Manipulated Votes, Souls, and Dollars
As reported at the Brad Blog, Lexington 18 News, and Matt Blaze’s Exhaustive Search (where I happened upon it), a case has been made against election officials in Kentucky. They are accused of altering votes attempted on an electronic voting machine.
Their technique exploited the weakest link in the electronic voting security chain: both usability flaws and social engineering (by all appearances) allowed voting officials to misguide voters away from ballots which could subsequently be revised:
Yes, the technique is low-tech, but it’s also very clever, and not at all obvious. The only way for them to have discovered it would have been to think hard and long about how the machines work, how voters would use them, and how they could subvert the process with the access they had. And that’s just what they did. They found the leverage they needed quickly, succeeding at using their discovery to steal real votes, and apparently went for several years without getting caught. It seems reasonable to suspect that if a user interface ambiguity couldn’t have been exploited, they would have looked for — and perhaps found — one of the many other exploitable weaknesses present in the ES&S system.
- Is the e-voting honeymoon over?
by Matt Blaze
Security gurus like Matt Blaze and even Bruce Schneier (arguably the Chuck Norris of cryptography) never miss a beat in pointing out that the vector(s) which are exploited tend to be those with the lowest barrier to success – that the simplest vectors (willingness to follow instructions, socially-motivated subjection to arbitrary authority, inattentiveness, and even desire to trust other human beings) are often the first avenue of attack in a variety of security scenarios belies more than the underpinnings of a one-off scam or con.
Consider institutions built upon the persistence of ignorance and disinformation.
Consider the Center for Consumer Freedom (formerly the “Guest Choice Network” – in defense of smoking in restaurants), a lobbyist group dedicated to defaming “anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists” and publishing information.
- ActivistCash.com – They’re all just in it for the money, eh?
- AnimalScam.com – “The modern animal rights movement is not what it seems.”
- MercuryFacts.org – It’s actually a great nutrient for developing brains? Amazing!
- ObesityMyths.com – …
What makes us different from many organizations is that we aren’t afraid to take on groups that have built “good” images through slick public relations campaigns. Just because they claim to be “ethical” or “responsible” or “in the public interest” doesn’t mean they are. Just because they claim to be “scientific” doesn’t mean it’s true.
- Center for Consumer Freedom at SourceWatch.org
They must really care a lot about consumer freedom to take such an interest in groups exercising their right to boycott things and demand corporate accountability for unethical treatment of animals, humans, and common decency…
Amazingly enough, these guys put Gavin Gibbons and the National Fisheries “Institute” to shame.
To what extent are the inherent weaknesses of human nature (itself a debatable amalgam of conditioning) exploited – and to what extent can voters, believers, and consumers alike protect themselves from an organized minority willing to trespass ethical concerns in pursuit of pathologically-bent agendas..?
A few places to start:
- LobbyWatch.org – If you want to know how the world works, this is the place to start.
- MinistryWatch.com – See the Top 20 ministries by Total Revenue
- ConsumerDeception.com – Debunking the “inappropriately-named” Center for Consumer Freedom
… but there is no clear-cut solution, unless one is willing to stoop to the level of a corrupt Kentucky plutocrat, Bible-thumping charlatan, or soulless public relations mercenary…