Hacker Exposes Parts of Florida's Voting Database 261
Dangerous_Minds writes "Some people feel that elections can be rigged and votes tampered with. One hacker, who goes by the name of Abhaxas, decided to prove that votes aren't secure by exposing parts of the Florida voting database. Said Abhaxas while posting the data, 'Who believes voting isn't tampered with?'"
Good job on behalf of the hacker (Score:4, Insightful)
It needs to go back to the old way, which wasn't perfect, but was hell of a lot better than electronic voting.
None of this (except the passwords)... (Score:5, Insightful)
...should be secret anyway. The only part of an election that should be secret is how each individual voted.
To make a secure voting machine (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the whole point of these voting machines, make it easier and save time for the users. A punchcard reader/sorta could easily accomplish that. You got physical validity and you get time saving. People can still mail in votes and a database that keeps only people who have voted already (and not who voted for who) could keep track of duplicate votes which puts up a *flag* for that person. If they done it this way, a database breach means little without physical access to the cards or machine.
What about dead people voting fraud and vote coercion for mail in votes? Stricter law enforcement and record keeping as those things already happens i suppose.
Total non-sequitur (Score:4, Insightful)
So the fact that he was able to access a list of voters is supposed to prove that votes are rigged? How exactly does that follow?
Voter fraud is a non-existent problem. It's a bogeyman used to get people scared so that they agree to more restrictions on voting, which in turn disenfranchises those who might otherwise resist the powers that be. It also serves the double duty of de-legitimizing any political opponents. Don't like the incumbent? Call him an imposter, and that way you can scream hatred and bile against him at every moment, and your supporters won't question it, because you've given them a way to rationalize all the hate.
Re:Total non-sequitur (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, votes are supposed to be confidential.
Second, you don't need electronic voting to get fast results. Canada still uses paper ballots and they have their final results within 24 hours.
Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we should re-evaluate the secret ballot. It would seem like fraud is always possible as long as ballots can't be linked one to one with a person. Even with paper ballots, someone can always steal or destroy or fill out fake ones.
Why not just go ahead and make it all verifiable?
When you show up to vote, they print a bar code off on two labels. One goes into the log book next to your name, the matching label goes on the ballot.
Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Total non-sequitur (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that if he hacked in and and got this junk, someone could just as easily have gotten in and altered the data. I don't put it beyond corporations to under-the-table hire hackers to accomplish their end-goals (namely because I've seen it happen), and hacking a voter database is a pretty obvious target.
And that's only the corporation side of things....
Re:Total non-sequitur (Score:5, Insightful)
Voter fraud is a non-existent problem.
It's not quite non-existent. It's not hard to find residents of Chicago or Philadelphia who were part of political machines that regularly placed fraudulent votes. For instance, a common tactic was (maybe still is) to use dead people's names and addresses.
However, efforts to restrict voting (at least in the US) have far more to do with disenfranchising poor people and black people than they do with any actual risk of fraud. For instance, photo ID requirements, a mere annoyance for middle-class white folks with a driver's license, are an insurmountable burden for members of the underclass that survive on public housing and food assistance. One tell-tale sign here is that the focus is on somebody who shows up to the polls and tries to cast a fraudulent vote, rather than the much easier ways of committing election fraud on a significant scale like manipulating the persons or machines responsible for counting the votes or effectively ballot-stuffing. If you were, say, a secretary of state with ties to a party's political campaign trying to commit election fraud, which would be easier - making a vulnerable voting machine and changing a number in Microsoft Access, or organizing hundreds of thousands of people to go to the polls and fraudulently casting votes?
Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (Score:2, Insightful)
why exactly would this help? All ID requirements do is disenfranchise lower income voters. It has nothing to do with protecting vote data.
Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (Score:2, Insightful)
I am on vacation in Nicaragua, they vote here by registering their cell phone number and calling in their vote, strangely enough the losers have a very difficult time getting contracts, especially if their business is linked to their phone.... secret votes are a good thing, but they need to be secure, thats the part we have gotten wrong.
Re:None of this (except the passwords)... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you need a machine to vote? Why not just pencil in an X next to the candidate's name like they do in other countries?
How is anyone supposed to profit from that kind of scheme?
Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (Score:5, Insightful)
This Ohio Republican representative got his license pulled because he was driving drunk. If the election was tomorrow he wouldn't be able to vote.
He's the sponsor of a bill to require photo ID in order to vote.
Laws requiring photo ID to vote only exist to keep poor people from voting. Let's not bullshit, here. How did the United States last 235 years without requiring photo IDs to vote? How come we haven't had any scandals involving ineligible people voting despite the Bush Administration promising to make it a priority?
If you want to do voter fraud by having ineligible people voting, it takes a lot of hard work. If you want to do it using electronic voting machines, it's trivial. How can you suggest that until we have laws keeping poor people from voting we shouldn't get rid of electronic voting? It's like ignoring the hole in the bottom of the boat because you want to make sure your captain's hat is on straight.
Re:Total non-sequitur (Score:4, Insightful)
Pray, do tell, how people that are able to sign up and live off of the public dole, then become too stupid (or otherwise unable) to get a FREE photo ID. Make the photo ID part of the requirement to use these benefits, and you'll cut down on foodstamp fraud too. This whole idea about poor people unable to get ID (which can be verified) is a disingenuous strawman arguement. "insurmountable burden", my ass - just another reason to perpetuate voter fraud!
Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good job on behalf of the hacker (Score:4, Insightful)
You can go to senior citizen homes and not find a single photo ID among the residents. To get one, they'd have to get their birth certificate, which might require a trip to their home town if they were born before 1955.
Photo ID voter laws are only meant to keep poor people from voting. If you look through YouTube, you'll find Republicans admitting as much. Then there are the new residency requirements meant to keep students from voting.
This is not about the integrity of elections. Exactly the opposite in fact.
Re:Total non-sequitur (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole "I know you are but what am I" arguement doesn't work past the 5th grade.
And I hardly think Chicago, widely known for voter fraud, is a Republican bastion. Want to try again?
Re:Total non-sequitur (Score:4, Insightful)
So if we made a photo ID a requirement for public housing and food assistance, problem solved?
I assume there are mechanisms to stop people from signing up for public housing and food assistance multiple times. If no ID is required, how are they enforcing that? Why not use the same mechanisms when it comes to voting?