2012年11月8日木曜日

米大統領選 投票機トラブル

米大統領選で投票機にトラブルがあったようだ。
NJ州
・改ざんを防ぐため、電子メールで投票した者には、紙による投票も
 郵送することを要請。
・少なくともふたつの郡で、投票フォームの送受信に使われた電子メール
 サーバが、投票によって通信量が重くなったために処理が滞ったり、
 クラッシュ。
・451,000人の登録有権者を抱えるエセックス郡、ひとりの職員が、
 自分のHotmailの電子メールアドレスに投票フォームの請求を送信する
 よう有権者に勧めた。
・セキュリティ・アナリストは、「アカウントのパスワードを忘れたとき
 の質問」として母親の結婚前の姓を選び、安全とは思えない。
・多くの投票所には投票用紙が届いていないし、時間になっても開所でき
 ないところが多い。

選挙保護連合(Election Protection Network)
・米国国内における選挙の問題監視機関。
・法律上の権利や市民権を擁護するための米国各地の150に上る団体から
 成る連合で、OH州やFL州など、選挙に関する問題の多い地域に、選挙に
 関する法律の専門家を派遣すると同時に、投票での疑問に答える無料の
 電話相談サーバを立ち上げて、問題に関する報告を収集。
・6日午前9時(太平洋時間)の段階で30,000件の電話を受け付けた。
・投票者からの不満
 電子投票機が壊れていて使えなかった。
  キャリブレーションに問題があり、投票できないケース。

期日前投票での問題
・タッチパネル式の電子投票装置の誤作動
 「画面でロムニー氏を選んだのに、何回やってもオバマ大統領に
  変わった」。
 共和党によると、OH州やCO州等でも同様の誤作動が報告がある。

別報道では、オバマを選んでも、ロムニーが選択された動画があった。
投票機のソフトウェアを時間をかけて書換えずとも、短時間に変更
可能で、整備とすれば、怪しまれないでタッチパネルの再調整を行い
工作できたのかもしれない。

以前から問題視されていた電子式投票機。
統一ロシアの投票用紙の水増しと同様な行為を装置の再調整だけで
できることが確認された。
一部の投票機の通信データは、暗号化されておらず、確認も変更も
可能で、ROMに至っては半田付けされておらず取外し可能とのこと。
投票機を使った投票は、利便性と安全性から、信頼性を確保すること
を考えると難しい。行政では、合理性も含まれ、さらに複雑になる。

やっとAbbyも泣かなくすみそうだ。

プーチン逃げ切りか
Abigael Evans Prove This Message


President Barack Obama Victory Speech 2012: Election Remarks From Chicago Illinois


Romney's Loses the 2012 Election: Romney's Complete Concession Speech


---メール投票やタッチスクリーン投票でトラブル:米大統領選---
TEXT BY KIM ZETTER TRANSLATION BY ガリレオ -平井眞弓
2012年11月7日
http://wired.jp/2012/11/07/new-jersey-email-fai/

 ハリケーンの被害が激しいニュージャージー州では、電子メールとファックスによる大統領選挙投票を認めたが、問題が多発している。一方、「投票先がロムニーに固定されたタッチスクリーン投票機」も動画報告されている。
ハリケーン「サンディ」によって多くの有権者が家や地域からの退去を余儀なくされ、停電や洪水のために投票所を移動または閉鎖しなければならなくなったニュージャージー州では、電子メールとファックスによる大統領選挙の投票を認めることを決定した(改ざんを防ぐため、電子メールで投票した者には、紙による投票も郵送することを要請している)。
 しかし、この解決策は完全に失敗した。6日(米国時間)に少なくともふたつの郡で、投票フォームの送受信に使われた電子メールサーヴァーが、投票によって通信量が重くなったために処理が滞ったり、クラッシュしたのだ。
 451,000人の登録有権者を抱えるエセックス郡では、少なくともひとりの職員が、自分のHotmailの電子メールアドレスに投票フォームの請求を送信するよう有権者に勧めることによって、この問題を解決しようと決断した。
 Facebookの「West Orange, NJ」ページの投稿には、「Per Essex County Clerk Christopher J. Durkin: Displaced voters can email a request for a ballot at …(エセックス郡職員クリストファー・J・ダーキンより:退去した有権者は、投票用紙をhotmail.com宛の電子メールで請求できる)」とある。 これは安全なオプションとは言いがたい。セキュリティ・アナリストのアシュカン・ソルターニが指摘するところでは、ダーキン氏は「アカウントのパスワードを忘れたときの質問」として母親の結婚前の姓を選んでいるようだ。
 ニュージャージー州の多くの投票所には投票用紙が届いていないし、時間になっても開所できないところが多いと報道されている。
 米国国内における選挙の問題は、すべて選挙保護連合(Election Protection Network)が監視している。これは、法律上の権利や市民権を擁護するための米国各地の150に上る団体から成る連合で、オハイオ州やフロリダ州など、選挙に関する問題の多い地域に、選挙に関する法律の専門家を派遣すると同時に、投票での疑問に答える無料の電話相談サーヴィスを立ち上げて、問題に関する報告を収集している。
 この無料番号は、6日午前9時(太平洋時間)の段階で30,000件の電話を受け付けた。
 これまでに報告された投票者からの不満には、電子投票機が壊れていて使えなかった(そのため非常に長い行列ができた)ことのほか、おそらくは投票機のキャリブレーションに問題があり、投票したい人に投票できないケースが報告されている。タッチスクリーン式の投票機で体験したことを動画で報告している者もいる。
※2004年の大統領選挙では、タッチスクリーン式の電子投票機でトラブルが生じ、統計的に予測されるよりもはるかにブッシュ票が多く、票数の相違は最大で26万票に達しうるという報告も発表された


2012 Voting Machines Altering Votes


---電子投票、誤作動・不正操作に懸念…米大統領選---
2012年11月5日09時09分  読売新聞
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/world/news/20121105-OYT1T00203.htm

 【ワシントン=中島達雄】6日投開票の米大統領選を前に、投票装置のトラブルに対する懸念が高まっている。
 期日前投票で、タッチパネル式の電子投票装置の誤作動が相次いだほか、ソフトウエアの書き換えによる不正操作を心配する専門家もいる。
 「画面でロムニー氏を選んだのに、何回やってもオバマ大統領に変わった」。先月23日、ノースカロライナ州ギルフォード郡で起きた投票装置の誤作動を、地元テレビ局が報じた。
 同郡の投票装置は、銀行の現金自動預け払い機(ATM)のようなタッチパネル式。共和党によると、オハイオ州やコロラド州などでも同様の誤作動が報告されており、同党は1日、六つの州で全投票装置の再点検を求めた。
 米国の主な投票方式は、電子投票とマークシートの2種類で、今年の登録有権者約1億8000万人の約3分の1が電子投票方式を使う。
 電子投票装置には、不正操作の懸念も出ている。ミシガン大学の情報技術(IT)専門家J・アレックス・ハルダーマン准教授は「ソフトウエアをいじり、得票数を変えることも難しくない」と指摘する。


---Hacking voting machines: Easier than ever imagined---
Get short URL
Published: 06 November, 2012, 21:30
http://rt.com/usa/news/voting-machine-election-hack-088/

Millions of Americans are already waiting for hours outside of polling places to vote for the next president of the United States. All of that might not matter though, as some security pros say the entire election can be rigged all too easily.

In one example, it wouldn’t take much more than ten dollars’ worth of parts from any RadioShack store to steal and manipulate votes. It’s called a man-in-the-middle attack and the computer program that logs the results on electronic voting machines isn’t even compromised.

“It’s a classic attack on security devices,” Roger Johnston tells Popular Science. “You implant a microprocessor or some other electronic device into the voting machine, and that lets you control the voting and turn cheating on and off. We’re basically interfering with transmitting the voter’s intent.”

According to the magazine, anyone from a high-school student to an octogenarian could corrupt the voting process. Johnston is the head of the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory and has done it himself, even on camera. It wouldn’t be hard for others, he says, and some fear that that could easily be the case on Election Day. And with many prediction polls estimating a close contest between President Barack Obama and Republican Party challenger Mitt Romney this year, it wouldn’t take much to render the entire contest corrupted.

On the website for Argonne, Johnston says Americans believe too often that election officials assume - incorrectly - that it takes a computer genius capable of a nation-state cyberassault or a frazzled, Hollywood-designed hacker to turn an electronic voting machine on its head. And while that route is once that can be taken too, it isn’t the only way to ruin an election.

Insider threats from election officials or anyone with access to a voting machine could easily alter contests, and monitors aren’t necessarily on the look-out for that kind of unauthorized access.

“And a lot of our election judges are little old ladies who are retired, and God bless them, they’re what makes the elections work, but they’re not necessarily a fabulous workforce for detecting subtle security attacks,” Johnston tells Popular Science. In the example of hijacking the computer transmission with a few bucks’ worth of electronics, it wouldn’t require much more than walking into a polling place and entering a booth with the right knowhow and intent, and most machines can be access without even requiring a two-dollar lockpick and a tiny tension bar. “No one signs for the machines when they show up. No one’s responsible for watching them. Seals on them aren’t much different from the anti-tamper packaging found on food and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals. Think about tampering with a food or drug product: You think that’s challenging?” he asks.

Johnston has recorded himself demonstrating how a logic analyzer, an Allen wrench and a screwdriver is all it takes to change votes to register for one candidate instead of another by using a man-in-the-middle attack. Although it hasn’t been verified yet, a video posted to YouTube early on November 6 from an account registered to “Centralpavote” shows what is reported to be a similar machine showing signs typical of exactly that kind of abuse -not in a test setting, though, but only hours before the polls close for real video

This Election Day, the touchscreen Diebold Accuvote-TSX will be used by more than 26 million voters in 20 states, while the push-button Sequoia AVC machine will be deployed to four states for use by almost 9 million voters. Johnston says purchasing a $10 logic analyzer from RadioShack is easily enough to snoop and see who any voter intends on electing, and from there those digital transmissions can be hijacked and told to mean something else. For experts, though, there are even other ways to wreak havoc on the polls.

Johnston says the machines don’t transmit data with encryption, so anyone with a basic understanding of digital communications can figure out how a user votes if they’ve accessed the machine with one of those logic analyzers. Sequoia - the company responsible for making a good share of America’s electronic voting machines - do encrypt the results of each vote, though. Well, kind of.

Andrew W. Appel of Princeton, NY bought a few used AVC Advantage voting machine made by Sequoia off an online auction site for only $82 just a couple of years ago. Once they arrived, he accessed the machine’s innards and says it was easy to start to see how things worked.

“I was surprised at how simple it was for me to access the ROM memory chips containing the firmware that controls the vote-counting,” Appel writes on his personal website. Despite claims from Sequoia that the machine wasn’t easily hackable, Appel says, “The AVC Advantage can be easily manipulated to throw an election because the chips which control the vote-counting are not soldered on to the circuit board of the DRE. This means the vote-counting firmware can be removed and replace with fraudulent firmware.”

In another study carried out at The University of Iowa in 2003, Douglas W Jones from the school’s Department of Computer Science found that any voting machine purchased second-hand - like even those Diebold machines deployed across a good chunk of America - can also be hacked with ease.

“It appeared that the security keys for the encryption used by the I-mark software were hard-coded into the voting application,” he found when examining a Diebold Accuvote TS. “As things stood, their system relied on security through obscurity, so they must take measures to assure that their code remains obscure and that no copy of their code ever leaks out into public. I told them that the moment one of their machines goes to the landfill or is otherwise disposed of, someone might extract their encryption key and all of their security claims would become meaningless.”

According to Jones, even claims made by voting machine companies that their devices are secure are just that - mere accusations hard for the layperson to verify without first learning a few things about electronics, encryption or just how to disassemble the front panel from an electronic voting machine. Viruses can also be sent to machines, malwares can corrupt code and nothing sure by pristine, 100 percent out-of-the-box sterility can assure voters that they aren’t casting ballots on a tampered machine.

“We've all used ATMs, and most everyone (except my quasi-Luddite self) has something such as an iPod. Now, have you ever, anytime, anywhere, had one of these electronic devices switch data input on you?” asks Selwyn Duke of American Thinking in a recent article. “So how is it that in our high-tech universe of flawlessly functioning electronic gadgets, voting machines are the only ones prone to human-like ‘error’? If there's an explanation other than human meddling, again, I'd truly like to hear it.”

Given the post-election discussion on fraud, intimidation, chads and corrupted computerized tally machines that have come with seemingly every political contest in recent years, explanations - valid or not - are expected to be rampant following this week’s vote. If history is any indication, though, don’t expect these things to work themselves out before 2016.


---How secure is the U.S. voting system?---
By Linda Rosencrance, TechNewsDailyTue, Nov 06 2012 at 10:13 AM EST
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/how-secure-is-the-us-voting-system

Computer voting machines that can be hacked and a lack of paper trail mean that some votes could potentially be difficult to verify.

 Most American voters can recall the drawn-out election recount of the 2000 presidential election, when the disputed outcome of Florida's electoral tally resulted in a legal and procedural battle that was not concluded until mid-December.

Since then, according to a research reportreleased last month by Caltech and MIT, the integrity and accuracy of voting systems in the United States have greatly improved.

However, experts think there could still be some problems Nov. 6. Even worse, some lost or misattributed votes could go completely undetected.

"A majority of states have implemented some kind of paper-audit record or paper ballot, which means there's some way, at least, to catch computer-based fraud in the majority of states," said J. Alex Halderman, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of Michigan.

"Unfortunately," Halderman said, "a lot of other states still are behind the times and are still using technology that's been debunked for security purposes."

Lack of a paper trail
If there are no paper ballots, which are counted using optical-scanning systems, election officials can't go back and do an audit to ensure the votes were counted correctly, Halderman said.

For example, some counties in Maryland still use AccuVote voting machines that don't use paper ballots.
Several years ago, Halderman and a team of researchers showed they could completely hack AccuVote machines and change all the votes, and that it would take just one minute to install malicious code on the machine.

"Basically, [Maryland] doesn't have the resources to replace these systems with something better," Halderman said. "Maryland is one of the states of the greatest concern in terms of the quality of the technology."

Halderman said he's worried that problems with electronic voting might disrupt the process of counting ballots and declaring winners - even while not changing outcomes.

"This isn't just a question of whether we have a way to catch fraud, but also whether there might be systems that are unavailable or systems that require a lot of double-checking and auditing at the end before we can come to a conclusion," he said.

"It's likely we will see a Florida 2000-style meltdown in the presidential election in states that have very small margins of victory predicted, and that will control a larger number of Electoral College votes." [How Hackers Could Steal the Next Election]

Ready or not
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, New York and New Jersey are dealing with extenuating circumstances that could cause voting problems. But they aren't the only states that face challenges.

According to a recent report, "Counting Votes 2012: A State by State Look at Election Preparedness," not all states will be prepared come Election Day.

"It is highly likely that voting systems will fail in multiple places across the country," said the report, which was sponsored by the Verified Voting Foundation, the Rutgers University School of Law and the liberal good-government group Common Cause.

"In every national election in the past decade," said the report, "computerized voting systems have failed - machines haven't started, machines have failed in the middle of voting, memory cards couldn't be read, votes were mistallied or lost."

The report looked at how prepared each state is "to ensure that every eligible voter can vote, and that every vote is counted as cast."

Some of the findings include:

    Sixteen states  - Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia  - use paperless machines, which don't create a physical record of votes, in some or all counties.
    Twenty-five states require no post-election audits to verify votes, which the report deemed "inadequate." They were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming.


We may never know
"I think it is safe to say that there will be some voting systems that fail or have serious troubles during the election, since there are thousands of them and they are more complex than ever," said David Jefferson, a computer scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in northern California and chairman of Verified Voting.

"It is, of course, much more problematic to predict which ones," Jefferson added, "although we have some general guesses."

Jefferson said there is a concern in the jurisdictions and states that use paperless voting.

"Those systems are vulnerable to various kinds of failures and security attacks," Jefferson said. "I'm not going to predict that any of these things are going to happen. But if they do happen, they're unauditable and there's just no way to recover from them.

"If votes are lost or, worse, if they're flipped, there will not be enough evidence because there's no paper trail for those ballots," he added. "We'll be stuck."


---Hack the vote: Russian election chief rips US elections, voting machines---
By Robert Bridge. RT News
Sunday, Nov 4, 2012
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_65107.shtml

Russia’s Central Election Commission chief has ranked the American electoral system among the “worst in the world.”

One of the main problems with the US electoral system is the lack of transparency, Vladimir Churov argues in an article published in Wednesday’s issue of Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

According to US law, international observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are only granted access to polling stations in a handful of US states, including in Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia.

In the other states, US Governors have the final say over the question of allowing international observers to monitor the election process.

According to Churov, however, the dark side of the American election process is that “OSCE monitors have been barred from entering polling stations even in the states where they may do so under US law.”

This lack of transparency opens the door to numerous possibilities for corruption and manipulation of the system, he added.

Churov then discussed a perennial problem with American elections: electronic voting machines that do not provide voters with a receipt for their vote, and which are highly vulnerable to manipulation.

"American voting machines have not been designed to provide any documentary evidence of citizen participation in the electoral process,” the Russian observer noted. “Moreover, operators [of the machinery] are technically capable of adding or dropping votes in favor of one candidate or another, leaving behind no evidence of violations.”

In October’s issue of Harper’s Magazine, Victoria Collier shows that with the advent of modern technology, “a brave new world of election rigging emerged,” which emerged with the “mass adoption of computerized voting technology and the outsourcing of our elections to a handful of corporations that operate in the shadows, with little oversight or accountability.”

Collier called the “privatization of our elections…one of the most dangerous and least understood crisis in the history of American democracy.”

Meanwhile, another study demonstrated that a person armed with about 10 bucks and a limited knowledge of technology could hack the vote.

“Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an eighth grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois,” reported Salon.

The analysts showed that the “newly developed hack” could manipulate voting results while leaving “absolutely no trace” of the crime behind.

Computer specialists can easily break into the system and cook the results, Churov said, adding that the owners of the Diebold voting machines have openly stated in the past their support of the Republican Party.

In the run-up to the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell wrote that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

The outcome of the election, which showed John Kerry enjoying an insurmountable lead in exit polls, suggests that O’Dell was not exaggerating his support.

According to Collier, “In one Ohio precinct, exit polls indicated that Kerry should have received 67 per cent of the vote, but the certified tally gave him only 38 per cent. The odds of such an unexpected outcome occurring only as a result of sampling error are 1 in 867,205,553.”

To quote Lou Harris, the father of political polling: “Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen.”

Churov then criticized the US polling process, which may lift candidates into office without full popular support.

"It is generally believed that the American people will elect their president on November6. In fact, the president - an individual bestowed with enormous powers - will be elected by the so-called Electoral College.

The president will be elected by the 280 electors, not by all American citizens," the head of Russia's Central Election Commission noted.

One can only talk about the American people's right to elect their president with reservations, while the average American citizen's right to become president is completely out of the question," he said.

Unfortunately for the American voter, international observance of the US election process, which seems seriously vulnerable to manipulation, is not enough to guarantee democratic standards, Churov concluded.

On November 6, US voters head to the polls to decide the winner of the presidential contest, which pits the incumbent President Barack Obama against the Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

0 コメント: