Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Contact Moderators
Administration
|
| Optical Scan Machines Hacked: Discuss... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 538
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 3:46 pm: | 
|
The article about hacking the optical scan machine is here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/5921.html
By the way: New regulations in Florida will prohibit the counting of paper ballots except in the most unusual and bizarre circumstances -- making this hack a death toll for Floridian democracy.
Washington State Secretary of State Sam Reed has decreed that any elections supervisor who acts on their own to spot-check election results by counting paper ballots will be conducting an "unauthorized recount" which is forbidden -- making this hack a death toll for Washingtonian democracy.
It should be noted that in 2000, Al Gore reportedly wanted to hand count the whole state of Florida, but was urged not to by handlers. Later, these counties WERE hand-counted, by a consortium including Judicial Watch. It was found that Gore won when these counties were included -- meaning that the Florida optical scan machines in 2000 incorrectly counted in a manner that favored George Bush, and calling into question the motives of Gore's advisors. Knowing what we now know, it would be of interest to get the names of those who advised him not to count Florida's optical scan counties.
Let us explain the importance of the optical scan hack performed in Tallahassee on May 26:
Here is a schematic of the checks and balances in the optical scan system:
paper ballots --> poll tapes --> central tabulator results.
The hacks performed in Leon County successfully manipulated the poll tapes (Harri Hursti hack) and the central tabulator (Dr. Herbert Thompson hack).
Both hacks could be implemented in just seconds. After the hacks, this is what was left standing
paper ballots
Both the poll tapes and the tabulator results were altered
Since paper ballots are counted only rarely (normal election canvassing just compares the poll tape with the tabulator result) combining these two hacks effectively destroys the election.
Note that Hursti has also designed a single hack that will knock out both the tabulator and all polling place tapes -- while making them look normal. |
rightfoot
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: rightfoot
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Where does the memory card go? I thought optical scan systems used paper ballots instead of memory cards.
Great article but kind of heavy going. I have to have to read it a few times. |
harmonyguy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: harmonyguy
Post Number: 53
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
In the case of Diebold, the optical scan uses paper ballots, but once the paper ballot is scanned, the interpreted results are stored on a removable, battery-operated Epson memory card. This is the same memory card that is programmed in advance with the precinct ballot information.
Once the poll is closed, the card can be physically removed and delivered to a central location where it can be read into the GEMS tabulator. If I recall correctly, the same security provisions should apply to the card as to a sealed ballot box - in other words it needs to be kept, transported and delivered under the secure watch of all parties.
These cards should NOT be confused with the individual vore-carried 'smart' cards used with touch-screen systems.
HG |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 539
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
A quick note here: The version number (1.94) is a matter of some consternation over at DU.
While it is true that there are only two certified versions for the chip in the precinct-based optical scan (1.94w and 1.96.4) there have actually been many other versions in use. This can be found in the Diebold memos -- see Chapter 13 (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-13.pdf) for specifics.
The version used in New Hampshire has never been certified at all. Also, there is a version 2.0.1 used for the high speed central count optical scans (absentee ballot processing machines).
You can find all the version numbers that are certified up through Oct 2004 in the Black Box Voting Document Archive, here: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/2959.html
To deal with variability in versions used, we had Hursti examine the whole source code evolution for the optical scan.
I think it is around 1.95.4 where the changes in the optical scan firmware are significant enough that we would want to do a new round of testing to check vulnerabilities again.
The 1.96 version is used in California, but most of the Florida optical scan counties are still on 1.94 levels, as is much of the rest of the U.S. We had an opportunity for a field test with the 1.94 software, and we took it.
Therefore, only the 1.94 series -- which is still very widely used -- is mentioned in this article. No comment on 1.96 (yet).
Regarding the upgrade of California counties to 1.96, which took place AFTER the March 2004 primaries if I'm not mistaken, I am interested in whether counties had to pay for the upgrade to the new 1.96 software.
I'm guessing they did, but those of you in California may know for sure. If so, it calls into question what process triggered that upgrade. For example, did the Voting Systems & Procedures Panel in California spot these flaws and require the upgrade? Does the upgrade to 1.96 even solve the issue of an editable executable program living on the memory card?
Because the design flaw is so significant, a PRODUCT RECALL at Diebold expense is the only ethical way to address this. It certainly should NOT be addressed by consultants working quietly behind the scenes with Diebold, passing costs for upgrades along to the taxpayers.
Therefore, the process taking place behind the scenes during upgrades to 1.96, as well as questions about whether this vulnerability exists in 1.96, need to be addressed.
The 1.96 versions may have the exact same flaws. Or not. It's a secret.
Privatized vote-counting. Ain't it grand? |
kip_humphrey
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: kip_humphrey
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Bev,
You simply MUST come to Houston on June 29th to present these findings at the Election Assessment Hearing! Well done, btw! |
ehbrod
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ehbrod
Post Number: 3
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Great report. It is also wonderful you were able to get someone as cooperative as Ion Sancho to participate. I would also like you to examine the many EIRS machine incident reports that were found in Leon County during the Nov. 2004 election. It was troubling to me that someone as committed to accurate elections was not able to pick up these problems in the L & A testing. Many precincts in Leon had the inability to read and accept many ballots because of the optical scan calibration's inabilty to read the color of the ink or gradation of the pencil that was used. Also many optical scan machines had difficulty in accepting the ballots, so poll workers had to collect their ballots to be counted later. At least they had a paper ballot to count. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 540
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
I would also like you to examine the many EIRS machine incident reports that were found in Leon County during the Nov. 2004 election.
Many precincts in Leon had the inability to read and accept many ballots because of the optical scan calibration's inabilty to read the color of the ink or gradation of the pencil that was used.
Hi, and it's nice to see you here. The good thing about Ion Sancho is that he is willing to hand-count whenever he thinks it should be done. In many places, the elections supervisors point to bogus secretary of state guidelines and say they "can't" do a hand recount unless the election is too close to call.
It is not surprising that the problems you mentioned were not caught in the L&A test. The testing uses the writing implements these machines were designed for. When you introduce various kinds of writing implements with infra-red scanners you get those kinds of errors.
I think Ion Sancho wants to see how the electronic voting battles shake out (and how the next generation machines fare in objective tests) before upgrading to something that could be even worse. So, my understanding is, he uses procedural workarounds -- like hand counting and double checking the counts -- instead of jumping on the bandwagon to buy new machines.
I think he's wise. While the Diebold programmers, at first, appear clumsy, a deeper look at the software indicates that there are sophisticated layers below which are very hard to explain with reasons that would be legitimate.
When you 've got a system that has layers of built-in problems, you are wise to avoid new purchases -- and even if Sancho was to ask for his money back, what would be the replacement? Something with even worse problems, that are harder to detect?
Frankly, I wish Ion Sancho was my elections supervisor, and I'd feel a lot better if Thomas James was manning the King County Diebold optical scan system. Maybe then we'd know who the governor is by now.
Thanks, and welcome here.
By the way (I'm guessing this will interest you) -- we have two boxes so far from Broward. Haven't had much time to delve, we are scanning the seven boxes from Palm Beach.
Love ya!
Bev Harris |
patty
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: patty
Post Number: 11
Registered: 04-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
I understand that your concerns are non-partisan. But shouldn't a group like "moveon" and whatever the right counterpart is.... (move forward?) be given this information? If you really feel that the populace would be convinced .... surely their very large email networks could mobilise huge numbers (petitions, funds) to get some reform in the works?
This is not a rhetorical question, I'm curious for some feedback. Thanks,
Patty |
patty
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: patty
Post Number: 12
Registered: 04-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 8:58 pm: |
|
And another thing.
The result in that one area of Ohio - where there were thousands of votes more for Bush than there were voters or something like that.... Reported and corrected on November 2nd. Was it in Gahanna, Ohio?
That should be revisited. What if someone was trying to get attention to the flaw in these systems but only had access to the one precinct? Maybe someone intentionally made the count so glaringly wrong? |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 343
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 2:20 am: |
|
patty,
The information here isn't exactly a secret. There are plenty of folks on websites like DU etc. who are aware that the BBV website exists.
There is nothing stopping Moveon members, independents, Green Party, Republicans, Democrats, etc. from taking the ball and running with it. It is interesting that they are not doing so and one must draw one's own conclusions.
There are undoubtedly plenty of skeletons hidden in the closet of both major parties. This may be the reason why neither side is truly eager for a closer examination.
While many Democrats see John Conyers as a hero (and he has my respect and thanks for how he is keeping the issue in the public spotlight) his own staff have apparently been less than helpful, and Michigan will not look for (let alone supply) FoI documents without a payment of $125,000--half of it up front--when other places typically charge a few thousand dollars to supply the requested documents, not just to look for them.
If Conyers and his staff would allow access to his district's election equipment, Optical Scan memory cards, etc. it would be invaluable to allowing more investigation to be done. It would show that he is willing to back up his words with actions and set an example to other politicians.
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=2197&post=6711#POST6711
This is the post where Bev talked about the obstruction encountered in Michigan, and why she avoids developing specific alliances with any particular political faction.
Bev has also made it clear that BBV cooperates actively with other groups with similar or related missions. |
patty
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: patty
Post Number: 13
Registered: 04-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
I'm not talking about parties; moveon is a grassroots effort that has a decent network. Of course they are more pro-democrat, but they are a relatively recent move, run by decent people. Decent people who would be outraged by vote fixing no matter whose side it was on.
And maybe the information is not a secret, but I'm the only person I know that knows it. There's nothing stopping BBV from making a commercial or taking out full page ads in the NYT. If that doesn't happen, should I "draw my own conclusions" from that as well?
I'm not hostile. It simply sounds like there is a frantic sentiment of "Everyone's corrupt! Everyone's corrupt! Everyone's corrupt!" And yet - there was the politician who said somehere in this investigation: "It IS a problem. It's a PROBLEM!" She'd certainly try to help. Also, the heavily demcratic regions that prefer optical scans are *not* where you'd expect to see corruption and tampering (they don't need it! or in the heavily republican areas for that matter!) The only place you expect to get away with it is where the voters are "purple" enough that a point or two or three swing is plausible.
And, the guy that runs Rasmussen reports describes himself as "left" and living out of the country - but his pre-election polls were right on the money - in every state. Many other polling organiszations called Ohio for Bush beforehand. In other words, while I don't think Bush won (certainly there were considerable disenfranchisement problems, the machines are hackable, the memo, etc etc etc....), I also don't think that every roadblock encountered represents a sinister agenda from the politicians. You have to include media, and polling organisations, and so on and so on to the list of those who are "in on it." And that starts to get a bit ridiculous.
I found it somewhat misleading to learn that the "Are we having fun yet" message was *not* part of the election day events, because that is how it reads ---- leading me to the conclusion that there is at least a little "stagemanship" going into the report, and leaving me wondering where else I have made unfounded assumptions.
But none of this is to say that I am not horrified at the ease with which these machines can be hacked. I am sure there is corruption on both sides, but I have serious difficulty when you start to accuse Conyers of being in on the game because he is "obstructing." Consider all the effort he put towards this mess. A better explanation is that he has another (reasonable) reason for not making all the info public, or that he hasn't had time to consider it yet, or that he is waiting for the technical report, or etc. |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 346
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
I don't accuse Conyers of anything. I am pointing out that it would be nice if he'd exercise leadership in being cooperative as apparently the State of Michigan as a whole is not.
How can BBV take out ads before it does investigations? I don't think there are funds to do anything more than investigate. There are only 2 people on the road, as far as I know. Without the factual information that comes from the investigations there's not much to put into a commercial other than rants and accusations--and that does not go far and only hurts everyone's efforts. Unsubstantiated accusations do more harm than good.
The fact that there were two or more independent documentary makers filming the hack says that the info will be coming out. This seems like a good distribution of labour--let BBV focus on investigating, and let them include documentary-makers to document and publicize. |
kathleen_wynne
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: kathleen_wynne
Post Number: 73
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
catherine_a,
You hit the nail right on the head! You totally understand the circumstances and restrictions under which Bev and I work. You are also correct that there are only "2 people on the road"...which are Bev and I, conducting the BBV investigations. You might be interested to know that, along with the documentary film crew, I was the other person filming the hacking demonstration of the Optical Scan machine in Tallahassee. Always good to have more than one copy of such an event, plus, this is information that we would want to make available to the public sooner rather than later. The documentary film may not be out until late summer, early fall (and that all depends on funding). Can't wait for the movie to come out on something as important as this. Hopefully, we'll be posting excerpts from the hack on the BBV website some time next week or soon after the Formal Report of the hack comes out in mid-June.
Thanks again for your insightful and informative posts.
Kathleen |
patty
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: patty
Post Number: 16
Registered: 04-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 10:42 pm: |
|
No, she didn't hit the nail on the head.
You are focusing on the report of two days ago. *I* am talking about the verified hack that was done in.... February? The one that a high school student "could accomplish?" For heaven's sake. Whatever areas are moving towards these sorts of machines, put the damn information on the air! A 30 second spot *has* to be a lot easier than a documentary, and certainly will have a vastly wider audience.
I'm glad there is a documentary being put together, but at what point do you decide that what youa re saying is "more" than an accusation? (And where did I suggest ranting in a commercial? You don't have to rant. I'll do that.)
So when does the information change from an accusation into whatever you think it will change into? As far as I understand our legal system, it will be an accusation until the accused parties are found guilty. Is that what you're waiting for? A verdict from a jury? (Don't you think you need to heavily publicize this sooner than that?)
Still not hostile, just freely expressing my frustrations,
Patty |
patty
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: patty
Post Number: 17
Registered: 04-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 10:43 pm: |
|
p.s. Thank you for your work, Bev and Kathleen. I do appreciate it, believe it or not. |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 347
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 2:41 am: |
|
Bev,
Whatever did happen in relation to the hack in Feb. that patty refers to?
When the post came out about the 27 May 2005 hacks, I thought this was the "further information" about the Feb. event. Then your post explained that this was something new.
It would be good to know more about the Feb. hack, or to understand if there is some reason the details are still being kept under cover (e.g., other ongoing investigations). |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 348
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 3:22 am: |
|
patty,
If a group of media/journalists/film-makers were to raise the many millions needed to film and air a commercial campaign, BBV would probably be delighted to cooperate.
BBV wouldn't be the right group to spearhead such a campaign, though. While Bev has PR/journalism expertise, she and Kathleen are not experts in the specialized area of producing films/comercials, nor are they experts in negotiating with the mass media for advertising time. Their talents and resources are best used in the area they do best--doing investigations to uncover facts and documenting them in such a way that they cannot be disputed. By doing this they are gathering the material for legal actions that could make a difference, and identifying the kinds of reforms that are actually needed (which is probably broader than just election reform). The successful California lawsuit is one example of how this can work--the final repercussions from that one are still underway since it allows Bev and others to have access to a much broader range of material that would otherwise be considered confidential.
It would be great if a new organization could be created by someone with the necessary media creation expertise and the massive funding needed to run a national advertising campaign. This would require people at the helm with relevent advertising skills and a lot of clout. The new body would have its own mission statement which would be different from BBV's mission statement. Such a project would require LOTS more money--far more than BBV's resources.
I don't know how much a national advertising campaign would cost but perhaps some other BBV readers who have media experience could suggest what size budget would be needed. Repeated prime time airings over at least a few weeks would be needed to make an impact. (And that's if the media would agree to air them at all.) Even if one were to limit airings to less expensive local media the cost in advertising fees and in human resources would be significant.
If you know a person or group with the skills and resources to initiate such a campaign, I expect BBV would be cooperative and would share suitable material with them.
It would be a mistake for BBV to change its focus to take the lead in such a project. They are doing the "heavy lifting" to come up with the info that others can use as raw material for ad campaigns, letter-writing campaigns, documentaries, radio interviews, etc. If BBV were to become ad-makers and focus on the media side, then they would have to stop their investigations and change their mission statement.
The idea for an ad camapaign is excellent. I wish somebody would take it on and support it generously. BBV should keep its current focus so that the ad campaign has more hard-hitting facts to reveal than those uncovered so far. |
|
|
