How To Make Democracy
J. Alex Halderman is a computer scientist who has shown how easy it is to make a decision. His research team at the University of Michigan examines how attackers can look for weaknesses in voting machines, construction sites, casting centers and registration names, among other things. Nowadays he spends most of his time teaching lawmakers, cyber security experts and the public on how to protect their decisions. In the U.S., it is still the most vulnerable to enter the 2020 race.
Given the cracks in the system, the technological feasibility and the opponents’ disdain, Halderman has spoken here of the possible consequences of the 2020 election – and of true democracy. However, Mr. Halderman is unstoppable in one thing. “The only way you can know that your vote will not happen. I don’t want to scare people to vote.”
U.S. Presidential Elections U.S. it really changed everything. It caught the attention of the smart and connected spy community and did not teach us that our cyberattacks were wrong. Thanks to Mueller’s report, we now know that the Russians made a concerted and concerted effort to undermine the legitimacy of the 2016 elections. Their efforts were, I think, done more systematically and far more than anyone first realized. And to my knowledge, no government has done any kind of brutalizing on their voting machines to see if it is compromised. I am fully confident that the Russians will be back in 2020.
I think the intelligence community will continue to try to figure out what the perpetrators are planning and what they are doing. It is remarkable, in fact, in detail how it has come to light on the complexities of the unique experiences of the military and the Russian leadership. But it’s hard to know what we don’t see. And do we have the same levels of visibility in North Korea or Iran or China? There are many international sports players who would like to harm us in 2020 and beyond.
Since the 2016 elections many countries have changed their electoral machinery, but it is not enough, or it is happening fast enough. There are 40 types of voting machines that have more than 10 years of experience, and many of these machines do not receive software components in complex situations. About 25% of constituencies do not have enough paperwork, thus not looking for voters. Security is not an option. Yet there are roadblocks, especially from the Republican leadership in the Senate, that makes it impossible for the election security bill to pass. I think that is a terrible endorsement of Congress’s mandate to give security back. As a result, many of the worst cases of inconvenience in polling are likely to be possible by 2020.
Leading to election day
Internet events often take advantage of the complexities known to the systems as well as the limits of public opinion and transparency. In the early days and months to come in the election, advanced operations are more efficient and driven by data than ever before – which is why they are so useful and difficult to detect.
The president is already taking the lead in developing political propaganda for the people who will vote. As a result, you may receive one message from a candidate based on information about you in the repository. And people who have slightly different ideas on certain issues are more likely to receive a different message. Of course, the bad guys who want to spread the lies have started using the same tactic.
As we saw in 2016, one of the attackers’ goals was to increase divisions in the society – to reduce cooperation. Suppose Russians have bought the same advertisement that political advertisers use to lure. They can combine this with information from political voting and buy (or be stolen) to register voters to see how much your vote is and then use those tools to push the means of self-sabotage into the minority group. Veterans can act as political candidates. In this great age of democratization, there will be an opportunity for various messages to be turned against one another, even if they agree on many things.
We all think that being too transparent is a good thing. But people always take away the content when it is useful to them and hurt their enemies. People who want to be with them often have the hope of stealing the true knowledge. When information is stolen in various forms that attackers may want to destroy, reality can be used as a powerful and powerful weapon only — and as we saw with the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, it worked out pretty well. It is at stake in our thinking of how the truth in the media should come from the path of democracy which I am sure will happen again. And it can go a lot worse than email stealing. Imagine a person stealing from smart phones and recording them secretly during a private conversation or when talking to their agents. My research team is voting for politicians to see how secure they are, and right now I don’t think they are ready.
We also see a lot of information that is taught or made entirely and seems to be more realistic. In a way, this raises the risk of malice. Attacks should not catch someone saying or sending emails if they can produce a text that doesn’t match reality. We have seen the recent advances in technology learning to capture video of people saying things they never actually said on camera. Overall, these technologies help us to refine our basic assumptions about what is true and what is not. It makes it much easier for those who want to deny the real things they have said in writing that emails and recordings are made and people should not believe with their eyes and ears. It is a total loss of our ability to form political alliances based on reality.
Currently every government has its own way of governing voters. Since 2016 many countries have made numerous efforts to protect those networks by developing effective network monitoring systems or by upgrading old equipment and software. But many did not.
In the last election, Russians tried or tried to enter the voting booth in at least 18 states. And according to a finding by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Russia’s other nations had the opportunity to change or destroy registrations. If followed this time around, in every community people go to the polls and be told they are not on the list. They will probably be given temporary votes. But if this happens to a large portion of the voters, then there is a catastrophic decline that many lose and go home. The worst attacker can cause the subscribers to lie to voters who confirm their registration via the Internet while destroying information available at polling places.
Attributes to preprocessing operations can be customized to include a type or category. Due to anti-dictatorship laws, some voting records are not limited to political affiliation and race. By accessing those pages, one can only use the records of individuals, their party or a particular place.
In some countries, online registration systems also allow the voter to ask the voter or change the address he or she has cast. The attacker can then request votes to the home of many people and direct them to the perpetrators of the abuser that is filled with false votes.
On election day
Choice distractions can be effective in many ways – it depends on the intentions of the attackers and how to reach them. In a local election, if the conservative party, says that in Russia, they think one person is better than the other in their own country, why not try to influence the outcome by unsatisfactory votes? The attacker can get into what is called election management. There are programs that fix where voting – the types and types of voters and the voting rules – are created and downloaded by all voting machines. Election leaders often copy them to memory cards or USB sticks on selected machines. This provides a mechanism by which malicious code can be transmitted from a central core to multiple voting machines in the field. Then the attack number goes to the voting machine, and it’s another part of the software. It has the opportunity to know all the voting machines do, including all electronic voting records.
For 2020 I assume a zero for that type of network through cyberattack and office building in the Midwest. Many in this country describe the design of voting for a limited number of candidates. The largest voting machine that, when I went, told me it was ready for about 2000 locations in 34 countries. All of this was done from their headquarters, in the room I describe as part of a building used by other companies. If invaders are able to penetrate and penetrate the computer away from the company, they can spread the malicious machine on the voting machine and change the country’s results. The directions can be as secretive as the polling stations. It can be easily found.
The consensus of scientists is that the best way to protect voters is to use ballot papers and transparency, to get people to look at random. Unfortunately, 12 countries do not have this paper. And other countries, rather than paper-based ones, now require that authorities monitor their computer screening first. We found a new study that shows how to use an algorithm to generate “false” reads. We used a computer monitor to move our own checks around so that your documents filled with your foreign documents would show a different vote than you wrote on the paper.
It can be dangerous if the attackers do not think that one is better for their purposes than the other. Perhaps their greatest motivations are: weakening American democracy. They could launch a malicious code that could cause electronic devices to be destroyed automatically when they are sold in November 2020, causing a lot of confusion. Or it could be that the weapons seem to be working, but at the end of the day the staff realized that no votes were recorded. In legislation without paperwork, no other word is voted on. You have to make a new decision. What is attacking is that it undermines the credibility of this system and shakes people’s confidence in the integrity of democracy.
The election night is over
You need to get people to agree more about the truth and the end of the election. But by November, when we’re all ready to worry about the legitimacy of our approach. Much depends on how close the race looks to the election night.
How results are moved from your location to a live broadcast on CNN or on New York Times The website is live via a medium-sized computer operated by Associated Press and others. What would happen if the attacker managed to use the computer and cause the wrong call at night? We’ll find out eventually because the government comes back to do their thing, but it can take days or even weeks until we figure out what’s wrong. People who want to believe that the election was a decision can see this as proof that it was being shaped.
Only 22 states are required to verify any form of their journal entries before they can certify a patent. And in 20 of those 22 cases, demand does not result in significant evaluation because they do not look at a sample large enough to have high confidence in the results, especially if the results are close. It is purely mathematical and has nothing to do with politics. Rhode Island and Colorado alone are the primary sources of statistical information called so-called statistical analysis, although other states are moving in that direction.
If, because of computer hacking, we don’t get to the polls in many countries, we get into the unknown territory. The approaching action could be in the form of a Bush versus Gore election in which the outcome was decided in the Supreme Court and is not known for a month after the election date. It can be dangerous, and it may also involve driving elections in the countries affected. You cannot change the election and expect to get the same result because it is always a political place.
Alternatively, a voter is opposed to a local election result. Under current laws and procedures, it is often the only way for people to come back and look for tangible evidence to see if there is an attack. Currently we have no future monitoring tools so we can go back and see what happened and who did. It is unclear who has the authority to conduct this type of test because election officials and law enforcers do not usually. You don’t want to hand it over to the police to pick the winner.
In a seemingly dangerous situation, the attackers can find a way to vote in favor of the elections and make one candidate win. Then they can keep it a secret- but they fix it in a way that at some point in the future, they can prove they have stolen the election.
Imagine a state running like Pennsylvania, which is rushing to replace illegal voting machines. Even if they can do so by the time of November 2020, the government does not need any additional documentation on risk, which means that the illusion of changing the outcome is unlikely. What if the general election came down to Pennsylvania, and the hacker was able to hack its machine and change its outcome? It can also be inferred that if you mention the names of polling stations, the less important letters of the winning votes are making pi numbers – or something like that. It may be an invisible system that can be said later in a way that proves the result was false.
Say this after the new administration has been in power for some time, and no one can deny that the president is not a legitimate successor. Now we have the biggest problem we have ever had. Finally, consider whether the country holding the show does not provide their public information but instead uses it to suspend the person who becomes president. This is pushing a little bit into science fiction, but not too much.
The truth is that many cyberwar battles are common. There is no certainty that we will see an attempt to sow doubts linked to the risks contained in the chosen system for the sake of convenience. You do not have to make every weapon a choice, all you can do is have one.
It is easy to have a frank discussion about the risk of the system without risking it making the intentions of the terrorists in order to help people become less confident in the outcome. But the main problem is that the American electoral system has been focused on forcing people to rely on the integrity of imperfect machines and the imperfect people they work for. Ultimately our defense is to make decisions based on faith — and that’s possible. There are a lot of problems in cyber security and the hardest part where you can give me billions of dollars and decades to research, and I would say, Maybe we can change this a bit. But security concerns in elections can be solved without major scientific challenges and only a few million dollars. It is a matter of political will.