Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 15, 2017

... just in time for crucial special election. To understand why many computer scientists and voting rights advocates don't trust the security of many US election systems, consider the experience of Georgia-based researcher Logan Lamb. Last August, after the FBI reported hackers were probing voter registration systems in more than a dozen states, Lamb decided to assess the security of voting systems in his state. According to a detailed report published Tuesday in Politico, Lamb wrote a simple script that would pull documents off the website of Kennesaw State University's Center for Election Systems, which under contract with Georgia, tests and programs voting machines for the entire state. By accident, Lamb's script uncovered a breach whose scope should concern both Republicans and Democrats alike.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Within the mother lode Lamb found on the center's website was a database containing registration records for the state's 6.7 million voters; multiple PDFs with instructions and passwords for election workers to sign in to a central server on Election Day; and software files for the state's ExpressPoll pollbooks -- electronic devices used by poll workers to verify that a voter is registered before allowing them to cast a ballot. There also appeared to be databases for the so-called GEMS servers. These Global Election Management Systems are used to prepare paper and electronic ballots, tabulate votes and produce summaries of vote totals.

The files were supposed to be behind a password-protected firewall, but the center had misconfigured its server so they were accessible to anyone,

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Therefore, it would be a good idea to enforce voting ID regulations at the polls to ensure that a person's identity is verified, and prevent vote manipulation.

#1 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-06-15 12:08 PM | Reply

See, this is the story. The story isn't Russian hacking. Everyone (nation states) hacks. We do it too.

The story is the lax cyber security of state election boards.

#2 | Posted by boaz at 2017-06-15 12:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

www.computerworld.com

Indiana, Idaho, and Georgia claiming DHS hacked their election systems.

#3 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-15 12:08 PM | Reply


 

@#2 ... See, this is the story. The story isn't Russian hacking. Everyone (nation states) hacks. We do it too. ...

One could say the same about waging war. Everyone does it. We do it too.

So if Russia were to attack us militarily, you'd be OK with it?

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-06-15 12:20 PM | Reply

"Therefore, it would be a good idea to enforce voting ID regulations at the polls to ensure that a person's identity is verified, and prevent vote manipulation."

Translation from right wing hackspeak: "It would be a good idea to make it as difficult to vote as possible for students, the elderly, black people or anyone else likely to vote Democrat."
Truth: Voter ID laws are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and is done for purposes that the right rarely admits in public.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-15 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"See, this is the story. The story isn't Russian hacking. Everyone (nation states) hacks. We do it too."

Utter crap. We do not hack the Russians election system. They did hack ours and apologists like you only say the stupid things you do because Trump benefited. Had Hillary benefited you'd be screaming bloody murder. Hypocrites like you don't fool anyone except yourself but then you're pretty easy to fool.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-15 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Therefore, it would be a good idea to enforce voting ID regulations at the polls to ensure that a person's identity is verified, and prevent vote manipulation.

#1 | POSTED BY GONOLES92

Honestly, what is wrong with you? That has nothing to do with the issue nor would it solve it in the slightest.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-06-15 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

See, this is the story. The story isn't Russian hacking. Everyone (nation states) hacks. We do it too.
The story is the lax cyber security of state election boards.

#2 | POSTED BY BOAZ

So who cares if we are being hacked and elections affected? Anything you say, Comrade.

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-06-15 12:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

That has nothing to do with the issue nor would it solve it in the slightest. #7 | POSTED BY SYCOPHAN

I shan't stop until we get to the point of 1 retina scan = 1 vote by year 2050.

#9 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-06-15 12:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It would be a good idea to make it as difficult to vote as possible for students, the elderly, black people or anyone else likely to vote Democrat." POSTED BY DANNI

Why is it that [assumedly liberal] voters are too stupid to figure out how to vote and prepare for elections accordingly? This aspect of liberals-not-knowing-how-to-vote is doubly true for Midterm elections.*

*a faint liberal voice whispers from California: "What is a midterm election?"

#10 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-06-15 12:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Why is it that [assumedly liberal] voters are too stupid to figure out how to vote and prepare for elections accordingly? "

Why to idiots like you post the same tired talking points put in your head by right wing liars? Can't you think for yourself? We're here on a web site where no one will be affected one way or the other by anything you post so what is the point in posting right wing lies? Who do you think you fool with them? Just makes you look like an ass kisser.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-15 12:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why is it that [assumedly liberal] voters are too stupid to figure out how to vote and prepare for elections accordingly?" - #10 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-06-15 12:49 PM

Nuns with dated ID turned away at Ind. polls

Women, all in the 80's, 90's, showed up with old passorts

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow members of Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

Why is it that conservative commenters are so stupid?

#12 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-15 12:58 PM | Reply

Meh, I came up with the concept that liberal-leaning voters are too civil-society illiterate to properly prepare and participate in mid-term elections by my own ingenuity. I frankly do not have the time nor interest to watch or listen to infotainment political editorials on TV or elsewhere.

#13 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-06-15 01:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yeah, can see how that would cut into your trolling. :)

#14 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-06-15 01:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 3


@#9 ... I shan't stop until we get to the point of 1 retina scan = 1 vote by year 2050. ...

I'm not really opposed to voter ID requirements that are put into place in order to assure the person is who she/he says.

However, nowadays, that seems to be a solution without a significant problem.

The problem that apparently voter ID laws want to solve is - too many Democrats voting.

In other words, it is not the laws themselves that I dislike, but the apparent reason why those laws are enacted. Just ask Pennsylvania Republican Mike Turzai. And North Carolina.

Of course, given Georgia's lackadaisical attitude towards the security of their voting process, I'd rather not have my iris scan on file in that state.

#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-06-15 01:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I shan't stop until we get to the point of 1 retina scan = 1 vote by year 2050." - #9 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-06-15 12:44 PM

Georgia Officials Demonstrate Their First Attempt At A Retina Scanner (clearly, more work is obviously needed)

#16 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-15 01:52 PM | Reply

Voter ID laws are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist ...

Which problem doesn't exist? Federally mandated "Election Modernization," "Voter Fraud" or "Safeguarding Voter Confidence?"

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-15 01:58 PM | Reply


@#17 ... Federally mandated "Election Modernization," "Voter Fraud" or "Safeguarding Voter Confidence?" ...

Voter fraud is federally mandated?

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-06-15 02:02 PM | Reply

Of course, given Georgia's lackadaisical attitude towards the security of their voting process, I'd rather not have my iris scan on file in that state.

#15 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2017-06-15 01:41 PM

You don't want to be on file anywhere. 39 states, both major political parties, and many, many offices of federal government have all been hacked.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-06-15 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is a symptom of a wider problem. I unlike many of my colleagues am not going to call people lazy. The bottom line is people don't like complex security because it is difficult for them to get right. I still work in IT. My system login is 24 characters long and I have it memorized. I can't get people to use 'good' 8 character logins. I use 2 factor or 2 factor like authentication where ever possible - "It's a hassle" or "I have to use my phone?" are common complaints I hear about that. Until we come up with a way to ensure security that is simple things are only going to get worse.

As for biometrics like a retina scan - long term it's a joke. It is like an unchangeable password. Once I have your biometric hash for a system I can decipher it and access the system. So if I hacked into an election system I can vote for you without you ever walking in a voting place... If 2050 is a hypothetical goal then security will have to somehow have taken a lead over the wolves at the door.

#20 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-06-15 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Which problem doesn't exist? Federally mandated "Election Modernization," "Voter Fraud" or "Safeguarding Voter Confidence?"

#17 | Posted by et_al

I think you are simply being difficult here but the answer is - In person voter fraud.

#21 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-06-15 02:50 PM | Reply


@#20 ... As for biometrics like a retina scan - long term it's a joke. It is like an unchangeable password. ...

That's the fundamental problem I have with biometric-based security. If there is a breech, you can't swap out you iris for a new one, or change your fingerprint.

If Georgia had been using biometric security for voter identification, the iris scans or fingerprints or whatever would have been flapping out in the wind, for all the world to see.

#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-06-15 03:04 PM | Reply

Voter fraud is federally mandated?

Your comprehension is sorely lacking.

I think you are simply being difficult here but the answer is - In person voter fraud.

Okay, assuming in person voter fraud does not exist. Are legislatures precluded from using voter ID to address the other two problems?

#23 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-15 03:05 PM | Reply

"Safeguarding Voter Confidence?"

One way to safeguard voter confidence would be to tell the truth about where vote fraud happens, and where it doesn't.

Doesn't = in person

Does = via mail, and post-vote.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-15 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not to mention I wouldn't want some no-goodnik to steal my eyeball and try to vote with it.

#25 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-06-15 03:26 PM | Reply


@#23 ...Your comprehension is sorely lacking. ...

Not really. Your syntax was ambiguous. I took advantage of that to try (obviously did not succeed) to make a funny.

 

...assuming in person voter fraud does not exist. Are legislatures precluded from using voter ID to address the other two problems? ...

I would not be opposed to such action, providing it is done in a manner that does not look like voter suppression.

That's the problem with how many (most?) of the voter ID laws have been enacted. They were not put into place to reduce a non-existent (for most intents and purposes) voter fraud, they were put into place to suppress the votes of those who tend to vote for Democrats. The courts have said as much as they struck down the laws.

#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-06-15 03:38 PM | Reply

#24 | Posted by Danforth

Neither a mystery nor a secret.

Your syntax was ambiguous.
#26 | Posted by LampLighter

Not at all. The quotation marks denote a specific meaning. Instead of asking, you erroneously assumed.

[Voter ID] w[as] put into place to suppress the votes of those who tend to vote for Democrats. The courts have said as much as they struck down the laws.

Which courts? I'm aware of two finding racially discriminatory intent which I assume is what you're talking about. The Fourth Circuit regarding the NC law, which incidentally upheld the VA law, and one pending in a Texas trial court thus not final.

#27 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-15 05:55 PM | Reply

"Neither a mystery nor a secret."

Nonsense. It's certainly both to Kris Kobach, as well as the rest of the Republican party, and every idiot who hides behind the skirt of "vote integrity".

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-15 05:57 PM | Reply

The problem that apparently voter ID laws want to solve is - too many Democrats voting.
#15 | LAMPLIGHTER

Why do you assume that every D voter is voting for the D candidate?

#29 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-06-15 06:14 PM | Reply

So if Russia were to attack us militarily, you'd be OK with it?
#4 | Posted by LampLighter

We are prepared for that. We should be prepared better for cyber attacks.

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2017-06-16 08:05 PM | Reply

Utter crap. We do not hack the Russians

Just when I thought you couldn't say anything dumber.

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2017-06-16 08:13 PM | Reply

We are prepared for that. We should be prepared better for cyber attacks.

#30 | Posted by boaz

So if we're unprepared for an attack we don't attack back (or retaliate by other means)?

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-06-17 06:21 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort