News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:16M Americans will vote on hackable paperless machines by mikeash on Wednesday August 21, 2019 @02:36PM (#20760114)
It solves a problem that doesn’t exist in practice and is impossible to exploit at scale even in theory. It would be good, but it’s not terribly important.
Re:16M Americans will vote on hackable paperless machines by blackflame7001 on Wednesday August 21, 2019 @04:19PM (#20761241)
"that doesn’t exist in practice"

It's ridiculous to assert that it doesn't exist in practice due to lack of evidence when in reality pretending to be someone else to vote leaves virtually no evidence. You can't even begin to analyze the problem so its laughable for you to assert such things.

Re:16M Americans will vote on hackable paperless machines by dragonwriter on Wednesday August 21, 2019 @05:38PM (#20762114)
> It's ridiculous to assert that it doesn't exist in practice due to lack of evidence when in reality pretending to be someone else to vote leaves virtually no evidence.

If it's happening at any significant rate, without perfect knowledge of which eligible voters won't vote (or have someone else try to steal their vote, which is just as bad for the prospective vote thief), it leaves quite tangible evidence in the form of people presenting themselves to vote under names that have already voted.

The absence of this occurring fairly strongly indicates that vote stealing by impersonation isn't a thing that happens at any meaningful rate.

Re:16M Americans will vote on hackable paperless machines by blackflame7000 on Wednesday August 21, 2019 @05:45PM (#20762170)
Or people are smart and only pick names of people who haven't voted in quite some time. 2 out of 3 people don't vote. If you have ever volunteered at a precinct you would know that it's literally just an excel sheet of names and you're supposed to check someone off. It's very easy to check the wrong line and your failsafe is easily explained away as a mistake instead of raising any sort of alarm. There is no one investigating that people actually voted.
Re:16M Americans will vote on hackable paperless machines by dragonwriter on Wednesday August 21, 2019 @06:52PM (#20762786)
> Or people are smart and only pick names of people who haven't voted in quite some time.

If there was more than what vote theft operation in the same area, you'd still expect them to have collisions.

> 2 out of 3 people don't vote.

Wrong. A majority of the voting-eligible population votes in Presidential elections.

> If you have ever volunteered at a precinct you would know that it's literally just an excel sheet of names

A printed paper sheet, sure. Whether Excel is used in making it or not is immaterial (I assume it's generated straight from the voter database, which I hope isn't Excel.)

> and you're supposed to check someone off.

California state law requires the actual voter to sign in on the list; I would think that this is normal.

> It's very easy to check the wrong line

If it was a just a check off, maybe it would be easy.

> It's very easy to check the wrong line and your failsafe is easily explained away as a mistake instead of raising any sort of alarm.

Even if it was just a check box, you'd also need to have extremely lax procedures that all the poll workers and any observers were all in on for this basic integrity check to be routinely ignored.

Given the political factions interested in selling the idea of rampant voter fraud, you'd expect them to raise a ruckus if there were actual instances of this going on routinely.

You'd also have to either randomly mark off some non-voter (potentially creating a new instance of the problem) each time this happened or turn in a tally sheet where the count of marked voters didn't match the ballot count. The former would magnify the visibility of the casual disregard of integrity, the latter would definitely raise an alarm in counts.

Re:16M Americans will vote on hackable paperless machines by codedokode on Wednesday August 21, 2019 @07:34PM (#20763083)
If there is an observer in the polling station, how are you going to throw ballots in a box without them noticing? You need to find people who would pretend that they are voters. It only works when nobody is watching (when nobody cares).

Also, here in Russia, voters put a signature in the voters registry when receiving a ballot.

Re:16M Americans will vote on hackable paperless machines by mffnbs on Wednesday August 21, 2019 @05:34PM (#20762085)
I love this argument because it exposes that voter legitimacy is not based on any sort of logic or evidence, but based on feeling more secure about it.

It's especially ironic.

Re:16M Americans will vote on hackable paperless machines by mikeash on Wednesday August 21, 2019 @04:24PM (#20761295)
It leaves a record that the somebody else cast a vote. This would be noticed rapidly if the real person then showed up to vote and was prevented because an impersonator got there first. If that doesn’t happen, you can ask them if they voted. For people you can’t ask and know that they couldn’t have voted (for example, the record is stale and they’ve moved or died) then you know that any record of them voting must be an impersonator.

How often do any of these things actually happen? It’s all public record. The data is there for analysis. And yet nobody can point to more than a handful of examples.