ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd August 2018, 10:20 AM   #161
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by oopsboom View Post
electronic voting machines should be a shell containing a monitor, touchscreen, printer, whatever else is needed - and an open slot on the bottom.
As has been pointed out before, you've just designed the world's most expensive pencil.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 10:22 AM   #162
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,862
I'm amazed anyone trusts computer to do anything at this point. Hell how I do know your posts are your own and shadowy people aren't changing them before I read them IF I CAN'T SEE THE LITERAL ONES AND ZEROS OMG ELEVENTY!!!!11!!!

I guess I just don't see "my vote" as fundamentally different then all the other things I do online to to the degree others do.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 10:25 AM   #163
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,216
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Okay, "conceptually," I just voted online; how can I verify that the recorded vote is the one I selected?
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
... The same way you know your credit card payment really goes to Visa...
So I just assume it's okay? I can verify later that the right amount left my account and the payee can verify they received it, so tampering would show up in the Visa system. How do I verify that the vote I selected was really what went into the virtual ballot box?


Quote:
You put your ballot into lockbox and some volunteer takes it away to be counted. How do you know they don't open the box, modify your vote, and put it back as soon as you walk out of the polling station?

At a certain point you just have to trust the system, not the systems method.
No single volunteer gets that level of trust. The ballot box doesn't go out of the sight of multiple witnesses. Voters can feel reassured that they understand how such a simple system works.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 10:38 AM   #164
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,216
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm amazed anyone trusts computer to do anything at this point...
People trust them more with stuff they can verify. When I buy something online, I can see that the right amount of money left my account and, if there's a problem, at the very least I'll know because the goods don't arrive.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 10:42 AM   #165
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I guess I'm just having a hard time trying to figure out what the functional difference between:

"I write/punch my votes on a piece of paper, give it to a voting volunteer, and trust the system to not tamper/alter/lose my vote"

and

"I enter my vote into an electronic device and trust the system to no tamper/alter/lose it"

is to the degree people are having with it.
Okay, then I'll explain it again.

You'll notice that when you vote now, there is never just one person in the room. There is rarely ever just two people in the room. There are multiple levels of redundant observation to instantly verify that no one opens the ballot box or enters multiple ballots into it. The same is true when the ballot box is transferred to the counting location and when it is officially opened and counted. This requires no more expertise than an understanding "only one ballot per person, no opening the box, and never leave the box alone with less than two people". In order to tamper with the vote count, you would have to compromise everyone who has custody of the ballot box at that point and trust that none of them would blow the whistle on the operation. And then, you've compromised only one ballot box.

That redundancy does not, and can never, exist in a black-box voting device. Even if you visually verify that no one has tampered with the device at the polling place, you don't know what it is doing internally due to potential tampering before it reached the polling place. Unless you had multiple levels of redundant observation on each machine all year round, you cannot assure tampering has not happened.

Is it that hard to understand?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 10:44 AM   #166
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm amazed anyone trusts computer to do anything at this point. Hell how I do know your posts are your own and shadowy people aren't changing them before I read them IF I CAN'T SEE THE LITERAL ONES AND ZEROS OMG ELEVENTY!!!!11!!!

I guess I just don't see "my vote" as fundamentally different then all the other things I do online to to the degree others do.
A vote is the single most important piece of data in a democracy. More important than your bank account and of much more consequence. There is a reason it is Constitutionally protected.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 10:47 AM   #167
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,862
I'm kinda done here because I don't see this going anywhere but "I'm just gonna sit here and keep saying computers can't be made secure" over and over.

The entire modern online world; banking, stocks, taxes, retirement funds, a billion other things would not exist if "A computer can be tampered with and it's impossible to tell after the fact unless you were watching (what does that even mean?) the moment it happened" was really the truth.

You can say "Voting is different because I say so" but... that's meaningless.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 10:57 AM   #168
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm kinda done here because I don't see this going anywhere but "I'm just gonna sit here and keep saying computers can't be made secure" over and over.
Are you suggesting that they can be made 100% secure?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The entire modern online world; banking, stocks, taxes, retirement funds, a billion other things would not exist if "A computer can be tampered with and it's impossible to tell after the fact unless you were watching (what does that even mean?) the moment it happened" was really the truth.
And those things are hacked and compromised all the time. It continues because there is an acceptable margin of loss that voting does not share.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You can say "Voting is different because I say so" but... that's meaningless.
Only if you ignore the reasons we've been giving, sure.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 11:00 AM   #169
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,917
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm amazed anyone trusts computer to do anything at this point. Hell how I do know your posts are your own and shadowy people aren't changing them before I read them IF I CAN'T SEE THE LITERAL ONES AND ZEROS OMG ELEVENTY!!!!11!!!

I guess I just don't see "my vote" as fundamentally different then all the other things I do online to to the degree others do.
Because no one gives a **** what people post here. The same isn't true of elections or anything that has a high political or economic value.
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 11:12 AM   #170
Mongrel
Begging for Scraps
 
Mongrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 20 minutes in the future
Posts: 1,852
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm kinda done here because I don't see this going anywhere but "I'm just gonna sit here and keep saying computers can't be made secure" over and over.
I notice for all the bluster you don't want to counter the specifics of "Computers can't be made secure!" which have been presented, you'd rather try and paint people as fumblethumbed technophobes who don't seem to understand the intricacies of "teh internetz!1."

Quote:
The entire modern online world; banking, stocks, taxes, retirement funds,
So, none of those companies have fraud departments? Can you imagine delaying a contentious count because there's suspicion of fraud that needs investigating - it was bad enough with hanging chads.

Quote:
a billion other things would not exist if "A computer can be tampered with and it's impossible to tell after the fact unless you were watching (what does that even mean?) the moment it happened" was really the truth.
And yet you see computer systems getting hacked\infiltrated all the time.
Part of the problem is that nearly all of the ways to circumvent the pencil & paper method have been tried and we've added safeguards over the years. The internet, and phones in particular, is still in it's infancy as a medium and we're still learning. As protocols get better at security, as websites are made more secure by design and as people get better at not pressing any random link* then yes, moving to internet voting may be a thing. Right now it's up to you to show how it can be "at least" as secure as what's there currently

*And I used to do Tech support for the general public in the early noughties, I had to contend with screens full of search bars and Bonzi buddy.
__________________
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” - Charles Darwin

...like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. - Tom Lehrer
Mongrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 11:18 AM   #171
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,862
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Are you suggesting that they can be made 100% secure?
No but neither can in person or paper voting.

Again I'm kinda dropping my end of the rope here because this is just going around in circles now but nothing is ever 100% secure and going "But this is more and important and different" doesn't change that, nor does it make the methods we do use 100% secure.

People are allowing the fact that they don't understand how basic computer security works to pretend it's about "We have to make it secure" by applying a level of security its impossible for any system to ever get it to and happily accepting the insecurities in the current system just because you understanding them are used to them.

Again like I said my grandfather saying "I ain't neva gone give my credit card number to a computer" but happily handing it to a waitress who would walk away from the table and take it into a back room where he can't see what she's doing with it for 10 minutes.

Like there's systems in place with e-mail, using public and private keys, where I can send an e-mail and I can prove to legal satisfaction that I sent the e-mail, that nobody else but the recipient read it, and that the data in the e-mail was not altered enough so that it will hold up in court.

My physical signature is a random scribble that anyone could fake, my digital signature is 128-256 bit encryption depending on the exact application that... no you are not going to fake that.

All this stuff everyone is saying "Computers can't do" is stuff they do a billion times a day.

It's only "not good enough for voting" because you're adding an impossible standard that the current system doesn't reach.

I have no way of knowing if my vote in the last election was validly counted or not. There's no audit trail, no receipt I can check.

Again I can't argue matters of trust. If you trust a system, I can't tell you you are wrong. But just none of the arguments being make strike me as anything other than basic technophobia.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 11:19 AM   #172
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,007
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm not going to sit here through some A+ level "How computers work" course with you. The same way you know your credit card payment really goes to Visa and your really watching a Netflix movie and not a knockoff.

Well, I was a software developer for 35 years and I still maintain four online services as a sideline business, but one thing I love about the business is that there's always something new to learn. Has computer science solved this problem and I missed it?

Hackers steal $1bn in series of online bank thefts says report
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 11:27 AM   #173
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,862
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, I was a software developer for 35 years and I still maintain four online services as a sideline business, but one thing I love about the business is that there's always something new to learn. Has computer science solved this problem and I missed it?

Hackers steal $1bn in series of online bank thefts says report
Okay and?

Traditional voting has never been tampered with in history?

This is the double standard. People have been tampering with elections as long as there has been elections. Vote buying, ballot stuffing, miscounting (both accidental and deliberate), misuse (again accidental and deliberate) of proxy voting, loss or destruction of ballots, show elections and that's not even getting into quasi or outright legal things like gerrymandering and the electoral collage.

But none of those mean traditional voting is inherently unsafe but let a computer hack occur in a totally different industry and scenario and OMG BLACK MIRROR SKYNET

Hell I'll trade the fact that electronic voting can't make honest mistakes; it can't get tired and miscount the votes, it can't not understand someone's handwriting, we can't have "hanging Chads" and a box of ballots from your opponents home district can conveniently fall off the back of a truck.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 11:29 AM   #174
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
No but neither can in person or paper voting.
Okay, can it be made as secure as paper voting?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
People are allowing the fact that they don't understand how basic computer security works to pretend it's about "We have to make it secure" by applying a level of security its impossible for any system to ever get it to and happily accepting the insecurities in the current system just because you understanding them are used to them.
Meanwhile, you're pretending that voting is of equal importance to your bank account or email?


Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It's only "not good enough for voting" because you're adding an impossible standard that the current system doesn't reach.
How does the current voting system not reach the standard I'm using? I'm literally describing the current system when comparing them.


Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But just none of the arguments being make strike me as anything other than basic technophobia.
That is a laughable thing to argue on an internet forum board, but a solid understanding of the weaknesses of online security != technophobia.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 11:33 AM   #175
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Traditional voting has never been tampered with in history?
And how common is that? Want to guess why?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 11:34 AM   #176
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I guess I'm just having a hard time trying to figure out what the functional difference between:
"I write/punch my votes on a piece of paper, give it to a voting volunteer, and trust the system to not tamper/alter/lose my vote"
and
"I enter my vote into an electronic device and trust the system to no tamper/alter/lose it"
Just in case the issue hasn't already been discussed to death...

The problem with electronic voting is the ability for people to do damage that is widespread, while doing so being anonymous.

Yes, in theory its possible in a paper ballot system for vote counters to mess up, people to vote fraudulently, etc. But, in general such problems would be localized to one polling place, and the presence of multiple observers (often people from competing political parties) will keep things fairly honest. (And while people can in theory vote multiple times, it would require multiple trips to the polling place, something that would put a person at risk of detection.)

Electronic voting? Develop the right virus (or other malware) and you can keep hundreds of thousands of voters from voting nation wide. Hack into the list of voter registration identifiers? You can now illegally stuff the ballot box by submitting thousands of votes using different IDs without having to leave your home. Got a botnet? Launch a denial of service attack with a half hour before polls close, which means that those people waiting till near the end of the day to vote may have a hard time.

Quote:
People are handwringing and pearl clutching over auditing but... prove to me you voted for who you voted for in the 2000 presidential election. Do you think those ballots still exist?
A little bit of occam's razor would make sense here.

What is more likely:
- That your vote in the 2000 election was counted correctly.
or
- That a system where you have multiple observers (often from different parties) observing the voting and the counting the ballots would have engaged in widespread fraud without someone from another party noticing it.

Quote:
But I can see my pay stubs from 1997 on DFAS.
Different applications with different purposes.

Your pay system needs to be able to link a person with payment data. Its kind of the point. (And while it is possible that your pay stub information was tampered with, there would be various checks on the system.... what did previous pay stubs say? What were your bank deposits?)

A voting system is different. You don't WANT your vote to be attached to a particular user (at least in a way that is obvious to the vote counters or observers). This means there is no way whether a particular vote was an accurate record of how the voter actually voted or a fake vote submitted by a hacker who had access to the voter registration list. No history or other way to check "does this data seem right?"
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 11:36 AM   #177
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,862
Well I don't see this discussion going anywhere else. Some things are just a base disagreement, and I don't mean that snarkily.

I will say some form of online voting is probably gonna happen, sooner rather than later. The benefits are just too much to pass up. Might as well figure out the best way to do it.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 12:06 PM   #178
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm kinda done here because I don't see this going anywhere but "I'm just gonna sit here and keep saying computers can't be made secure" over and over.
The problem is we keep explaining the problems to you over and over again yet it doesn't seem to sink in.
Quote:
The entire modern online world; banking, stocks, taxes, retirement funds, a billion other things would not exist if "A computer can be tampered with and it's impossible to tell after the fact unless you were watching (what does that even mean?) the moment it happened" was really the truth.
The difference between a banking/stock/tax system and a voting system is that in banking/stock/tax systems, your transactions are tied to your identifier. The system knows a bit about you, it can look at your transaction history to check for inconsistencies, look at individual transactions to see where money is transferred from/too to see if something is wrong.

In a voting system where a certain amount of anonymity is expected there is no such system of checks that can exist.
Quote:
You can say "Voting is different because I say so" but... that's meaningless.
No, we are saying voting is different because the expectations for having your ballot be secret makes it so.

Quote:
Traditional voting has never been tampered with in history?
Nobody is saying "traditional votes have never been tampered with". But what people are saying is that in a mature, stable democracy, the types of problems that can occur in the voting process are relatively minor and unlikely to sway the election outcome.

A hacked electronic voting system by comparison WOULD have a huge effect.
Quote:
This is the double standard. People have been tampering with elections as long as there has been elections. Vote buying...
Which would be 1) incredibly expensive, especially if you were trying to buy enough votes to sway an election (much more costly than getting a hacker to somehow rig the voting.), and 2) not exactly anonymous since you will now have hundreds if not thousands of people aware of the vote buying.

By the way, how is the use of electronic voting supposed to stop vote buying? Seems to me it would be just as common. In fact, it would probably be MORE of a problem in an electronic system since the person buying the vote could force the person to cast their ballot right there.)

Quote:
ballot stuffing...
By whom?

Paper ballots usually have multiple observers from different parties viewing everything on a constant basis.

Ballot stuffing is more likely to occur in an electronic environment where there is no observer at the time the ballot is cast.
Quote:
miscounting (both accidental and deliberate)...
Yes that can happen. That's why many places have an automatic recount triggered when the results are close. That way the ability to sway the election by miscounting is minimized.

Quote:
misuse (again accidental and deliberate) of proxy voting...
How is electronic voting supposed to fix that, considering ANYONE with access to your voter key or id can cast a ballot for you?
Quote:
loss or destruction of ballots
That can happen (in theory). How often does it happen in practice?
Quote:
show elections and that's not even getting into quasi or outright legal things like gerrymandering and the electoral collage.
Neither gerrymandering or the electoral college are problems that electronic voting would fix.

So, of your list, you have:
- at least 2 problems with paper ballots that electronic voting does not address at all (gerrymandering/electoral college)
- 3 problems that electronic voting would make WORSE (vote buying/misuse of proxy voting/ballot stuffing)
- 1 problem that MAY be improved with electronic voting but paper ballots have checks to prevent it to be a problem anyways.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 12:14 PM   #179
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well I don't see this discussion going anywhere else. Some things are just a base disagreement, and I don't mean that snarkily.

I will say some form of online voting is probably gonna happen, sooner rather than later. The benefits are just too much to pass up. Might as well figure out the best way to do it.
Well, it would benefit the russians... rather than having them spend the money to steal user information and pay for a bunch of facebook ads and/or bot nets on the hope of influencing a few thousand voters in a couple of key states, they would only have to pay for a couple of hackers to directly affect the votes themselves. Makes good economic sense!
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 12:18 PM   #180
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,862
And again I don't want to go back and forth until we're all actually mad at each other but... Die Hard 4 was not a documentary. (That was the hacking one right? All the post original 3 have started to run together for me.) "Hollywood Hacking" is not really a thing.

I don't see a stable, secure voting system as easy, but I also don't see it was impossible and I do see it as at least worth considering given the benefits.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 12:25 PM   #181
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
A "stable, secure voting system" is only stable and secure until it is breached. It is not a question of "if", but "when". You do not need "Hollywood Hacking" for that to be true, just enough incentive.

And control of the most powerful country on Earth is a pretty big incentive.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 02:03 PM   #182
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,476
Originally Posted by Mongrel View Post
I notice for all the bluster you don't want to counter the specifics of "Computers can't be made secure!" which have been presented, you'd rather try and paint people as fumblethumbed technophobes who don't seem to understand the intricacies of "teh internetz!1."


So, none of those companies have fraud departments? Can you imagine delaying a contentious count because there's suspicion of fraud that needs investigating - it was bad enough with hanging chads.



And yet you see computer systems getting hacked\infiltrated all the time.
Part of the problem is that nearly all of the ways to circumvent the pencil & paper method have been tried and we've added safeguards over the years. The internet, and phones in particular, is still in it's infancy as a medium and we're still learning. As protocols get better at security, as websites are made more secure by design and as people get better at not pressing any random link* then yes, moving to internet voting may be a thing. Right now it's up to you to show how it can be "at least" as secure as what's there currently

*And I used to do Tech support for the general public in the early noughties, I had to contend with screens full of search bars and Bonzi buddy.
And again, can you imagine this in a system that has to be designed to be anonymous except for when it shouldn't be?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 02:20 PM   #183
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,007
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay and?

Well, I thought you were going to explain why I can and should have confidence in online voting. It appears your answer is that I can't have confidence in it, but you still think the advantages outweigh that minor disadvantage. You're entitled to your opinion, but IMO you seriously undervalue the disadvantages and potential for abuse. For example, without even touching the voting software or hardware, bad actors could steal untold numbers of votes with simple spearphishing "change your password" or "here's your ballot" emails. That alone makes such a system totally unacceptable to me.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 02:40 PM   #184
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well I don't see this discussion going anywhere else. Some things are just a base disagreement, and I don't mean that snarkily.

I will say some form of online voting is probably gonna happen, sooner rather than later. The benefits are just too much to pass up. Might as well figure out the best way to do it.
What benefits?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 02:48 PM   #185
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,447
Money, pshaw. Trump said if even 10 votes were fraudulent, implementing voter ID (very expensive) is worth it.

Hand counting is terribly flawed as evidence by the different numbers people get recounting.

Paper back-up, electronic voting, and the voter checks what the machine tallied.

So, for example, electronic voting, when you're done it spits out a paper record of how you voted, you check it and put it in a locked ballot box to be randomly audited as a safe guard, and it's there to be checked if the count is challenged.

I don't have a problem with the optical readers of paper ballots except the voter can't see what was counted. That can be remedied.

I think the mail in ballots are fine, certainly better than easily hacked voting machines.

And as for voter ID, that is what registering ahead of time is for, checking the legitimacy of the voter.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 02:50 PM   #186
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,846
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
And again I don't want to go back and forth until we're all actually mad at each other but... Die Hard 4 was not a documentary. (That was the hacking one right? All the post original 3 have started to run together for me.) "Hollywood Hacking" is not really a thing.
We're not claiming that corrupting an on-line voting system is "hollywood hacking". Just the opposite.... it can be compromised by any one of a number of simple, common tactics.

Quote:
I don't see a stable, secure voting system as easy, but I also don't see it was impossible...
Great. All you need to do is:

- Develop an operating system which cannot be infected by malware or other viruses, and ensure that each and every person (or at least the vast, vast majority) in the country is actually using that version of the operating system to prevent malware from either altering or denying votes
(Yet as of last year, over 7% of people were still running Windows XP, even thought that operating system is unsupported. https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/how-ma...nning-10425650.)

- Create a server and network infrastructure that is completely hardened against any and all compromise, including hacking on the server and denial of server attacks, to prevent either attacks compromising software that records votes or system crashes caused by false traffic. (Yet those attacks are still happening. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle24997399/)

- Educate the entire population on how to install whatever software is necessary, AND somehow make them able to identify potential scams such as spear phishing attacks (yet last year thousands of people lost money to the Microsoft tech support scam. https://www.zdnet.com/article/window...ays-microsoft/)


- Come up with a way to perfectly identify voters so that only registered voters can vote, and their identification 'key' cannot be stolen by others, through either hacking, or even something as simple as 'dumpster diving' or similar. (Yet last year millions of people had their security information revealed due to a security breach at Equifax. https://www.cnet.com/news/equifaxs-d...ull-breakdown/)
Quote:
.... and I do see it as at least worth considering given the benefits.
Ah yes, the benefits...
- It saves the Russian hackers time and money in corrupting U.S. elections
- It gives people like psionIO the chance to spout off about "blockchain"

About the only real advantage is that it makes vote counting faster and more accurate, but given the fact that there are mechanisms to handle questionable vote counts (e.g. automatic recounts if the margin if victory is slim) then that 'advantage' doesn't really seem like that big of a deal.

Every other supposed 'fault' of paper ballots either 1) won't be solved by going to electronic voting, or 2) have better/simpler ways to address the situation.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 03:22 PM   #187
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,503
Originally Posted by oopsboom View Post
electronic voting machines should be a shell containing a monitor, touchscreen, printer, whatever else is needed - and an open slot on the bottom.

when its time to vote the polling places should receive a unit for each machine containing a locked sealed container that is both a lockbox for printed ballots and a pc-on-a-board that runs the machine. It should be running govt approved firmware, checked and certified before it is shipped, and there should be no writable storage on the device.

when each person votes it records all their votes for whatever is on the ballot. then at the end throws up a screen that says heres what you voted and <Is this correct? YES/NO> then if they hit yes prints out a paper copy into a protected glass area next to the screen that lines up <"Does this match? YES/NO?"> and if they hit yes to that sends the vote in and drops the paper into the lockbox. Any 'NO' on that second box pulls that machine from use until it is checked.

after voting is done all the PC/Lockbox units are pulled from the machines and sent back in and unsealed. the firmware on them is scanned and verified that it still matches factory spec. the paper copies are recorded which specific machine they came from and stored. a random selection of polling places or specific machines is drawn and a hand count of the paper records is verified against the database immediately. any requested database records can be verified by hand counts in the future as needed.
You just invented the world's most expensive pencil.
Ambrosia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 08:48 PM   #188
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,607
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Okay, "conceptually," I just voted online; how can I verify that the recorded vote is the one I selected?
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
How do I verify that the vote I selected was really what went into the virtual ballot box?
Some people haven't been paying attention.

As for how a horseless carriage could possible work, I will leave that answer for the future.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2018, 09:34 PM   #189
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,418
Originally Posted by oopsboom View Post
electronic voting machines should be a shell containing a monitor, touchscreen, printer, whatever else is needed - and an open slot on the bottom.

when its time to vote the polling places should receive a unit for each machine containing a locked sealed container that is both a lockbox for printed ballots and a pc-on-a-board that runs the machine. It should be running govt approved firmware, checked and certified before it is shipped, and there should be no writable storage on the device.

when each person votes it records all their votes for whatever is on the ballot. then at the end throws up a screen that says heres what you voted and <Is this correct? YES/NO> then if they hit yes prints out a paper copy into a protected glass area next to the screen that lines up <"Does this match? YES/NO?"> and if they hit yes to that sends the vote in and drops the paper into the lockbox. Any 'NO' on that second box pulls that machine from use until it is checked.

after voting is done all the PC/Lockbox units are pulled from the machines and sent back in and unsealed. the firmware on them is scanned and verified that it still matches factory spec. the paper copies are recorded which specific machine they came from and stored. a random selection of polling places or specific machines is drawn and a hand count of the paper records is verified against the database immediately. any requested database records can be verified by hand counts in the future as needed.
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
You just invented the world's most expensive pencil.
I know. right?

People who work in the tech industry get obsessed with what they can do. I know this very well as I have been working in that industry for 30 years. I have worked as a product manager, tech support and mostly in sales. Engineers tend to get scope locked on what and how they can do something but rarely why. In sales and product management it's all about why a customer would purchase something. Does your product solve a problem and is the problem so acute that customers would pay for it.

Electronic Voting machines don't really solve a problem. Paper ballots can easily be counted today and provide an audit trail. A record. Do we need fancy expensive machines when paper ballots allow a voter to feel secure. I don't think machines can ever make people feel as secure.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 12:31 AM   #190
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,607
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
People who work in the tech industry get obsessed with what they can do.
That is what everybody is accusing me of. Their strawman argument is that I am urging the adoption of blockchain technology right NOW!. That is why I listed some of the problems that could be addressed in post #133.

If concerns about the originating computer could be overcome, would you still say "nay" to electronic voting?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 01:57 AM   #191
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,751
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm literally in my 22nd year of some form of IT Support. I personally guarantee you I do not.

I just don't care. There's a difference between making democracy easy and accessible and "I'm not going to vote until you hold my hand through every step of the process."

"Just get to any web capable device (which would still include things like libraries and schools and community centers which are already used as voting centers now and could easily have people on hand to assist people who needed help) for like... 5 minutes at some point in the voting time period" should be "accessible" enough for anyone.
Sounds perfect for a phishing attack. Hey look it's an email from your local election authority reminding you to vote, even has a big red VOTE button to take you to the "Voting" Website. How nice of them.....
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 02:40 AM   #192
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,695
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
The UK has a system that is robust with effective anonymity unless an investigation is required when the paper trail can be looked into.

I have no doubt that nobody could find how I voted unless there was a court order.

pencil and paper FTW.
The system is supposed to be able to prevent even this. I'm dubious if a court in a common law jurisdiction is competent to even ask this.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 03:27 AM   #193
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is what everybody is accusing me of. Their strawman argument is that I am urging the adoption of blockchain technology right NOW!. That is why I listed some of the problems that could be addressed in post #133.
Congrats. That is but a portion of the problems that have been pointed out to you since page 1.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If concerns about the originating computer could be overcome, would you still say "nay" to electronic voting?
Naive, but yes, I would still say “nay”. You’d still be missing transparency and, as PhantomWolf mentioned, the social engineering attack vector.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 03:37 AM   #194
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Let me ask it this way: What is the risk assessment of electronic and online voting? How much of an increase in domestic and international voter fraud is acceptable in order to gain the benefit of not using a pen or not having to leave your house to vote?

Because it would increase. A lot.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 03:39 AM   #195
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,216
I suppose in the back of my mind there's always the unease that if there is any unforeseen vulnerability in an electronic voting system, the scale of tampering by a relatively small group of attackers could be huge. A paper system is so widely distributed that the human effort involved in significant tampering increases in scale with the size of the election. You need an army of henchmen for that, and they have to physically be there, not hiding in a basement in another country.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 04:01 AM   #196
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,607
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Naive, but yes, I would still say “nay”. You’d still be missing transparency and, as PhantomWolf mentioned, the social engineering attack vector.
What could be more transparent than a block chain?

Other than that you are saying that if certain problems were overcome then they wouldn't be overcome.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 04:15 AM   #197
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,216
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What could be more transparent than a block chain?
Transparent to whom?

When you consider the likely proportion of the voting population who grasp what that means even in principle, I think the answer is just about anything.

If someone she trusts tells my old mum "blockchain is unsinkable" then she'll probably just believe it, but she won't understand it. She can understand putting papers into a guarded box then counting them when you're finished.

Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 3rd August 2018 at 04:22 AM.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 04:27 AM   #198
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What could be more transparent than a block chain?

Other than that you are saying that if certain problems were overcome then they wouldn't be overcome.
Remember the whole bitcoin exchanges/voting machines discussion? We’ve already had this conversation.

As for overcoming certain problems, do you honestly believe there will come a time when devices can’t be hacked and people can't be fooled through social engineering?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 3rd August 2018 at 05:01 AM.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 05:05 AM   #199
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,607
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Remember the whole bitcoin exchanges/voting machines discussion? We’ve already had this conversation.

As for overcoming certain problems, do you honestly believe there will come a time when devices can’t be hacked and people can't be fooled through social engineering?
IOW you didn't address either of the posts that you quoted.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2018, 05:13 AM   #200
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,029
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
IOW you didn't address either of the posts that you quoted.
Of course I did. “Addressing” and “agreeing with” are two separate things.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.