Podcast Summary:

The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Episode: Is the U.S. Voting System—and Voters' Personal Information—Secure?
Release Date: October 15, 2018
Host: Dorothy Wickenden
Guests: Sue Halpern (New Yorker writer), Logan Lamb (security researcher), Susan Greenhalgh (National Election Defense Coalition policy director)

Episode Overview

This episode investigates the vulnerabilities in America’s electronic voting systems and the security of voter information. With the 2018 midterms approaching and memories of Russian interference during the 2016 election still fresh, The New Yorker’s Sue Halpern speaks with cybersecurity experts about just how secure American elections are, the potential for malicious hacking, the risks to voter data, and the challenges of improving election security nationwide.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Reality of Election Security Threats

• Initial Perceptions of Russian Interference
  • Sue Halpern recounts (01:49) that early reporting on Russia "hacking" the 2016 election was quickly clarified: while Russia manipulated social media and messaging, no proof surfaced that actual vote tallies were altered.
  • Quote:

    “If foreign agents could actually change the outcome of an election, that would be…an existential threat to American democracy. But...if somebody really did want to hack the election, it wouldn't be impossible. Not at all.”
    — Sue Halpern (02:11)

2. Exposing Specific Security Flaws in Georgia

• Logan Lamb’s Discovery
  • Security researcher Logan Lamb details a basic investigation into Georgia’s voting system, run by Kennesaw State University, and how a simple Google search revealed major vulnerabilities (02:44–04:43).
  • He found supervisor passwords, Windows programs for poll books, and most alarmingly, unrestricted access to 15 gigabytes of sensitive data, including the entire voter database of 6.7 million Georgians.
  • Quote:

    “I had access to their full name, their address, birth date, last four digits of their Social Security number, and their driver's license number…and Jim's databases, which…does the final vote count.”
    — Logan Lamb (04:43)

  • Critical Risk:

    “The scariest scenario I can think of would be an attacker implanting malware on the programs…or altering the voter registration databases to disenfranchise voters.”
    — Logan Lamb (05:11)

3. Government Resistance & Delayed Action

• Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp (now Governor) refused federal cybersecurity help in 2016, claiming the system was secure. The vulnerability Lamb found was only fixed seven months later (05:36).
• Ongoing concerns remained: evidence showed Russian hackers sought out election system vulnerabilities across multiple states.

4. The Broader Context — Nationwide Election Tech Vulnerabilities

• Susan Greenhalgh’s View:
  • Greenhalgh emphasizes states' limited expertise:

    "States need to run elections…But they're not cybersecurity experts." (06:58)

  • Georgia—and other states—used electronic touchscreen voting machines lacking a paper trail, making audits impossible (07:33).
• She underscores the fallacy that machines not “on the Internet” cannot be breached, as removable media can transfer malware and wireless modems transmitting results use cellular networks, which connect to the Internet (08:30–09:45).
• Quote:

  “That information has to go from that computer to the voting machine…by some sort of removable media. It’s well known that if the device…gets infected, it can be transferred to the individual voting machines.”
  — Susan Greenhalgh (08:41)

5. New Forms of “Election Hacking”: Voter Purges

• The focus shifts from technology to voter suppression:
  • Restrictive voter ID laws, mass purges, and database mismatches disproportionately disenfranchise voters in states like Georgia and North Carolina (09:45–10:17).
• In 2016, Durham County, NC experienced widespread poll book malfunctions.
• The electronic poll book vendor, VR Systems, had been targeted by Russian spear-phishing; official investigations failed to consider cyberattacks as a likely cause, attributing the problem to poll worker error (10:17–11:28).

6. Federal Assistance & Its Limits

• In 2018, Congress released $380 million to states for election security, but placed no concrete requirements on how to use the funds.
  • Greenhalgh calls for federal legislation and minimum standards to ensure effective use and actual improvements (11:28–12:22).

7. Concerns About Election Legitimacy

• Greenhalgh articulates her deeper worry: not just hacking, but eroding public trust.
  • Quote:

    “I worry that people will try to undermine the credibility of it. And the best way to counter that is if we have systems that produce evidence of the election results, which is accomplished with paper ballots and doing a post election audit. There's a term for evidence based elections, and that's what we want to see, evidence based elections.”
    — Susan Greenhalgh (12:31)

• The episode closes with the warning that, in the absence of federal action, many states and their officials are left unprepared against sophisticated cyber threats (12:57).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Logan Lamb’s reaction to his discovery:

  “Wow, this doesn’t look like the sort of data they would purposefully put on this web server.”
  — Logan Lamb (04:16)

• On the chain of vulnerability:

  “But furthermore, there's another fact that debunks that assertion, which is that many of these machines…are equipped with wireless modems…go over cellular networks, and those are part of the Internet.”
  — Susan Greenhalgh (09:18)

• On the threat to democracy:

  “If we don't do something about this as a country, we're putting our democracy at risk.”
  — Interviewer/Host (12:57)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 02:44–05:36 — Logan Lamb describes Georgia's major voting-system vulnerabilities.
• 06:58–09:45 — Susan Greenhalgh discusses why voting machines are more vulnerable than many realize.
• 09:45–11:28 — The risk of “hacking” elections via voter registration roll purges & poll book malfunctions.
• 11:28–12:22 — Federal funding for election security: constraints and shortcomings.
• 12:31–12:57 — The importance of evidence-based (paper trail, auditable) elections.

Conclusion

This episode delivers a sobering exploration of how both technological and procedural weaknesses threaten the security and trustworthiness of U.S. elections. Through real-world case studies like Georgia, expert analysis from Logan Lamb and Susan Greenhalgh, and a discussion of broader policy inaction, listeners gain a nuanced, urgent portrait of America’s electoral vulnerabilities—and the steps required to protect democracy before it’s too late.