| |
 | what do you think of computerized voting?
Created: Apr 9, 08 | 3 Entries | 81 Views |  |
|
|
| |
| |  | I think it's definitly stepping out onto sketchy ground. I'm not sure how they do it, but I'm fairly sure that they are connected to some sort of network (whether it's the internet or such) and that leaves it open to even more tampering.
Also, the smallest of errors can make huge errors.
All in all, I believe we should still use good old fashioned paper.
by nuitdevotremort | Posted: Jun 6, 08 | | |
| | |  | All voting should take place under military or police supervision. It should be done with picture ID and fingerprints. I have no problem submitting my fingerprints to a national database registry. I served as homeland security coordinator in a Texas border county for two years. I have been through the security background checks. Seems to me that it would make things a little more secure. In reality there will be no easy fix in the near future. If a human can program a computer to be secure, then their will always be someone else who's smarter who can circumvents all the known precautionary safety mechanisms.
by RoyA | Posted: Apr 9, 08 | | |
| | |  | I think it's another way to scam the voters, really. One of my cousins spent years in the hacking underworld, and I still go to him for security questions. Whenever I ask him how secure such-and-such is, his answer is always, "If someone wants to break in bad enough, they will." On another note, I will try to find the details again... The Diebold voting machines were on trial a couple years ago in congress, and there was a demonstration of how a person could "rig" the outcome to flip around from the actual vote (40% for A / 60% for B would become 40% for B / 60% for A). Yes, Diebold patched it - but how many more vulnerabilities are out there?
by Havenbrux | Posted: Apr 9, 08 | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
