Slashdot Mirror


Inside Electronic Voting Machines

Alien54 and several other people wrote in about a couple of stories published in a New Zealand webzine: an examination of an electronic voting system, and some less interesting political speculation about it. Diebold voting systems are in fairly wide use, and apparently provide zero security to keep election officials from writing in whatever election totals they want.

12 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Diebold. by FreeLinux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with Diebold. You may have noticed that these guys are the makers of bank ATMs, among other banking and security equipment. Most of these ATMs, especially the older ones, use only 56bit encryption. 128bit is available in the form of a ridiculously expensive chip which also costs a few hundred dollars labor to have a tech come out and stick it in. Most banks, being the biggest cheap-skates in business, are unwilling to spend the money for these upgrades so, many of the ATMs that you regularly use likely have 56bit encryption at best.

    1. Re:Diebold. by homer_ca · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As bad as ATM security might be, they're still better than voting machines in one way. There's a paper trail. They print a paper receipt for the user and print an internal receipt for its own records. IMHO a paper trail is even more important than open source or code review.

  2. Commodotize Voting Machines by Soong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Make a public domain design&software for a voting machine. Get five companies to build them. No one company can rig the election.

    My only big design point is Dual Receipt, like a credit card transaction. Fast electronic count, paper count for them, paper count for me.

    --
    Start Running Better Polls
  3. What ever happened to the concern? by dachshund · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It amazes me. After the 2000 elections, every expert in the world pretty much agreed that electronic voting technology should not be deployed unless safeguards were added, and they went to great lengths to enumerate those safeguards.

    Three years later, and it seems that equipment manufacturers have managed to blithely ignore every bit of it. And apparently, so have the people purchasing the stuff.

  4. Re:Solve all voting machine problems by andrewjjenkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    United States citizens don't have a right to responsibly vote, they have a right to vote. If you open a door for literacy, why not require that people have certain moral standards? Why not require that they not be communists? Why not require that they be conservative or liberal or white or black?

  5. OTOH... by Gorimek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then again, it would only take one fraudster to falsly claim their vote had been miscounted.

    Also, any system that lets the voter check their vote also lets someone forcing them to vote one way or another to verify that they've done as commanded.

  6. Re:Somebody Call Georgia by pmz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Access databases

    Voting is one domain where Microsoft needs to step aside and let someone else do it right.

  7. Re:A little inflammatory by plalonde2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But the Diebold machines leave *no* paper trail - there are no paper ballots to check againts. Once the database is tampered with there is no way to reconstruct the voter's intent.

  8. Re:Need paper trail by ianezz · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The best solution I can think of is to print out two paper receipts for each vote, one to go to the election commission (for manual recounts) and one to go to the voter.

    Ok for the receipt to the commission, but I'm not completely sure about the receipt to the voter: let's say that some days before the elections someone comes to you telling how you should vote, "or else". And he requires that after the elections, you show him a proof that you actually voted as you were told.

    This went so far in some areas of Italy that on the last (regional) elections the usage of photocameras and videophones were explicitly forbidden in the voting booth. And yes, someone actually tried anyways and was discovered (and his vote invalidated).

    So, in some way, being unable to prove to someone else how you voted is not entirely a bad idea.

    (of course it can be objected that the nasty guys could come after you anyways if the result of the elections is not the expected one, regardless of how you actually voted...).

  9. Re:Abuse potential by gokubi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No kidding, these things have the potential to be a disaster for the democratic process, enabling voting fraud on a scale never before seen.

    Except in Florida.

    --
    I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
  10. Re:First vote! by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    right, but it wouldn't make much difference to the crowd here, as much as rigged elections in the real world make (none).

    Think about it: How many people would it need to care about rigged elections in order for it to be brought to light ? There is lots of evidence that the 2000 elections were less than proper, but so far there has been very little response to these allegations. A normal reaction would be absolute outrage by ALL politicians and an inquiry that brings up every last bit of evidence. The fact that this has not happened shows that politicians are happy with the status quo (two parties, for outsiders absolutely indistinguishable that exchange the baton every four to eight years).

    As if the only subjects you can differ on are abortion, healthcare and whether or not we should endorse a government religion.

  11. Canadian? by BrainInAJar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    During the 2000 election mess, Canada just happened to have an election. We found out our results about 15 hours after ballots were closed.

    This isn't a troll about Florida, etc. but rather a comparison. America uses punch cards and fancy voting machines and all that stuff.
    Canada, OTOH has a piece of paper. With some names on it, and circles next to the names. you put a mark (check, X, your initials, whatever) next to the person you want to vote for. If there's a mark in more than one (and not just a small pencil mark like a dot. Something that actually looks like you meant to vote for more than one person) or no marks at all, the vote is thrown out. Everything is counted by humans.

    So, why is it that they're looking for new fancy ways to (screw up) voting, when countries like Canada managed to use circa 1868 technology and have a more efficient (based on 2k elections) system?