Microsoft Offers Software Tools To Secure Elections (apnews.com) 98
Alongside sharing updates on many of its platforms, Microsoft said at its Build developer conference today that is also getting ready to release several new tools to shore up security for political parties and candidates and at the ballot box. From a report: Microsoft announced an ambitious effort it says will make voting secure, verifiable and subject to reliable audits. Two of the three top U.S elections vendors have expressed interest in potentially incorporating the open-source software into their proprietary voting systems. The software kit is being developed with Galois, an Oregon-based company separately creating a secure voting system prototype under contract with the Pentagon's advanced research agency, DARPA. Dubbed "ElectionGuard," the Microsoft kit will be available this summer, the company says, with early prototypes ready to pilot for next year's general elections. CEO Satya Nadella announced the initiative Monday at a developer's conference in Seattle. Nadella said the project's software, provided free of charge as part of Microsoft's Defending Democracy Program, would help "modernize all of the election infrastructure everywhere in the world." Microsoft also announced a cut-rate Office 365 application suite for political parties and campaigns for what it charges nonprofits. Both Microsoft and Google provide anti-phishing email support for campaigns. Three little-known U.S. companies control about 90 percent of the market for election equipment, but have long faced criticism for poor security, antiquated technology and insufficient transparency around their proprietary, black-box voting systems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My thoughts when I read the headline.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Then I realized microsoft was being serious...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Re: (Score:2)
There was no troll about it. That was grade A honesty...
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, if you're the police, who will police the police
Police police police police.
OK, but who polices them?
Police police police police police police.
And don't even get me started on the buffaloes.
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone with a gun ...
Re: (Score:1)
EHEEHEHEHEHE... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft... secure elections... heheheeheheheheehehe...
Re: (Score:1)
I read it as securing the result you want/paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Until you get the Blue Screen of Candidacy.
Clippy.. (Score:1)
I see you're frustrated with all the candidates, should I just pick one at random for you when you accidentally click past this screen?
Confirm _ _ _ Cancel
Re: (Score:1)
The orange screen...
Not Microsoft. They are quite anti-orange.
Microsoft promising security .... (Score:2)
Need full os source code! (Score:1)
Need full os source code!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even that wouldn't do any good. You have no way of knowing whether the code you can review is what's running on the voting machine. And even if the machine is somehow verified (which it can't be) the central count can't be. Why are people persisting with electronic voting of any kind?! It's a horrible, horrible idea!
Re: (Score:3)
that is why paper backup is needed with an forced audit if the votes at within X votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the source code is not the same as being able to read and grok the source code. It's probably a pile of spaghetti.
Re: (Score:2)
Not spaghetti, thicker, dark brown, smelly. You don't want to step in it.
Re: (Score:1)
To...reduce the administrative burden of fixing the result? *shrug*
OH, **HELL**, NO! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Bill.
As in Gates. Founder of Micros~1.
The chowderhead who inflicted MS/DOS on the world, and everything that came after it. Why would any sane, rational, non-fact-denying person let him or his company anywhere near critical election systems?
Just as Facebook would get laughed out of the room when trying to pass itself off as concerned about privacy, so Micros~1 should be laughed out of the room the moment they talk about computer secur
I said lick my erection (Score:4, Insightful)
not wreck my election.
I would like to see an oversight body that does extensive analysis of any voting software/hardware to certify the devices before any deployment.
New certifications would be required with any software or hardware updates, or once a year.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see an oversight body that does extensive analysis of any voting software/hardware to certify the devices before any deployment.
New certifications would be required with any software or hardware updates, or once a year.
I'd settle for one or two representatives from each party (ideally randomly chosen) and ID. Oh, I lost the blue states when I added ID.
Re: (Score:3)
Secure elections == paper ballots, counted by hand, in public view.
Here's how I would implement this:
1. Every ballot is an optical scan template (like the SAT, where you fill in an oval with black pen);
2. After voting, every voter puts their ballot through a slot into a locked box;
3. When the polls close and all ballots are in the box, the box is opened;
4. The scanner is turned on, and connected to a large screen;
5. One by one, a poll worker holds up each ballot and shows it to the public (both sides, if ne
Cautiously optimistic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cautiously optimistic (Score:4, Informative)
All votes will be deleted (Score:2, Funny)
as soon as the voting machine stops working for an hour to update to the new version of the software, initiated by a remote connection.
I trust Microsoft Windows to play games, nothing more. And even that it can't do reliably sometimes.
Who is doing the quality control of this software? (Score:3)
Re:Who is doing the quality control of this softwa (Score:4, Funny)
End Users will beta test it in 2020.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...not as good as it once was...I just cannot get my head around that. It always was a pile of shit, adding more shit only makes more of the pile.
Re: (Score:1)
Some people in the US gov/mil that do innovation?
US government "partners"?
Think tank? NGO? Charity?
For global use?
Will a nation like India want US software doing its election?
Would India like US social media staff working on who in India can comment on election politics?
A US charity involved with US social media in India to modernize the way India does democracy?
US human rights workers in the US have the power to ban Indian social media use that
Democrats don't want it (Score:1)
They like to claim they won the popular vote. That won't happen if votes are counted properly.
Why is this needed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Voting machines should never be connected to any network. There is no need to have them connected. If an update needs done, or the machine needs configured, someone from the company should show up and do the work.
This does not need to be done over the wire.
Apparently the idea is to take what is a simple process, making a mark next to your candidate, and turn it into the most convoluted, time-consuming, digitally vulnerable process possible.
Re: (Score:1)
They voted.
Giving speeches all over the USA on topics that win elections cannot be the reason why an election was won.
Now everyone who could not win a US election has to have a reason for their loss.
Re: (Score:3)
Over the network is better than the alternative - having mass storage devices attached to the machine.
There must be a way to get firmware on to the machine, and to get election results and accounting data off it. Having a USB port or a floppy drive is far worse than having a network port.
The network port is much easier to secure. No incoming connections accepted at all, only outgoing connection allowed is a VPN to a secure server. It's a well tested and proven configuration.
It's also more robust, as votes c
Re: (Score:1)
Voting in Silicon Valley (Score:3)
Why do we need voting machines in the first place? I was a little shocked when I showed up to vote in San Jose and there's literally one voting machine for those with disabilities. For everyone else, you fill out a paper ballot and go on your way. The advantages of said system are simplicity, traceability, and secure. Without a central point to attack, rigging elections would involve rigging every single polling place -- which is hard and you'd probably get caught.
For competent engineers, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a principle of design. And then there's Microsoft.
great until.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
We need tons of security against cyber fraud because Russia....
Yes, because everyone NOT a hyper-partisan idiot knows they fucked with our election. Some of us, we'll call ourselves Americans, prefer to not have a hostile country help choose our president. Obviously those hyper-partisan tribal idiots who don't, don't actually give a fuck about the US, just about their tribe... so they don't mind a hostile country helping "their" choice for president.
.....but we also need zero security against local fraud like requiring IDs.
We've never had zero security for election. And the "local" fraud that would be, supposedly, dampened by requiring s
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because everyone NOT a hyper-partisan idiot knows they fucked with our election.
I took the time to look over your posts. You are definitely hyper-partisan. Not to say that I've never done such things, we all have our views. However you are definitely the pot calling the kettle black if you want to complain about partisan thinking clouding perception.
Some of us, we'll call ourselves Americans,
To be fair conservatives are far more proud of being American as a group regardless of the administration. For the purpose of your argument you need a better label.
... prefer to not have a hostile country help choose our president. Obviously those hyper-partisan tribal idiots who don't, don't actually give a fuck about the US, just about their tribe... so they don't mind a hostile country helping "their" choice for president.
Back to the hyper partisan slur. It's naive to think that other powers
Re: (Score:2)
I get it though, you're one of those "patriots" who don't give a fuck about this country, you just care about yourself. That's the GOP; pa
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't have bothered responding
You're likely right, but I am curious if you are ever going to make a convincing argument or just call names and swear.
... as you're either incapable of understanding the written word, have your head buried too far up your ass to see what's going on around you, or are just another conspiracy theory conservative shill who would prefer to be intentionally stupider than fuck rather than live in reality...... or all of those. Guess which my money is on.
Given that none of those are correct I hope you didn't wager too much.
I get it though, you're one of those "patriots" who don't give a fuck about this country, you just care about yourself. That's the GOP; party before country.
While I do care about myself, I also care about the country. I pay more taxes than the average person and don't break the law. If a country were smart, they would want me as a citizen. I'm a good customer so to speak. I'm also a good neighbor, I help out where I can, and I'm usually friendly. As for GOP before count
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what arguments i make, or how much they're supported by reality; willfully stupid people like you have your heads too far up your ass to ever learn anything that your tribal bullshit doesn't cover up immediately. If you compare what you've posted to what's actually happened these past few years, anyone with any basic common sense would simply say you're a fucking idiot, or a fucking liar. You don't learn by events happen, you certainly won't learn when someone tries to teach you... because you do not want to learn.... you do not want to acknowledge that the shit you say is fucking stupidity or fucking naivety. It is a waste of my time to teach you things you should, if you had basic intelligence, learn through living. You don't. You have your partisan bullshit dogma. I'm not here to hold your hand and teach you. You want to be willfully stupider than shit; i'm here to tell you: congrats, you've succeeded, you're willfully stupider than shit.
So ... no real arguments. Good thing I'm so stupid or you'd unleash your mighty intellect on me and dazzle us all with your brilliance. If only we were worthy. I guess I really do see the little man behind the curtain. It's ok if you post or not. If you want to have the last word that's fine. Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
those are two separate issues, IDs can be used to fight voter fraud, this is for election fraud.
As free of charge as protection from the Mafia (Score:2)
Hum... (Score:1)
ElectionGuard "Tracks" Your Vote? (Score:2)
From the article:
hmmmmm (Score:2)
o rly (Score:2)
Chipotle offers sanitation tools to avoid Shigella and E. Coli
Bwahahahahaha! (Score:2)
The Democrats have a hard enough time accepting LEGITIMATE election results.
That's all we need is a bunch of "convenient" BSODs to muddy things further...
It looks like you're trying to rig an election (Score:2)
It looks like you're trying to rig an election.
Would you like to:
* Allow people who died before WW1 to vote.
* Block voters because their ID looks a bit fake.
* Paint a totally made up number on a bus.
* Subtlety is for cucks, send armed thugs to all opposition-leaning districts now!
Electronic Voting (Score:2)
Relevant XKCD. [xkcd.com]
Seriously, though, it shouldn't be hard to design an "electronic voting system." First, don't have it on a network. Each machine would tally votes cast on it and these would be sent after the fact. We don't need to get real-time election results at the expense of opening security holes. Secondly, each vote would be printed on a piece of paper that the person would look at to confirm their votes were correct and then would put in a bin. Alternatively, have people fill out scantron sheets. The k
Too many "ands". (Score:2)
Come on. Use a dang comma. Either replace the first "and" with a comma, or place one before the second.