It makes me wonder how a statement like this can be proved.
> There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised
When it comes to something as important as elections the mantra should be: don't trust. verify.
The key thing with closed Vs. open source isn't simply the ability to find defects (design & bugs), but also right now election officials/security experts in some cases aren't allowed to verify election software per the software licenses! That's an untenable position to be in.
Open source isn't some panacea, but it puts you into that position where "verify" is even conceptually possible. I still believe we need paper backups and random audits, but we can do multiple things at once and should.
How do you know the machine is running the program whose source code you're looking at, instead of some other program that looks superficially like it?
If a machine produces convincing evidence of what it has done, e.g., a print-out that (1) the voter can meaningfully check before depositing, and that (2) is audited with at least spot checks or formal recounts later, why does it matter whether it is open or closed source?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/georgia-election-ma...
If you want to project security, you don't do this kind of thing. It's insane. It's like the plot of a Hollywood movie.
[1] https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/spalding-county-experiencin...
"vendor for the machines notified them at 7:05 a.m. that there was a problem with an overnight update to the system"
"They just said it was a glitch in the system"
In/around my hometown, for example, the voting machines are "securely" stored in between elections, until just before an election, when they get 'em out to set them up, test them, etc.
Whether they installed updates an hour before an electiion or two weeks before an election, it can still be made to sound "fishy" by anyone who wants it to.
"Why were they installing a so-called 'update' an hour before the polls open?" versus "Why were they installing so-called 'updates' on the voting machines two weeks before the election?"
Obviously, they were installing hacked firmware in either case, right?
Its probably easy for us to think from where we are sitting that counting votes must be one hell of an easy application to write. Let me try.... ah yes, it indeed was very easy. The funny about ones ignorance is that one doesn't notice it even when one notices it.
Assuming it was a legitimate update I wonder what that dude felt like when he realized it was needed.
Yes. It's very wrong, and possibly fraudulent, but I suspect more likely someone screwed up (or possibly a vuln was found). Likely someone had a cold chill down their spine when they realized what was needed.
Firmware updates should be done by the election officials, not the company. If my mom can update her router firmware, then I think an election official can do it.
The fact that remote updates are even possible point to a much, much bigger problem. Do we really believe the devs working for Dominion (or whatever company) can outsmart the elite teams working for nation-state intelligence services?
Also, this software should be open source and auditable by any concerned citizen.
This is the only way for secure elections.
The companies involved can only be described as utterly incompetent in security. [2]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/magazine/the-myth-of-the-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Systems_%26_Software#...
>> There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised
I suppose it might depend on how you read that statement. One person might read it as "There is no evidence (that exists/that will exist) that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", in which case some backing would be desirable. Another person might read it more like "There is no evidence (that we're aware of) that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", in which case proof technically doesn't need to be provided, as one can truthfully state that they are not aware of evidence of an event independently of whether that event occurred or not.
Cynical me just assumes they decided to leave out the rest of the sentence, "... because we didn't actually go looking for any such evidence", therefore they can ("honestly") "plead ignorance".
There's room for asymmetric errors in input, in the direction of a favored candidate. Still way better than the kinds that are electronic only, but not as good as paper-first.