By Luther Weeks on January 9, 2018
Recently two serious structural flaws in computer chips have been disclosed (they were discovered several months ago). So far, the understanding is that one will be difficult to fix and the other impossible, without a new computer architecture. See: The World Grapples with Critical Computer Flaws <read>
We cannot say it enough, “Ultimately, computers cannot be protected from fraud and error.” We also cannot trust officials to operate flawlessly. Fortunately, there are solutions.
Posted in Chain of Custody, Electronic Vulnerability, National, Our Editorials
By Luther Weeks on December 18, 2017
From Alternet via TruthOut: Was the Heated 2016 Democratic Primary Rigged for Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
“I see what I would call a high likelihood of massive incompetence. Either that or there is fraud. I don’t think you should see numbers this big in this many precincts.”
“This is really weird.” He continued that they ought to be reconciling the number of voters with ballots and if they’re not doing it, “they’re grossly negligent.” Jones served on the Election Assistance Commission’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee for four years, but said “I’ve never seen a county that looks like this.”
Posted in Chain of Custody, National, Skulduggery and Errors
By Luther Weeks on October 28, 2017
“Yesterday, along with representatives from the state’s information technology and public safety departments, I met with regional officials from the United States Department of Homeland Security to discuss how we can work together to ensure that Connecticut elections are safe from outside interference or manipulation. We had a productive meeting and I look forward to working together in the months and years to come to protect our elections, the bedrock of our democracy.” – Denise Merrill, Connecticut Secretary of the State
We applaud this step in the right direction. Last year as leader of the National Association of Secretaries of State, Merrill opposed the designation of elections as critical infrastructure, leading in expressing the concern for a Federal take-over of elections. We were critical of that stand then and remain so.
In our opinion this is just a step. There are several aspects to election security/integrity that should be addressed,. This step may assist in those that are under direct control of the of the the State, yet less so those under local control.
Posted in Chain of Custody, CT, Electronic Vulnerability, Internet Security Issues, Mail/Absentee Voting, Our Editorials, Post-Election Audits, Recounts/Recanvasses
By Luther Weeks on March 5, 2017
Last Monday we testified for S.B. 540, a bill that would increase audit transparency and public verifiability.
Later we noticed that Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill, submitted testimony opposing one provision of the bill and therefor recommending against the entire bill. Her testimony misinterpreted our bill, recommending against it based on something we did not ask for and was not part of the bill.
In response we wrote a follow-up letter to the GAE Committee.
Posted in Chain of Custody, CT Law, Electronic Vulnerability, Legislature 2017, Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on February 28, 2017
Yesterday, we testified in support of our bill to improve the post-election audits, audit transparency, and ballot security.
- Common sense reforms to require all aspects of audits to be transparent and open to the public.
- Common sense reforms to establish minimal standards for ballot security.
- Electronically Assisted Manual Audits that are transparent and publicly verifiable, based on sound science.
Posted in Chain of Custody, CT, Post-Election Audits
By Luther Weeks on September 13, 2016
From Freedom to Tinker, Andrew Appel: Security against Election Hacking – Part 1: Software Independence <read>
We have heard a lot lately about the vulnerabilities of our elections to hacking. Both cyberhacking and unsophisticated insider attacks. Andrew Appel describes some common sense approaches to detect and deter error and fraud in our elections, covering three major vulnerabilities:
- Incorrect or unavailable poolbooks.
- Voting machines
- Accumulation of results across polling places and jurisdictions
Posted in Chain of Custody, CT, Electronic Vulnerability, National, Post-Election Audits, Skulduggery and Errors
By Luther Weeks on October 3, 2015
“Where their is smoke there is fire”. We say, “Where there is black and blue there is a victim” and “When it quacks like a cover up, suspicion is justified”. In this case we have ballots filled-in in black and blue with cross-outs. We suspect Colorado democracy is the victim.
Once again, a blow to those who claim there is no voting fraud. A further justification of counting votes by scanner in public in polling places, limiting mail-in voting, and limiting central scanning, while arguing for requiring adversarial election officials in every operation.
Posted in Chain of Custody, Mail/Absentee Voting, National, Skulduggery and Errors
By Luther Weeks on September 18, 2015
The Intercept covers the lack of security and abundance of BS from the TSA: TSA Doesn’t Care That Its Luggage Locks Have Been Hacked
In a spectacular failure of a “back door” designed to give law enforcement exclusive access to private places, hackers have made the “master keys” for Transportation Security Administration-recognized luggage locks available to anyone with a 3D printer…
Now that they’ve been hacked, however, TSA says it doesn’t really care one way or another.
What reminders and lessons can we learn from this?
Posted in Chain of Custody, CT, National
By Luther Weeks on June 10, 2015
In one of his books, Gerry Weinberg pointed out that employee evaluations should be multiplicative not additive, that is, the various dimensions of performance and capabilities should be multiplied rather than added to determine the overall value of an employee.
There is an analogy with laws, including election laws. Laws must be Sufficient, Enforceable, and Enforced. Missing one of the three, all value is lost.
Posted in Chain of Custody, Common Sense, CT Law
By Luther Weeks on February 6, 2015
Three simple ideas standout among the many things I learned and relearned:
- When we are concerned about every cost associated with voting, small and large, compare those costs to what we spend “spreading democracy” elsewhere.
- Contemplate what people spend in time and expense for the excitement of the Superbowl. Why are we not similarly engaged in Election Day, where the who wins is much more significant to our lives?
- Should we be at least as concerned with protecting and auditing paper ballots, as we are with the footballs used in the semi-finals?
Posted in Chain of Custody, Costs, CT, National
