Report: ES&S Voting Machines Can Be Maliciously Calibrated to Favor Specific Candidates

[Snazzy]

Report: ES&S Voting Machines Can Be Maliciously Calibrated to Favor Specific Candidates
By Kim Zetter November 03, 2008 | 3:51:06



Touchscreen voting machines at the center of recent vote-flipping reports can be easily and maliciously recalibrated in the field to favor one candidate in a race, according to a report prepared by computer scientists for the state of Ohio.

At issue are touchscreen machines manufactured by ES&S, 97,000 of which are in use in 20 states, including counties in the crucial swing states of Ohio and Colorado. The process for calibrating the touchscreens allows poll workers or someone else to manipulate specific regions of the screen, so that a touch in one region is registered in another. Someone attempting to rig an election could thus arrange for votes for one candidate to be mapped to the opponent.

"If one candidate has a check box in one place and a different candidate has it in a different place, you can set it up so that if you press on one candidate it gets recorded for another candidate," said Matt Blaze, a computer scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who led one of three teams that co-wrote the report (.pdf) last year. "But if you press on the other candidate, it gets recorded correctly for that candidate. You can make it work perfectly normally in most of the screen, but have it behave the way you want in small parts of it."

The report illustrates a shocking vulnerability in a charged race that's already seen voter-fraud allegations on both sides, and an ugly spate of voter suppression tactics targeting Democratic voters in several states. The behavior described is also eerily similar to problems already observed in early voting on ES&S machines and during a 2006 race in Sarasota, Florida.

...

Blaze said the calibration function on the ES&S machine isn't password-protected, making it easy for a poll worker -- or even a voter -- to access the calibration menu in the middle of an election using a PEB device (Personalized Electronic Ballot), which election officials insert in a port on the face of the machine. A PEB might be stolen or purchased online, or an intruder can simulate a PEB by using a Palm Pilot or other handheld device with an infrared port.

With no more than a minute's access to a voting machine, someone could recalibrate the screen, and to observers the action would be indistinguishable from the normal behavior of a voter in front of a machine or of a poll worker starting up a machine in the morning, said Blaze, who discusses the issue on his blog.

....

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/report-ess-voti.html

[amdezurik]

1. working as designed...

[Snazzy]

2. Michigan Election Official Reveals ES&S Machines Failed to Tally Votes Consistently

Michigan Election Official Reveals ES&S Machines Failed to Tally Votes Consistently

By Kim Zetter November 03, 2008 | 6:47:24

The top election official in Oakland County, Michigan, revealed in a letter recently sent to federal officials that her county recently had accuracy problems with optical-scan machines made by Election Systems & Software.

The problems occurred when officials were testing the machines during logic and accuracy tests in the run-up to this year's general election.

Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson disclosed in a letter submitted October 24 (.pdf) to the federal Election Assistance Commission, that ES&S M-100 optical-scan machines that the county has been using for three years yielded different results during recent tests each time officials ran the same ballots through the machine.

Johnson wrote in her letter, "While problems with performance and design with the M-100s have been documented, this is the first time I have ever questioned the integrity of these machines."

Johnson, who could not be reached for comment, said that "four of our communities or eight percent" had reported inconsistent vote totals during the logic and accuracy tests with the ES&S machines. She also said that conflicting vote totals had surfaced in other areas of Michigan as well, though she didn't elaborate on this in her letter.

"The same ballots, run through the same machines, yielded different results each time," she wrote, adding "This begs the question -- on Election Day, will the record number of ballots going through the remaining tabulators leave even more build-up on the sensors, affecting machines that tested just fine initially? Cold this additional build-up on voting tabulators that have not had any preventative maintenance skew vote totals? My understanding is that the problem could occur and election workers would have no inkling that ballots are being misread."

....


http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/

[RC]

5. What build up? On what sensors? Led's and photo eyes do not touch anything.

So therefore there can be no build up. Why do you think they are called Optical-scanners.

This is another straw-man like "Recalibrating" touch screen voting machines. Both are bullshit.

[amdezurik]

10. only partially true

the sensors themselves may or may not "touch" anything, but the registration mechanism and the window the sensor peeks through DOES touch the paper as it goes through. And ink can rub off (tiny tiny flakes but they can build up). The issue is that there should be an alarm that tells you this is happening and lets you clean it and keep using it

[RC]

12. Now why would anything need to touch the paper to read it?

That sounds a like a poor design to me. The sensor needs to be close, yes. But there is no reason it has to be close enough for any ink to foul it, let alone touching at any time.

[amdezurik]

13. it needs to be held flat and the sensor and it's cover are very very close,

I maintain printers/copier/fax machines and have seen how "flaky" even plain paper is. add ink in globs (at that level) in various states of dryness and yes stuff can happen.

[renate]

3. plenty of time to fix this before the election tomorrow!

:eyes:

There just aren't words for how pathetic it is that elections in the United States of America aren't 100% accurate. The comparison everybody draws between ATMs and voting machines is so familiar it's a cliche, but it's true, too.

[bemildred]

4. Computers are a dumb answer to the question "how should we vote?"

The web might be good, but they need to work on it. And in any case, the US ruling elites need to be instructed again on the importance of EVERY vote being counted accurately, no matter how long it takes to do it right. The legitimacy of our political system depends on it.

[truedelphi]

8. I'm with you bemildred.

If everyfirst grader gets handed some paper and pencils, so should every voter.

[natrat]

6. obviously part of the grand scam, notice democrats have done nothing to correct this

[rhett o rick]

7. Why the f^&%%$ are we still using these machines??? nm

[smoogatz]

9. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Hundreds of instances of reported vote-flipping (all from Democrats to Republicans) over two elections and it turns out the machines can actually be made to DO that? Whoa. 'magine dat.

[glitch]

11. OMG I am actually agreeing with the "Get a brain Morans" guy.

Different context and target of course.