (all the way up to and including the supreme court) that are the problem. Just because democrats are against unconstitutional poll tax (or similar methods of putting up substantial roadblocks for people to vote) doesn't mean they are against ID laws themselves. Please learn the difference.

I and basically everyone else is all for picture IDs if they are free, readily available (without driving hundreds of miles for those without cars), obtainable on the day of voting (again without waiting hours in line when the poor already have to take off work without pay), have waivers (for those who can't get to the polls with picture IDs like military out of country who need to mail in ballots), etc.

Picture IDs won't solve anything other than make you feel good. But there is no problem with the concept of picture IDs themselves. It is the barriers of paying for these IDs or making it very difficult for large groups of people to obtain the IDs that is the problem.

Think of the flip side, imagine your state created a new voter ID law that required all voters to get an ID in an Islamic inner city no-go zone at 3 am five hours drive from where you live. Would you get that voter ID?

 

[nageov3t]

That's a problem with electronic voting machines: Some of them can't be recounted.

no, but you can look at exit polls, analyze the machines, talk to poll workers, look into the backgrounds of election officials, etc... and ultimately, the fed can release their findings and tell the electors from the state to vote their conscious.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why not like my state, they are electronic counting machines. You fill out your ballot kind of like those old tests by completing a line that forms an arrow, ballot goes into a sleeve, you then put the sleeve on top of the counting machine machine, its takes the ballot counts it and stores the paper. Pretty simple system, I've never waited long to vote.

 

[lopri]

It may be hard but taking measures to prevent voting machines from hacks is something I can get behind unlike those laws that suppress voting by actual voters.

 

[sdifox]

Why not like my state, they are electronic counting machines. You fill out your ballot kind of like those old tests by completing a line that forms an arrow, ballot goes into a sleeve, you then put the sleeve on top of the counting machine machine, its takes the ballot counts it and stores the paper. Pretty simple system, I've never waited long to vote.

I like this one. Toronto has been using it for at least twenty years now.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I like this one. Toronto has been using it for at least twenty years now.

I agree I've been using one or another version of this since I cast my first vote its been 29 years. They are fast, simple and leave a paper trail.
I'm amazed when I hear people pulling switches, using punch cards, weird butterfly ballots, touch screens. These all sound very odd to me.
I pick up a heavy stock paper, complete an arrow that points to what I want to vote for and put it into a counting machine while an election person watches.

 

[sdifox]

I agree I've been using one or another version of this since I cast my first vote its been 29 years. They are fast, simple and leave a paper trail.
I'm amazed when I hear people pulling switches, using punch cards, weird butterfly ballots, touch screens. These all sound very odd to me.
I pick up a heavy stock paper, complete an arrow that points to what I want to vote for and put it into a counting machine while an election person watches.

And with today's soc they are cheap to build to boot. Use camera and opencv to take picture and count vote. Now you have paper, digital and electronic counting.