Cuz if ANYBODY's going to hack those caucuses, it's gonna be /Republicans,/
God damn it! (Doesn't anyone respect /tradition/ any more??)
MCM
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8997 )
By *Brad Friedman <http://www.bradblog.com/?author=3>* on 12/19/2011 2:10pm
GOP Fears Iowa Caucus May be Hacked Following Purported Video Threat by
'Anonymous' <http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8997>
Last minute 'security by obscurity' defense unlikely to ensure integrity
of results...
Well, whaddaya know? /Suddenly/, after all these years of warnings from
The BRAD BLOG <http://www.BradBlog.com/> that electronic voting systems
are exceedingly vulnerable to manipulation by insider election officials
as well as outside hackers from almost anywhere, such as China or Iran
or even al Qaeda, the GOP is now worried about electronic vote hacking
in their Iowa Caucuses on January 3rd.
"Their fear", as AP reports today
<http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h1zrDLqaaP47wOEyVFCLVcGhBSCw?docId=4c76caddc3bf44cb94ab76f21d3c91ab>,
is triggered by little more than a two-minute video posted on the
Internet in early November, purportedly created by the "hacktivist"
collective known as Anonymous, calling on members, in a trademark
computer-generated voice, to "peacefully shut down the
first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses." [/The complete video is posted at
the end of this article./]
Progressive radio and television host Thom Hartmann covered the AP story
on his radio show this morning, suggesting that while the GOP may have
concerns about Anonymous shutting down or manipulating the results of
the Iowa caucuses, they may also attempt to use the opportunity of
heightened security to ensure that Republican candidate Ron Paul is
/not/ named the winner. A poll released last night by Public Policy
Polling (PPP)
<http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html> shows
Paul vaulting into the lead in Iowa, as previous front-runner Newt
Gingrich's numbers have collapsed in the Hawkeye State. Paul now leads
over Romney in Iowa, according to PPP's poll, with 23%, followed by
Romney at 20% and Gingrich at 14%.
[/NOTE: I will be appearing on Hartmann's TV program, /The Big Picture
with Thom Hartmann/ <http://www.thomhartmann.com/tv>, this evening to
discuss this story./]
According to AP's report, the GOP is now concerned about "an Iowa caucus
marred by hackers who corrupt the database used to gather votes and
crash the website used to inform the public about results that can shape
the campaign for the White House."
They go on to report that "Experts in computer security said such
concerns are valid."
Unfortunately, however, it appears as though the steps the GOP are
planning to take to try and counter the threat will do little ensure the
public can trust the results that the party eventually reports to the
public. (In the Iowa Caucuses, party officials, rather than state
election officials, tally and report results to the media and public.)
If Republicans in Iowa, or anywhere else for that matter, truly fear the
manipulation of results, there is only one way to help make such
manipulation as difficult as possible. Similarly, if supporters of Ron
Paul are concerned about same --- and they have every good reason to be,
particularly considering the well-documented history of vote
manipulation by supporters of Mitt Romney in the past --- they ought to
be calling for the very same solution to help ensure the integrity of
results in Iowa (and, frankly, everywhere else) in 2012...
AP's story quotes long-time University of Iowa computer science
professor and e-voting expert, Dr. Douglas Jones, who we have quoted
many times ourselves over the years here at The BRAD BLOG
<http://www.BradBlog.com/>, as he has long been warning about the threat
of e-vote manipulation. He confirms, once again, to AP that such a
threat is indeed quite real.
"It's very clear the data consolidation and data gathering from the
caucuses, which determines the headlines the next morning, who might
withdraw or resign from the process, all of that is fragile," Jones told AP.
Wes Eno, a member of the Iowa GOP's central committee and political
director for candidate Michele Bachmann's state campaign says, "With the
eyes of the media on the state, the last thing we want to do is have a
situation where there is trouble with the reporting system...We don't
want that to be the story."
In response to the concerns, the party is said to have "authorized
additional security measures aimed at ensuring hackers are unable to
delay the release of caucus results."
What those "additional security measures" are, however, are not
detailed. The Iowa GOP official in charge of coordinating caucuses, Ryan
Gough, "declined to comment on specifics of the new security efforts so
as not to give away 'the game plan' to hackers," says AP.
Good luck with that whole "security by obscurity" thing, fellas. There
is really only one way --- and it needn't be a secret --- to help assure
that results cannot easily be manipulated by either Anonymous /or/ by
GOP officials themselves.
While most GOP Caucuses in Iowa employ secret ballots, as cast on paper,
some, in the past, have used a show of hands. The results in both cases
are then sent to state GOP headquarters, by phone or by computer, where
they are then tallied by a computer database and finally announced to
the media.
The GOP is calling on all caucuses to use paper ballots this year so
that "the ballots would provide a backup in the event of any later
confusion about the results." But those paper ballots only go so far
towards ensuring integrity, the central tabulating database is the real
vulnerability in the system.
In order to ensure those paper votes are tabulated correctly across the
state, and not manipulated by /anyone/, they must be counted publicly
/at/ the caucus locations, with results announced and posted at the time
to caucus goers and the public at large at all 1,800 caucus locations,
/before/ those results are then sent to the central tabulation center.
The hand-counted paper ballot system, with decentralized results posted
at the "precincts", is the only way to try and protect from manipulation
of the results --- from either insiders /or/ outsiders --- in a way that
the public /can know/ the results have not been manipulated.
For the more technical minded, Jones explains, in the AP article, how
Anonymous --- or anybody else --- could target the results in Iowa ---
or anywhere else...
Jones said officials are likely working to prevent two of Anonymous'
favorite tools. The first sends thousands of requests to a website
server, rendering the site inaccessible. The second is known as a "SQL
injection" and could be used to change the content of a computer
database, including one used to record vote totals.
When elections officials in Washington D.C. tested an online voting
system last year, University of Michigan researchers were able to use an
SQL injection to quickly invade the system and make it play the
Wolverine fight song every time someone voted, he said.
"These SQL vulnerabilities are notorious, widely known and yet it's a
mistake people keep making," Jones said. "It is one of the first things
that you try these days."
The BRAD BLOG <http://www.BradBlog.com/> reported extensively in 2010 on
the complete takeover of the D.C. election
<http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8109> cited above, by "white hat hackers"
from the University of Michigan and how, once they were inside the
election system and changing all of the recorded votes, they also
noticed that computers from both Iran and China were inside the system
as well <http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8118>.
As to concerns about manipulation by more "friendly" forces, supporters
of Ron Paul, no doubt, recall the Tampa Straw Poll in 2010 where
supporters of Mitt Romney were videotaped voting again and again and
again <http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5407>, "stuffing" the 100%
unverifiable electronic touch-screen voting systems used there. When
some complained about the vote manipulation, they reportedly received
threats from the local Republican Party's organizer of the straw poll.
And yet, despite all of the well-founded fears, so far only the GOP in
Iowa has, at least partially, woken up to the concerns.
AP's story reports that officials in the upcoming primary states of New
Hampshire (where they use paper ballots, but tabulate the majority of
them only by Diebold computers serviced and programmed by a company with
a criminal background <http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5538>) and in South
Carolina (where they use the same 100% unverifiable ES&S touch-screen
systems that inexplicably "elected"
<http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=8954> the completely unknown and
largely illiterate Alvin Greene as the state's 2010 Democratic nominee
for the U.S. Senate) have absolutely no worries...
Among the early voting states, the hacking concerns have most spooked
officials in Iowa. In New Hampshire, whose primary is one week after the
Iowa caucuses, officials rely on a mostly manual process that uses paper
and is less vulnerable to an attack on computer systems, said Assistant
Secretary of State Anthony Stevens. In South Carolina, which follows 11
days later, State Election Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire said he
was not aware of any concerns.
Oh, and there's one other concern that the GOP /doesn't/ seem to have in
Iowa. To our knowledge (and we'd love to be told otherwise), there is no
requirement for state-issued Photo IDs at the Iowa Caucus sites. That,
despite years of Republican claims that "voter fraud" is prevalent at
the polling place (it isn't, as dozens of studies have shown.) The lack
of Photo ID requirement by the state GOP at caucuses is likely because
they know quite well that the result would be a /lot/ of their own
elderly voters, who no longer have a drivers license, would be
disenfranchised at the caucuses on January 3.
Good luck, Republicans!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's "News
From Underground" newsgroup. If you'd like to donate to News From Underground,
please visit http://markcrispinmiller.com/donate - we appreciate your ongoing support.
Ways to unsubscribe, 1) send a blank email to [email protected]. PLEASE NOTE: you must unsubscribe using the SAME email with which you subscribed; 2) go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page.
For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
