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: [email protected]


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...