Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Wisconsin: None dare call it vote rigging [View all]Huey P. Long
(1,932 posts)97. Princeton University Exposes Diebold Flaws
-
Uploaded by helderheidgeloof on Sep 13, 2006
Main Findings The main findings of our study are:
1. Malicious software running on a single voting machine can steal votes with little if any risk of detection. The malicious software can modify all of the records, audit logs, and counters kept by the voting machine, so that even careful forensic examination of these records will find nothing amiss. We have constructed demonstration software that carries out this vote-stealing attack.
2. Anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted into a machine, can install said malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one minute. In practice, poll workers and others often have unsupervised access to the machines.
3. AccuVote-TS machines are susceptible to voting-machine viruse! - computer viruses that can spread malicious software automatically and invisibly from machine to machine during normal pre- ! and post-election activity. We have constructed a demonstration virus that spreads in this way, installing our demonstration vote-stealing program on every machine it infects.
4. While some of these problems can be eliminated by improving Diebold's software, others cannot be remedied without replacing the machines' hardware. Changes to election procedures would also be required to ensure security.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
184 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Who's behind these private companies? It's hard to tell: The corporate lines –
Huey P. Long
Jun 2012
#44
Here in LA County, early votes are counted as absentee votes. All absentees are handled by ES&S.
robinlynne
Jun 2012
#95
Its not just the corporate media. Our 'representatives' are stone silent as well.
Huey P. Long
Jun 2012
#8
No evidence of electronic voting machime fraud during an election has ever...
GarroHorus
Jun 2012
#32
Exit polls are evidence. They are used to detect tampering in every other real democracy.
Exultant Democracy
Jun 2012
#127
They only detect tampering when the exit polls are horribly divergent from the results
GarroHorus
Jun 2012
#130
I don't have the time to teach you a poli sci statistics class, but your question is silly.
Exultant Democracy
Jun 2012
#182
No you question was entirely about the validity of statistical analysis as a check against fraud
Exultant Democracy
Jun 2012
#184
Ohio SOS Jennifer Brunner called Ohio's electronic machines 'easily hackable'.
peace13
Jun 2012
#139
Actually, the poster is doing the equivilent of the hear, see, speak no evil routine.
Huey P. Long
Jun 2012
#107
I recently read a third graders' essay that read much like your own statement.
LanternWaste
Jun 2012
#141
The tactic is tried and true. Make fun and name call to get people to dismiss.
Huey P. Long
Jun 2012
#75
The Democratic Party has a lot of resources. When will they recognize that
rhett o rick
Jun 2012
#12
One only need to watch/listen to which party/politician the Corporate media is fawning over.
shcrane71
Jun 2012
#23
Our framer's of our Constitution would have the majority of these election thieves in
INdemo
Jun 2012
#80
Your answer is a bit vague, but assuming that there is always some kind of paper audit trail, how...
slackmaster
Jun 2012
#135
You didn't read the article then.... Exit polling is rather precise.. When we send people
glowing
Jun 2012
#38
"There's no place like home"! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Huey P. Long
Jun 2012
#50
Sworn testimony that something could happen is not evidence that it has happened.
GarroHorus
Jun 2012
#65
The same way we verify the votes were accurately counted with the old paper ballot.
GarroHorus
Jun 2012
#105
I'm talking about votes flipping on the machines. Give one instance of when the machines were
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#118
Never ever, with proprietary machines, with proprietary software, owned and maintained by private
RC
Jun 2012
#131
When you are paid to 'not believe' something and your check depends on it
Huey P. Long
Jun 2012
#136
Instant RunOff Paper Ballots, Marked by Hand, Encrypted Receipts, & Ballots Counted In Public on
patrice
Jun 2012
#49
Spending tons of money to alter the results of an election is vote-rigging. nt
Comrade_McKenzie
Jun 2012
#115
Yes, it's unfortunate that A) unlimited amounts can be spent on an election by anyone, and B)
slackmaster
Jun 2012
#120
I'd never seen an electronic vote machine here in California until 2008 and it was unused where I we
ryan_cats
Jun 2012
#121
I'm sure they'll get around to calling it fraud as soon as they label the 2004 Ohio exit poll
TrollBuster9090
Jun 2012
#152
We could do a massive show-up on our own and count them ourselves. What do you suggest we do?
lonestarnot
Jun 2012
#164