MSNBC found the state of voting machine security "alarming" in 2019

[paul1149]

Here's a short piece MSNBC did on voting machine security about 14 months ago. They found the technology "dated" and the situation "alarming". They found the machine makers, including Dominion, secretive and uncooperative in efforts to assess the machines' security levels (so much so that the test machines had to be bought third party). They also found that local election boards did not have the budgets to insure the security of the machines.

I don't watch MSNBC, but it seems to me that this is not the message they and their MSM colleagues are now purveying about voting machine security.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Here's a short piece MSNBC did on voting machine security about 14 months ago. They found the technology "dated" and the situation "alarming". They found the machine makers, including Dominion, secretive and uncooperative in efforts to assess the machines' security levels (so much so that the test machines had to be bought third party). They also found that local election boards did not have the budgets to insure the security of the machines.

I don't watch MSNBC, but it seems to me that this is not the message they and their MSM colleagues are now purveying about voting machine security.

They seem to have done a 180 considering their guy seems to be ahead by hook or by crook.

 

[NerdGirl]

Here's a short piece MSNBC did on voting machine security about 14 months ago. They found the technology "dated" and the situation "alarming". They found the machine makers, including Dominion, secretive and uncooperative in efforts to assess the machines' security levels (so much so that the test machines had to be bought third party). They also found that local election boards did not have the budgets to insure the security of the machines.

I don't watch MSNBC, but it seems to me that this is not the message they and their MSM colleagues are now purveying about voting machine security.

These stories are numerous. An 11 year old girl was able to hack into a mock-up voting machine. Another hacker was able to break into a widely-used model of voting machine in less than 2 minutes. I used to think electronic was more secure, but I've been proven wrong there. Are paper ballots anymore secure? Only if mail-in voting is done away with entirely and fair, unpaid-for, volunteer oversight is permitted throughout the entire process.

 

[Aaron_Bethlhm]

These stories are numerous. An 11 year old girl was able to hack into a mock-up voting machine. Another hacker was able to break into a widely-used model of voting machine in less than 2 minutes. I used to think electronic was more secure, but I've been proven wrong there. Are paper ballots anymore secure? Only if mail-in voting is done away with entirely and fair, unpaid-for, volunteer oversight is permitted throughout the entire process.

? does it matter if paper or electronic itself is secure, if the rulers/ controllers/ users / in control of or even with access to the system are not trustworthy ?

 

[chevyontheriver]

These stories are numerous. An 11 year old girl was able to hack into a mock-up voting machine. Another hacker was able to break into a widely-used model of voting machine in less than 2 minutes. I used to think electronic was more secure, but I've been proven wrong there. Are paper ballots anymore secure? Only if mail-in voting is done away with entirely and fair, unpaid-for, volunteer oversight is permitted throughout the entire process.

In the past I worked as an election judge for my local precinct. Paper ballots read by a machine that was not on-line but the votes were sent in via telephone line from a modem inside the machine. And the machine printed a ballot summary. And we hand counted the paper ballots to confirm the count. It always squared, and we could see our count listed in the results from the Secretary of State in a few short hours or days. No issue.

So I moved. I volunteered at my new location. Ballots are taken to a remote location for counting. We never see the count until it is reported in the county results. We do know how many people voted in our precinct. But we don't even count the ballots as a check. Maybe someone does that at the remote location. I was always satisfied that my old precinct got it exactly right. In the new precinct I'm not sure. I have zero evidence of fraud. But I have always liked the ability to tally it up for myself and see that number that multiple people of different parties tallied and agreed upon being reported to the state and published by the state.

 

[BobRyan]

Here's a short piece MSNBC did on voting machine security about 14 months ago. They found the technology "dated" and the situation "alarming". They found the machine makers, including Dominion, secretive and uncooperative in efforts to assess the machines' security levels (so much so that the test machines had to be bought third party). They also found that local election boards did not have the budgets to insure the security of the machines.

I don't watch MSNBC, but it seems to me that this is not the message they and their MSM colleagues are now purveying about voting machine security.

whoa - nice find!

thanks for posting that!

 

[paul1149]

They seem to have done a 180 considering their guy seems to be ahead by hook or by crook.

That would be what Occam would say about it. Hard to refute it too.

These stories are numerous. An 11 year old girl was able to hack into a mock-up voting machine. Another hacker was able to break into a widely-used model of voting machine in less than 2 minutes. I used to think electronic was more secure, but I've been proven wrong there. Are paper ballots anymore secure? Only if mail-in voting is done away with entirely and fair, unpaid-for, volunteer oversight is permitted throughout the entire process.

I once had a talk with my endodontist about his clinging to using hard copy of his records, when electronics made everything so fast and easy. He said electronics can be altered, it's much harder to change a hard photo, especially since he retains the original. He had lawyers and lawsuits in mind. I had to concede he was absolutely right. Sometimes newer and flashier is not better.

Ballots are taken to a remote location for counting. We never see the count until it is reported in the county results. We do know how many people voted in our precinct. But we don't even count the ballots as a check. Maybe someone does that at the remote location.

Common sense says there has to be a continuous chain of bipartisan oversight and responsibility. And now we're told that the machines were designed to make Hugo Chavez happy, in that they have the ability to change, delete, or print ballots, that algorithms such as for stringency of signature verification are flexible, and that our American votes are sent via Internet over to Germany to be tallied. This is a formula for gross error and corruption, so much so that it's hard to believe it's unintentional.

 

[hedrick]

I'm an IT manager. I think most knowledgeable IT staff are concerned about the security of election systems. Most of us want paper records that can be audited. Some current machines produce paper, but it's got coded marks that only a machine can read. That's not what I'm looking for.

However that doesn't mean that the current election was a result of voting machine failure. There's no evidence of that.

 

[tulc]

...I'm curious: who was President when all these concerns were being raised? So who would be responsible for making sure the elections were safe and secure?
tulc(checks notes...well....this is awkward...)

 

[Redwingfan9]

In the past I worked as an election judge for my local precinct. Paper ballots read by a machine that was not on-line but the votes were sent in via telephone line from a modem inside the machine. And the machine printed a ballot summary. And we hand counted the paper ballots to confirm the count. It always squared, and we could see our count listed in the results from the Secretary of State in a few short hours or days. No issue.

So I moved. I volunteered at my new location. Ballots are taken to a remote location for counting. We never see the count until it is reported in the county results. We do know how many people voted in our precinct. But we don't even count the ballots as a check. Maybe someone does that at the remote location. I was always satisfied that my old precinct got it exactly right. In the new precinct I'm not sure. I have zero evidence of fraud. But I have always liked the ability to tally it up for myself and see that number that multiple people of different parties tallied and agreed upon being reported to the state and published by the state.

Back in 2006 I was a Republican poll watcher. Because I am an attorney, they gave me around 15 precincts to cover. In theory I was overseeing the GOP poll watcher who was supoosed to be at each precinct. In theory, if anyone had a problem they could call me to take care of it or file suit. In any event, our precincts worked like your first one. The number of ballots voted corresponded to the number of people who had been in. If there was any discrepancy, it was easily explained. (Usually it was a spoiled ballot) There was no doubt the vote totals were accurate. Whether everyone voting was doing so legally was another matter.