Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Clear Ballot's Mission: Fast Audits Of Election Results
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
moarsauce123
50%
50%
moarsauce123,
User Rank: Ninja
10/12/2012 | 11:52:41 AM
re: Clear Ballot's Mission: Fast Audits Of Election Results
I think it is better to wait a day for results and get them right by counting all ballots rather than expect results within an hour and make every election for every office a matter of the courts. I found that a paper ballot and a pen are the way to go. Throw all this expensive digital stuff on the same scrap heap like lever machines and other interesting gadgetry from centuries past. Then collect all ballots in sealed ballot boxes, then have the count be open to the public. That way everyone can observe how many ballots are submitted and how many get counted and how many get tossed and especially why. Many democracies do exactly that for a long time with excellent results. Is it really so important to some to reserve the right to tweak the results just so that they come out on top? Apparently so, follow the flow of money between the few companies that make electronic voting machines and the ones who gain most of skewed results.
FrankHenry
50%
50%
FrankHenry,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/10/2012 | 9:14:48 PM
re: Clear Ballot's Mission: Fast Audits Of Election Results
Mathew,

Your article of how software can glean the voter's intent is/may be a move in the right direction when and where we use machines to count the votes. And this improvement in software should be encouraged if is cost effective and brings our machine count processes in all 50 states back to 100% confidence level, so that the voter's "Full Voting Rights" is the prime driver in any election process/law changes we make.

In your article it is indicated: "...50% of U.S. voters don't think elections are fair to voters..."

It is my (and others) sense that the election process is not fair (where machines are used).

This observation is not solely at machine count but also at hand count. The fact is that most count processes put the citizen/voters last or out of the picture all together. The laws and process ignore the voter's "Full Voting Rights". You have cited some of the defects in your article.

Thanks and kepp up your good works,

Frank Henry
Cottonwood, Arizona
(Election Integrity Observer)
Tel: 928-649-0249
e-mail: f[email protected]


Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment:   It's a PEN test of our cloud security.
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-7245
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
Incorrect username validation in the registration processes of CTFd through 2.2.2 allows a remote attacker to take over an arbitrary account after initiating a password reset. This is related to register() and reset_password() in auth.py. To exploit the vulnerability, one must register with a userna...
CVE-2019-14885
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
A flaw was found in the JBoss EAP Vault system in all versions before 7.2.6.GA. Confidential information of the system property's security attribute value is revealed in the JBoss EAP log file when executing a JBoss CLI 'reload' command. This flaw can lead to the exposure of confidential information...
CVE-2019-17570
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
An untrusted deserialization was found in the org.apache.xmlrpc.parser.XmlRpcResponseParser:addResult method of Apache XML-RPC (aka ws-xmlrpc) library. A malicious XML-RPC server could target a XML-RPC client causing it to execute arbitrary code. Apache XML-RPC is no longer maintained and this issue...
CVE-2020-6007
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
Philips Hue Bridge model 2.X prior to and including version 1935144020 contains a Heap-based Buffer Overflow when handling a long ZCL string during the commissioning phase, resulting in a remote code execution.
CVE-2012-4606
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
Citrix XenServer 4.1, 6.0, 5.6 SP2, 5.6 Feature Pack 1, 5.6 Common Criteria, 5.6, 5.5, 5.0, and 5.0 Update 3 contains a Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability which could allow local users with access to a guest operating system to gain elevated privileges.