Maryland Plans Code Review for Voting Software

the problem is... by borgdows · 2003-08-07 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

even if the code is opensource, how can you be sure the voting machine executable has been compiled from the genuine source code ?

Re:the problem is... by Trigun · 2003-08-07 03:19 · Score: 2

I guess that certain procedures would have to be followed and an independant overseer would have to be appointed, albeit by one of the cantidates on the ballot.

At some point we would have to collectively trust the bastards, the same way we trust automovite manufacturers and inkjet printer manufacturers to look out for our best interests.

We're doomed!
Re:the problem is... by WindBourne · 2003-08-07 03:20 · Score: 1

DRM. Basically, the system should verify itself via a DRM mechanism. In light of this treatment of mercuri, I suspect that even if DRM does come to light, it will not be used on voting systems.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:the problem is... by UnknownQ · 2003-08-07 03:24 · Score: 3, Funny

even if the code is opensource, how can you be sure the voting machine executable has been compiled from the genuine source code ?

Compile it yourself! Every voter would compile the code Gentoo-style when they entered the booth.
I knew Gentoo was the answer for everything!

--
Wherever you go, there you are!
Re:the problem is... by cybermace5 · 2003-08-07 03:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Heh, guess we could teach all voters to type "./configure; make; make clean"

--
...
Re:the problem is... by ihummel · 2003-08-07 03:25 · Score: 1

By having a /.er present at compile time?
Re:the problem is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:33 · Score: 0

As pointed out many times before, even that won't help. The configure script may invoke a trojaned binary which alters the resulting executable, the compiler itself may be trojaned etc.

So yeah, your comment may be a joke but its a serious issue. Electronic voting is too much of a black box system. Voting should be an entirely transparent process, and if that means sticking to a low tech pencil stub and paper ballot in a locked box, so be it.

I'll continue to be an old fashioned ludite with voting as long as I can!
Re:the problem is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:35 · Score: 0

Furthermore even if you can verify that the executable was compiled from the source code, how do you know the libraries or compilers don't have bugs causing security flaws
Re:the problem is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:39 · Score: 0

If there's anything that'll stop people wanting to make these systems, that will.
Re:the problem is... by Exiler · 2003-08-07 03:56 · Score: 1

Right, lets try to teach them how to follow a flirking line on the ballot first, then we can work on Unix commands.

--
Banaaaana!
Re:the problem is... by digitalunity · 2003-08-07 04:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

I won't trust digital voting. A lot of people won't. I seriously hope someone hacks it in November next year to such an extreme amount that the politicians see the error in their stupidity. This won't work. I hope the results are wacked out like this one

--
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Re:the problem is... by WNight · 2003-08-07 04:00 · Score: 1

The same people we don't trust to write code would be implementing the DRM measures, and there's even less chance of the DRM being open and auditable.
Re:the problem is... by maxume · 2003-08-07 04:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Of course, Ken Thompson has said some very interesting things about trusting code and compilers. The only way to really trust the code would be to hand code/compile/enter your own compiler in asm, and use this to bootstrap a more powerful compiler etc, until you were able to compile the code that you had reviewed and elected to trust. If you don't do it all yourself, you really can't be sure how trustworthy a binary is, your compiler might have done some dirty business behind your back.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:the problem is... by gmack · 2003-08-07 04:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

People just aren't ready for it.. not when I read lines like this: "The hacker did not reveal how he subsequently breached the security of the Diebold staff site, which used SSL encryption."

But we can't be hacked we have encryption?
Re:the problem is... by TomV · 2003-08-07 04:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

even if the code is opensource, how can you be sure the voting machine executable has been compiled from the genuine source code ?

And herein lies a nice can of worms straight outta RISKS. Not only do we need to know that the binary in use has been compiled from the genuine source code, you also need to be confident that it was compiled with a trustworthy (preferably also Open-Sourced, GCC perhaps?) compiler in a trustworthy environment.

And then there's the firmware on the machine itself.

Geek that I am I can still see enormous strengths to our wonderfully archaic paper-ballot system here in the UK. You put a cross in a box on a piece of paper with a pen. If you mess up the cross you spoilt your ballot. At the count, for each person actually sorting and bundling ballot papers there are two people watching like a hawk (I tend to be one of these) to make sure they're counting and sorting OK. So long as the contituencies are reasonably sized, a result by the next morning seems OK when Right definitely outweighs Quick or Cheap. And therein lies the crux. So WHAT if it takes a week to get the correct result?

TomV
Re:the problem is... by ajs318 · 2003-08-07 04:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree with the original person. I can't state it loud enough that THE INTEGRITY OF ELECTION RESULTS IS A FAR GREATER CONCERN THAN ANY CORPORATION'S RIGHT TO SECRECY! The mechanism by which our leaders are chosen must be absolutely open to public scrutiny and any government that does not believe this so, deserves to be overthrown.
even if the code is opensource, how can you be sure the voting machine executable has been compiled from the genuine source code ?
I've looked at this one before and it is a problem, because the C compiler may be rigged so that when you try to compile it from source, then it modifies itself subtly so as to insert various backdoors; in other words, the code you get from the compiler does not match up against the source you compiled. Then, it does not matter how "clean" any of the source code is; because the compiler might modify the code during compilation. Even if you run the original, clean compiler source through it, chances are that the compiler could spot this and mung it, giving you a "dirty" compiler.

Throughout the following, I'm assuming you - or someone you trust - can spot malicious C code just by looking at it, and can write assembler code you know is safe. You don't have to be able to look at someone else's C-generated assembler and know whether it's safe.

You first need to write a simple C interpreter in assembler. Note, it only has to interpret; it doesn't have to compile. As long as the assembler instructions it generates do the same thing as the C source code you feed it - even if much more slowly than a compiled version - then it is good enough for the time being. It can even waste as much memory as you can spare. The most important thing is that you know the temporary interpreter is safe. Then you take the source code for the compiler you want to compile - you know this is safe, but the pre-compiled binary might not be safe - and run it through the interpreter. Now the output from the interpreted compiler is actually a compiled compiler, and it's safe. You haven't run the "dirty" compiler binary, which might have modified the compiler.

Now you have a compiler which you know for certain isn't going to produce binaries which don't do what the source said. And that's the first step to trustworthy computing. Maybe get someone we all trust to sign the code by encrypting it with their secret key {so when you decrypt with their public key you recover the original; recall that P(S(x)) = S(P(x)) = x}. Problem is, you can't trust anyone with election results, because the stakes are so high.

On the other hand, why bother with voting machines at all? In this country, we count votes by hand. It may not be high-tech, but it works and it's harder to subvert. Hand-counting of small batches of papers {which are kept, in case of dispute, until the next election is out of the way} is not significantly slower than machine counting. Anyway, what's a few hours here or there when a term of office can last for four or five years? To throw an election, you would need to bribe several people, not all of whom are politicians. The ballot paper {taken at random from a book of identical ones and by a different person than the one who sees your voter ID - the only communication between them is a slight nod} is the only record of the vote, and the voter has already had the opportunity to verify it before depositing it.

For how often elections are held, it probably is less work to keep on doing all this stuff by hand than it is to put the safeguards in place that would make machine voting trustworthy.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:the problem is... by Jeremi · 2003-08-07 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who cares about the code? If the machines generated a voter-verified paper trail, you could check the results for accuracy. Since they don't, you can never be sure that the results were correct, no matter how carefully the source was scrutinized.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:the problem is... by jandrese · 2003-08-07 04:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Heck, how can you trust their closed proprietary hardware at that point? You never know if they took and modified their Pentium in there to recognise when you're bootstrapping a compiler and modifing your routines.

The simple fact is that you have to trust someone (or some group of people) along this chain, which is very difficult because the incentive to cheat in elections is huge. You can reduce the danger with a solid system of checks and balances, but there's always the possiblity of the very determined/very rich individual buying off several key players.

You can also buy off paper ballot counters.

Because it is impossible to make a completely 100% fraudproof system, we need to instead focus on trying to keep the process as open and transparent as possible. We need to catch people cheating and insure that there is ample opportunity for detecting fraud.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:the problem is... by pmz · 2003-08-07 04:37 · Score: 1

...type "./configure; make; make clean"

configure: Mafioso Trojan version 1.3 or higher not found.
%

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:the problem is... by pmz · 2003-08-07 04:41 · Score: 1

If you don't do it all yourself, you really can't be sure how trustworthy a binary is, your compiler might have done some dirty business behind your back.

You would need two or more physically distinct people to do it, to rule out multiple personalities. It would be funny if each personality had a different political slant. "The results are in! ... And ... uh ... everyone wins!"

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:the problem is... by FroMan · 2003-08-07 04:50 · Score: 1

At some point we would have to collectively trust the bastards,

I was with you until this. Instead of scare tactics and fear mongering, I'd say that we have to trust them like we already have to trust them with out ballots.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Re:the problem is... by maxume · 2003-08-07 05:07 · Score: 1

I agree completely. My original post goes way too far. But then again I had trouble treating the post above mine as a joke, and a little hyperbole goes a long way...
As to money/power having influence in an election, I could care less. Of course, I also have the wacky idea that any citizen who can turn in/complete a valid ballot should be able to vote. I don't care if they can't read, or if they are seven, or whatever. Why should somebody who can't read Florida's ballots or punch out the chads right or whatever have any more right to vote than my eight or nine year old cousin, just because they have been around 8 times longer?
For me, the fewer rules that govern the election, the fewer things that can be cheated. Of course, fair no longer means 'equal' but instead 'To my advantage', in this country. This is why Democrats see things like estate taxes as very fair, and Republicans think they are incredibly unfair. They are of course, probably somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, wealth is often a reward that is earned. On the other, a person/family/dynasty only really needs so much wealth, and I am still too young and emotional to think that social welfare programs are hopeless and will never work. I still rather have my public library named for a wealthy philanthropist or historical figure than for a U.S. Senator though(see Daniel Boone Highway in Kentucky, the guy ain't even dead yet).

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:the problem is... by Politburo · 2003-08-07 06:08 · Score: 1

Doom and Gloom! Doom and Gloom!

Exactly why won't this work again? Because "people will hack it"? We've had software running tons of mission critical applications, like financial institutions, and people don't seem to be ultra wary of using the ATM. They don't seem to be wary of using online stock trading services. They don't seem to be wary of online loan and housing realtors. What do you bring to back up the statement "a lot of people won't"? My voting district already uses a computer touch-screen system and I am not aware of any polling problems where people were unwilling to use the electronic machines.
Re:the problem is... by Politburo · 2003-08-07 06:16 · Score: 1

The simple fact is that you have to trust someone (or some group of people) along this chain, which is very difficult because the incentive to cheat in elections is huge.

The incentive to cheat in elections is the same incentive to cheat in the business world, or if you programmed a racetrack betting system. It's illegal, and people get caught and go to jail.

Everyone around here is talking about rigging elections like it's something that both happens all the time, and something that people take lightly. This just isn't the case! You've all fooled yourself into thinking elections are rigged so that you have an excuse to be lazy and not GO VOTE.

By rigging elections in this post, I mean those types of actions that could be taken on the voting system. There are other forms of rigging, such as mass de-registering minority voters, that will disenfranchise voters whether or not you use a paper ballot or a fancy computer. In fact these are the most common voting abuses, because they are much easier to carry out. This is because the act of voting is strictly audited and witnessed. The act of registration is not as tightly checked, and that allows "mistakes" to occur.
Re:the problem is... by Politburo · 2003-08-07 06:19 · Score: 1

For how often elections are held, it probably is less work to keep on doing all this stuff by hand than it is to put the safeguards in place that would make machine voting trustworthy.

Actually, you've got it backwards. The reason elections and public referendums are held so infrequently is because of the massive work required to collect and count votes. Without a system which can tally and verify votes quickly, we will never be able to move towards a more "true democracy" which includes increased public referendum.
Re:the problem is... by laird · 2003-08-07 06:40 · Score: 1

"We've had software running tons of mission critical applications, like financial institutions, and people don't seem to be ultra wary of using the ATM" -- that's not because ATM's are secure, it's because the banks absorb the cost of fraud in ATM's (which occurs regularly) as the cost of doing business, and avoids publicity.

"My voting district already uses a computer touch-screen system and I am not aware of any polling problems where people were unwilling to use the electronic machines." That doesn't mean that there weren't problems -- it means that you're not aware of any. The lack of any means of an independent audit (which makes it nearly impossible to detect polling problems, and impossible to prove them) is the biggest problem with the systems.

Personally, I can't see why we don't stick with making pencil marks on paper and OCR scanning them. OCR is cheap to implement, is (historically) far more accurate than the alternatives, has all voting verified by the voters (all bad ballots are rejected immediately, so they can be corrected), and is auditable. Tally the votes by human beings using telephones, with appropriate cross-checks, and you're done.

Touchscreens are more expensive, more error prone, and can't (as sold) be independently audited or verified.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:the problem is... by 4of12 · 2003-08-07 08:09 · Score: 1

there's always the possiblity of the very determined/very rich individual buying off several key players.

Possibility?

Voters are key players. In our current system it's not too difficult to whip up an emotional frenzy in some of them to get them to vote for you.

Then, if that fails, it's always possible to call in the debts from politicians to whose campaigns you've donated money to act in closer accordance with your will.

Using money and determination to affect the electoral system is not just a possibility, it's a reality.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:the problem is... by HiThere · 2003-08-07 09:02 · Score: 1

I don't think we take it lightly. But, yes, I believe that we do think it happens. In fact, both sides cheated in the last presidential election, and Chicago, and before that Tahmey Hall, used to be nortorious for never having an honest election.

So we *don't* want to make it easy. We want it made more difficult. And we know that those in power will use it to select a system that favors them. So we feel frustrated.

Don't misread our frustration as "taking it lightly". Despair would be closer. Others join the NRA, and think that will help. I wouldn't say they don't have reasons, just that I don't expect that move to help.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:the problem is... by neitzsche · 2003-08-07 09:06 · Score: 1

Even more distressing is that SAIC is being trusted as if it is an unbiased entity - which it most certainly is not!

SAIC is a private FOR-PROFIT corporation.

Disclaimer: I used to work there. I left after they certified Windows NT 4 as C-2 secure (for an extraordinary amount of money.)

--
"God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
Re:the problem is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 09:19 · Score: 0

You can be sure that the code has been compiled using unmodified open source code by compiling the source yourself and doing a checksum over the resulting binaries. As long as the compiler is the same version it will match up.
Re:the problem is... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 09:49 · Score: 0

How do you know that mechanical voting machines aren't compromised, or ballot boxes stuffed, or counts entered correctly? A lot of times this ends up being decided in court. I would sooner see the principle of public scrutiny of electronic voting established by law, along with a requirement for open-source or public domain software, and non-proprietary hardware standards, rather than leaving it up to judges, especially elected ones. Judges can be bought, just like Diebold techs, or more likely Diebold execs. Not saying they necessarily are, just that the temptations there are overwhelming and at some point they definitely will be. There is no excuse for subjecting the democratic process to certain subversion. Certainly not for copyright or patent.

The big problem with the Diebold machines, along with all the others, besides the purely technical aspects of recording and tranmitting the vote, and the possibilities for things like backdoors in the ROMs or microcode, is in the Vote Management System the machines feed into. It's hard to tell from the FEC site, but it appears this has even less scrutiny by independent testers than the machines themselves. The opportunities for wholesale vote jiggering there, in a closed, proprietary environment, when democratic principles, not IP, should have sway, are both obvious and alarming. When an entire state, like mine, GA, uses the Diebold machines exclusively, and only the Diebold machines, no paper ballots, mechanical voting booths, etc., the prospect of a silent coup is not only frightenengly possible, but certain at some point.

I believe the people behind that particular decision should be taken out and shot like the traitors to a free and democratic society they are. Open source software and hardware specs, voting protocols, etc. can at least be tested and vetted without paying royalties or license fees, or risking a prison sentence, or relying on someone else to do the testing on restricted, secret terms subject to NDA's, etc. Quis custodiet custodies? Open it up. By law. There should be no obstruction to public scrutiny of the entire voting process, excepting actual individual votes. Fuck copyrights and patents. This is one area no one can reasonably argue they have any legitimate basis whatsoever.

--rgb
Re:the problem is... by gcalvin · 2003-08-07 12:37 · Score: 1

ATM transactions are not secret. When I use an ATM, I get a receipt that shows the date and time, the account number (or at least enough of it to verify after the fact), the type and the amount of the transaction. The bank prints their own copy of this same information on a roll of paper inside the ATM, and records it at the bank's processing center. The bank knows who I am, and I know who they are. If there is an error, fraud, or some other foul play, the bank and I can go to our paper records and resolve any discrepancy. If necessary, we can take these paper records to court and resolve things there. I trust my bank to play it straight with me because 1) if they're cheating me, they're probably cheating a lot of other people and 2) somebody more fastidious than me is going to catch them at it.

Voting is entirely different. The voting system does not (must not!) record who I am along with who I voted for. The touch-screen voting systems I've read about provide no verification that a voter's choices have been accurately recorded and transmitted. They don't seem to provide printed backup either. That leaves the door wide open for foul play.

Let's say you added even a very rudimentary auditing procedure -- you count people as they enter the voting booth, then count the total number of ballots at the end of the day. If the number of ballots is equal to or lower than the number of voters (it's perfectly valid for a voter to enter the booth and then choose not to vote) then everything's okay. But what if the number of ballots is higher than the number of voters? What do you do? Invalidate all the ballots from that precinct? Have a state-wide re-vote? Anything you do is going to favor one candidate/party/position and disenfranchise others. If you have a system with paper backup -- a ballot box into which each voter drops one ballot under supervision -- then you have an option. Namely, you count the paper ballots by hand.
Re:the problem is... by DunbarTheInept · 2003-08-07 18:49 · Score: 1

I'm sick of the oft-repeated lie that the confusion over the Florida butterfly ballots was the voters' fault. The problem was that some ballots were misprinted such that the holes DIDN'T actually line up with their labels. This was made possible by the fact that the strip of holes and the labels for those holes are two separate pieces printed seperately and joined together later. Some were joined together lined-up properly. Some weren't.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:the problem is... by SirKron · 2003-08-08 03:06 · Score: 1

Off topic: NT 4 can be C2 level secure; but you have to make some changes to the base security settings. You start by unplugging the network cable...

because by bigpat · 2003-08-07 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Why isn't this code open source by law?"

because we haven't made it so yet. Remember Government by the people...

Re:because by garcia · 2003-08-07 03:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

but how many of "us" will realize the necessity of that? People are SO used to MS as being the only thing out there for computers and not knowing that there is such a thing as "open source" and that "trade secrets" aren't the most important thing when it comes to security.

Who's to say that just because we see the source code that they actually use that code when they compile it?

Who's to say that there isn't some hardware interface to mess with the votes?

The list goes on.

Basically what it comes down to is that the ignorance of the general public (and the fact that only a minority even care enough to vote as it is) is what is going to lead to the downfall of our voting systems.
Re:because by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-08-07 03:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

but how many of "us" will realize the necessity of that? People are SO used to MS as being the only thing out there for computers and not knowing that there is such a thing as "open source" and that "trade secrets" aren't the most important thing when it comes to security.
People once thought that women and minorities were inferior, slavery was ok, and only landholders should have a say in anything, and you can pay off your sins by giving to the Church. We have gotten past those issues, we can get past these as well.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:because by garcia · 2003-08-07 03:51 · Score: 1

sure, but look how long it took for legislation to "fix" these problems, and look at the current situations...

Only NOW are women finally being treated some-what fairly in the professional world. Minorities are being treated a little better but there is still too much left over hatred (it only happened 40 years ago), etc.

We need electronic voting NOW and we need open source NOW. We can't afford to wait 50 or 60 years.
Re:because by Stubtify · 2003-08-07 03:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well this past week on NPR's Talk of the Nation they had a Professor from MIT I believe who discussed the problems with these voting machines. He mentioned that they had "stumbled" upon the source for one of these machines and that they found many disturbing problems.

What struck me as interesting was that there was a long discussion of why these should be open sourced, the callers, the moderator, and the professor all seemed to be on the same page. This is NPR, however that makes me feel a little better since I think its safe to say that more people who listen to NPR vote than those who listen to KROQ or some other Pop music station.

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/
Re:because by Bobo_The_Boinger · 2003-08-07 04:27 · Score: 1

Good, so to get legislation passed to make sure that the voting machines aren't rigged I will vote for Mr. Good Politician at my newly installed electronic voting machine, and... err... wait a second.

--
--David
Re:because by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-08-07 04:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

We need electronic voting NOW and we need open source NOW. We can't afford to wait 50 or 60 years.
Hold the phone.
Why NOW? We have managed to survive as a people for 250 years before the invention of the computer, and as a civilization for 10 millenia.
Computers and Open Source are not a fix, an improvement, or a reform in unto themselves. They are a means. You can implement some pretty crappy things in Open Source, or some earth-shatteringly well engineered things. The Open Source, while it helps, does not mandate quality.
Electronic Voting is a bad toy. It delivers one and only one improvement over our existing ballot system: instant returns. That's it. There are no improvements in reliability, security, or oppertunity inherent in electronic voting. I for one am sick of election night being covered like sporting events.
Votes cast must still go through the rigorous checks and certifications that existing paper and mechanical ballots go through. Not so much to satisfy beaurocracy, as to satisfy the voter. The process of democracy wins regardless of which candidate is elected. Being able to go back and reconstruct an election bolsters winners, and reassures loosers. It occasionally will upset the original results, but only rarely and only in extreme cases.
Crap processed electronically is still crap. Anyone who uses computers and has not gained a healthy skepticism about them is a danger to themselves and their profession.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:because by TomV · 2003-08-07 04:54 · Score: 1

We need electronic voting NOW

Why?

Now clearly, and regardless of one's views either way on the eventual outcome, the endgame of the last US Presidential Election made it pretty clear to those of us in the 'Rest Of World' that the US' much-vaunted electoral democracy is in need of a pretty thorough technical and procedural shakeup before it could be judged Fair, Free and Open to international standards. clearly these bizarre punch-card machines with all that 'chad' nonsense have to go as they're making any US claim to be a bastion of democracy look entirely farcical.

But does the solution to that problem automatically involve electronic ballots?

From an outsider's perspective, the problem with the 2000 election certainly suggested that those machines of yours are not up to the job. But then most countries don't use machines for that sort of thing, we use people, lots of people if need be, watched by other people, lots of those too, with clearly marked easily counted easily audited pieces of paper, one per vote per ballot (UK-wise we wouldn't have had the butterfly ballot issue because if n elections coincide, we get n ballot papers, one for each election). Straight binary, you put your one mark in the box for a specific candidate, or you spoilt your ballot, no resort to subjective decisions about 'hanging chads'.

Frankly, electronic voting would just be a shiny, expensive distraction from actually looking at the electoral system and identifying the most trustworthy way to operate within it. If it's going to take such an effort to get electronic voting trusted, then it must perforce fail the very first and most trivial test of a voting system.

So far as I can see, the main benefactors of electronic voting would be the TV networks as it would make scheduling on election night (and thereafter in the case of a disputed result) so much easier. I'm pretty sure Messrs Washington, Jefferson and Madison didn't have a major problem with waiting a couple of weeks for the results to come in and any problems resolved. In fact isn't that the whole point of your delayed-inauguration approach to the Presidency?

Do you really want 300 million people governed according to a voting system optimised for the convenience of media corporations? Wouldn't it be better to look at optimising it for representativeness instead?

TomV
Re:because by Veldcath · 2003-08-07 05:03 · Score: 1

Diebold is a private company. Diebold makes a closed-source product, much the same as Microsoft. How would you require, by law, that this company expose its source code to the world? Do we make a law that says any software that the Government chooses to use becomes OpenSource? That'd cover all of Microsoft's products. Adobe's products. Corel, Sybase, Oracle... So, basically you'd have to make all software opensource.

Considering that software companies make their money on these products, what would happen if all of a sudden the whole world could compile their products for free? Seems like the kind of thing that would kill a whole industry (software).

So, maybe we limit it to just 'voting machine software'. That means any company that makes voting machines faces having their product open-sourced.

We COULD make a law more like: "All voting machines will have their source code be a matter of public record. Anyone can see it if they want to." Not open-source. Not something you can take and build with yourself. But something you can examine. But now your code is exposed to all your competitors.

How about a law that says any voting machine code will be made available to government-chosen industry specialists for examination and certification? Oops. Then we have to trust that the government picks the right people.

Nice, easy topic to think about, isn't it?

--

... "I read part of it all the way through." -- Movie Mogul Sam Goldwyn (and some slashdot readers)
Re:because by Blrfl · 2003-08-07 05:50 · Score: 1

Diebold is a private company. Diebold makes a closed-source product, much the same as Microsoft. How would you require, by law, that this company expose its source code to the world?
How? You nip the proprietary part of the software process in the bud from day one by separating it from hardware. Hire the hardware vendor or a third party to do the development as a service, with the finished product belonging to whatever board of elections let the contract. They're then free to publish it for review. The Diebolds of the world will still have made the same money because they'd build the same amount of revenue into the development contract.
Re:because by Politburo · 2003-08-07 06:33 · Score: 1

Electronic Voting is a bad toy. It delivers one and only one improvement over our existing ballot system: instant returns. That's it. There are no improvements in reliability, security, or oppertunity inherent in electronic voting. I for one am sick of election night being covered like sporting events.

There's a few ideas floating around which are just dead wrong.

1. 'Elections are currently "secure" and "reliable"'. As we saw in Florida, this is far from the case. Also, most people here are ignoring the fact that most election 'rigging' is done outside of the actual voting and counting process. It is done by controlling who is eligible to vote, and who is on the voter registration rolls at the time of voting.

2. 'Instant returns only serve the media frenzy'. If we ever want to move away from a 'representative democracy' or 'constitutional republic' and more towards true democracy, we need to upgrade our infrastructure to allow for more public referenda. The main reason referenda are not used more commonly is because the facilities used to collect the will of the people, voting, are incredibly expensive to setup and count. If we had a system which would allow you to turn a computer on, collect 10,000 votes, and (download them to disk | upload them somewhere | print out a totals sheet | etc.), and then shut the machine off and have the outcome of the vote, we would be able to cut down on the labor cost of elections, and we could more easily shape our government to the will of the people. We may also be able to cut down the run-up time to special elections, such as the California Recall.

The process of democracy wins regardless of which candidate is elected.

Ha.
Re:because by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-08-07 07:42 · Score: 1
Very stimulating ideas, and worthy of discussion.
I would argue that ballots are no more or less secure than ever. The whole idea behind an election is that with a large enough representative sample the will of the people is heard. That includes some measure of corruption in the polling system. Granted too much corruption will affect the outcome.
The Florida issue was about civil ineptitude and the parties throwing out lukewarm candidates. Face it the difference between Bush and Gore was statistical noise. If the election hadn't been so damn close, none of the counting would have been an issue.
Onto your other point, a move from a democratically elected republic to a pure democracy would involve remaking our political system from scratch. Our constitution is DESIGNED to be a republic. To try to adapt it to be a pure democracy would be like trying to adapt a delivery van into a segway scooter. They are 2 vehicles designed for 2 completely different purposes.
Now, let us say that sometime in the future a pure democracy does indeed superceed the constitutional republic. There are some real design problems with a democracy.
1. Only those with an interest in politics tend to get involved. You end up with the same incestuous politics as our current system.
2. When the masses do get involved, they tend to enact short-sighted feel-good measures. They want tons of services for no taxes. Lets see... just like the present system!
3. Generally the masses are driven to action by demogauges. Demogagues tend to have agendas that are not often in the best interest of the country as a whole. At least our present political system forces demogagues to either be electable or be content to hit the talk-show circuit.
I'm not shooting down the idea. But like all ideas, there are some serious flaws with it. Remember, the Greeks had democracy before Plato came up with the Republic.
--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:because by Politburo · 2003-08-07 08:21 · Score: 1

The Florida issue was about civil ineptitude and the parties throwing out lukewarm candidates.

The whole "same candidates/weak candidates" thing is apologist crap. Get up. Get out. Vote. The candidates will always tailor themselves to the people that are voting. If you're not voting, they're not going to magically tailor themselves to you! This is one reason why older people's issues are taken extremely seriously.

Onto your other point, a move from a democratically elected republic to a pure democracy would involve remaking our political system from scratch.

True, but that wasn't what I was really advocating. I'm talking mainly about extending referenda to be more common on the largest issues. Also, we have no such thing as national referenda. There should be a system in place where the Congress and President can ask the nation for their opinion, instead of assuming that they always know what is best for us. Town halls and the like do not count because frequently dissenters are forbidden from attending. Again, I'm talking about the largest, most hot button issues. This isn't the type of thing you would see happening once a day; maybe not even once a year.
Re:because by geekoid · 2003-08-07 08:44 · Score: 1

I wonder if rosa parks every thought this:
"you know, people are SO use to blacks sitting in the back of the bus I couldn't possible make a difference."?

Get involved, talk to your representitives, find solutions to those issues.

The easier it is for people to vote, the more people vote. In Oregon, you can vote by mail. We had a 50% turnout one year. Imagine if you could set up voting kioskes in malls, at the post office?

ImMagine if you could come up with a secure way to vote from home?
This could very well change the voting habits of the nation.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Electronic Voting by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:15 · Score: 0

If electronic voting becomes the norm (likely), I just won't vote.

Re:Electronic Voting by TWX · 2003-08-07 03:20 · Score: 5, Funny

"If electronic voting becomes the norm (likely), I just won't vote."

The odds are already heavily against your voting currently anyway, so I don't see how this will matter much.

At least we don't use the "Telelection" methodology a'la Max Headroom...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Electronic Voting by vudujava · 2003-08-07 03:24 · Score: 4, Funny

It doesn't matter, the code will vote for you.

--
Word Axis
Re:Electronic Voting by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:35 · Score: 0

Amen. I want to make a cross on a paper ballot and know exactly what happens to that peice of paper throughout. Here in the U.K I can follow the ballot box to the counting venue and watch the votes being counted all night, if I wanted too. Which is how it should be!
Re:Electronic Voting by StalinJoe · 2003-08-12 07:40 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter, the code will vote for you

And it will vote for you again and again and again...

--
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin

I know what I am doing next election by chrisgeleven · 2003-08-07 03:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Voting via absentee ballot. At least there is a greater chance of my vote not being screwed up or changed.

Anyone who thinks these voting computers are going to be flawless and secure by Nov. 2004 is greatly mistaken.

Re:I know what I am doing next election by WindBourne · 2003-08-07 03:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sadly, even paper is easily manipulated. Chicago land area (historically) is a great example of this.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:I know what I am doing next election by MarkGriz · 2003-08-07 03:28 · Score: 1

There's also a greater chance it will be lost and won't get counted at all.

--
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Re:I know what I am doing next election by blibbleblobble · 2003-08-07 03:28 · Score: 1

"I know what I am doing next election... Voting via absentee ballot. At least there is a greater chance of my vote not being screwed up or changed."

You could also force your wife, tenants and neighbours to vote by post too, that way you can check how they vote rather than letting them into those pesky secret ballots.

Useful things, postal and home electronic votes. Wonder if anyone's realised how they let-down the system yet?
Re:I know what I am doing next election by LittleGuy · 2003-08-07 03:40 · Score: 1

Voting via absentee ballot. At least there is a greater chance of my vote not being screwed up or changed.

You're not living in Florida, by chance....?

--
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Re:I know what I am doing next election by jbottero · 2003-08-07 03:59 · Score: 1

...At least there is a greater chance of my vote not being screwed up...

Not here in Washington state. Furor over absentee ballot delay : "On the eve of today's statewide election -- when voters will decide critical issues from the future of Washington's transportation system to control of the Legislature -- frustrations increased over the delayed issuance of thousands of King County absentee ballots."
Re:I know what I am doing next election by smack_attack · 2003-08-07 04:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Have you ever voted absentee? There are two envelopes, one goes in the other... the inside envelope face is blank and has no information about you and holds your vote.

--

Hammer of Truth
Re:I know what I am doing next election by DAldredge · 2003-08-07 04:17 · Score: 1

He speaks the truth! For the dead that vote have great magical powers that we normal mortals do not!
Re:I know what I am doing next election by blibbleblobble · 2003-08-07 05:39 · Score: 1

"Have you ever voted absentee? There are two envelopes, one goes in the other... the inside envelope face is blank and has no information about you and holds your vote."

What does that have to do with postal vote fraud? Just because it's possible for the vote to be separated from the name after it's received, doesn't stop me from forcing someone to vote a particular way before the vote is put in the envelope, then seal and post it for them.

This will hardly get any less of a problem as we have 20 immigrants "staying" (so far as the electoral register is concerned) in the house of each benefits-fraudster who is collecting housing benefit on behalf all of these people, and probably voting a few times from that address too...
Re:I know what I am doing next election by smack_attack · 2003-08-07 05:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Immigrants can't vote until they are citizens, so your analogy is flawed. Besides, if they become citizens they would be encouraged to turn someone like that in to INS by the process of becoming a citizen, not something a fraudster would want to risk.

However, it would not be impossible to force someone to absentee vote in your favor, but there is less risk associated with just voting in the name of deceased voters or just outright poll fraud. Less witnesses, less risk.

--

Hammer of Truth

Not open source because... by JohnGrahamCumming · 2003-08-07 03:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why isn't this open source by law?

Well because the US is a capitalist country and because currently most people seem to believe that the best way to make money in software is by keeping the code proprietary and because US government favors money-making corporations.

I agree that if it were open source it would be far more likely the security problems would be discovered quickly.

So how about creating an open source alternative... anyone ready to register an OpenVote system on SourceForge?

John.

Re:Not open source because... by 91degrees · 2003-08-07 03:20 · Score: 1

This leads to another question...

Why can't I buy people's votes? If I have a vote that I don't want, and someone wants a vote, they should be allowed to buy mine.
Re:Not open source because... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:24 · Score: 0

that's what Republicans do on a daily basis!
Re:Not open source because... by brokencomputer · 2003-08-07 03:34 · Score: 1

In addition, the US Government has already shown us that they don't care if code isnt open source. They recently purchased a large license from microsoft. I bet the state governments wont think any differently.

--
The Television Wiki
Re:Not open source because... by devnullkac · 2003-08-07 03:50 · Score: 1
US government favors money-making corporations

It doesn't have to be this way, of course, even in the US. The US Government regularly pays contractors to write software which does not belong to the contractor when the work is done. The final product is, I believe, in the public domain. However, this does drive up the cost since the US is essentially paying to write a new product and cannot share the burden by selling it to anyone else.

how about creating an open source alternative

Of course, such a product would only be one part of an entire system which a real (paid for) vendor would have to specify, supply, and maintain. The most important pieces which an open source project probably could not include are:
- the specific hardware used to meet customer needs
- the details of incorporating the procedures for using the system into the voting processes of the customer
The open source project could include a document which speaks to those topics, but there are too many State and County voting jurisdictions to reasonably account for them all at the outset.
--
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
Re:Not open source because... by b!arg · 2003-08-07 03:53 · Score: 1

Not Necessarily

--

Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
Re:Not open source because... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:54 · Score: 0

Nah, they're WAY beyond that. Republicans don't need to buy votes, they just make sure their buddies in Florida are in control of the voting system. It's a lot cheaper to simply SWITCH the votes around after the fact than to actually pay out cash for each one.
Re:Not open source because... by brokencomputer · 2003-08-07 03:55 · Score: 1

Well you have a point but that bill only requires the gov to *consider* Oss. Anyway, the bill is only a proposition.

--
The Television Wiki
Re:Not open source because... by maxume · 2003-08-07 04:06 · Score: 1

I'm pretty comfortable with you being able to pay people off to vote for who you want them to vote for, but I get a queasy feeling when I start thinking about someone being able to buy/execute the votes of other people. This feeling comes from the fact that if I could sell my vote, and got the money with out doing anything other that putting my vote up for bidding, I would probably do it, and so would lots of other people. One vote/person is what are current system is, influence by $$$ is cool with me, but not outright selling of votes.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Not open source because... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:17 · Score: 0

Could that be because MS software requires less training to maintain and configure for use by peons?
Re:Not open source because... by WNight · 2003-08-07 04:26 · Score: 1

Not getting into the issue about capitalism and its benefits/faults, I don't see why everything has to be run on a similar system.

The government doesn't currently contract-out IRS audits, though I'm sure there are many firms that would bid on the job. We also don't contract-out counting of votes. Why should we make a business of writing the software for voting machines?

And, as for the open source aspect of this... What's really so hard? I envision a cheap PC with a touch-screen, some html, a web-form or two, a label printer for the ballot, and a database back-end to keep track of the unofficial figures. Basically an online poll, with a "For Dummies" interface and with printed results. Admittedly, this is for the easier "paper is real, machine totals are just for faster results" style of voting machine, but I think we're a long way from trusting totally electronic voting systems.

This could be strengthened against many attacks by:

1) Printing ballots with a signed hash of a timestamp and the vote, or something, to make it harder to pre-print ballots and bring them along.

2) Sending these signatures, along with totals, to a server every five or ten votes, to make it harder to tamper with in isolation.

3) Bundling a hundred votes at a time with a printout of the expected totals, then bundling a bag of ten of these smaller bags, etc. This would make random spot-checks easier. Look at a bag of 1000, add up the totals of the smaller bags, pick one at random to audit, count it...
Re:Not open source because... by ajs318 · 2003-08-07 04:40 · Score: 1

Regardless of that, surely it's more important that the candidate who actually got the most votes win, than that the system be simple for the authorities to set up.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Not open source because... by SilentMajority · 2003-08-07 05:18 · Score: 1

Capitalism is good and it doesn't prevent the use of open source code. For example, RedHat not only succeeded in securing private funding but had a very nice IPO because of open source software.
I highly recommend the book, Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith for anyone who is interested in learning more about Capitalism. Adam Smith is considered the "father of capitalism" and the book was published in 1776 (a great year in history for many reasons).
A full-text is available for free for those of you who did not yet master applied capitalism. :)
When people complain about capitalism, they're usually complaining about something entirely different such as corporate corruption/abuses which can easily occur under other systems too.
Re:Not open source because... by brokencomputer · 2003-08-07 07:21 · Score: 1

Obviously Linux would be a better choice. I just meant that linux isnt the governments favorite OS for some reason.

--
The Television Wiki
Re:Not open source because... by geekoid · 2003-08-07 08:55 · Score: 1

the IRS is the contract tax collecor.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Not open source because... by TheCeltic · 2003-08-07 11:59 · Score: 1

Yes, the US IS a capitalist country.. that is why we need to permit companies to sell products AND REQUIRE them to disclose how their products work (unless of course it would HURT national security. In this case, it would do the opposite). To quote the RedHat CEO "would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?". Yeah, it's an old and overused adage. Unfortunately, today we have no other choice with most commercial software than to blindly buy what they offer.
The "make more money" from closed source argument is BS. Anyone can download/copy a protected program (pirate it) if they want to. If made opensource, the companies code itself is still protected, since it is the property of the company that developed it (much like the content of a published book). Closing the source simply prevents the USERS from being able to evaluate the quality of what they are buying, discourages the sharing of new ideas (good thing the biotech world doesn't work like that!) and enables large corporations to make their systems incompatible with a competitors (killing both innovation and competition in the process). Competition and innovation are what have made the US and capitalism so strong... we can't let them be shutdown by companys that don't support these basic ideas of democracy. Oh, and did I mention the fact that the best product should win in capitalism (not the best marketed)?

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

why by damballah · 2003-08-07 03:17 · Score: 1

Why isn't this code open source by law?

You can't force open source down people's throat.

Re:why by DAldredge · 2003-08-07 03:25 · Score: 1

In this case you can.

Just pass a law that says that goverments that receive money from the feds for elections have to use voting systems which have opened their code.
Re:why by damballah · 2003-08-07 03:35 · Score: 1

Sure you can. But I was referring to the tone of the editor's question. It's no surprise that the system is not open source.
Re:why by IWannaBeAnAC · 2003-08-07 04:11 · Score: 1

Err, why link it to money? Why not pass a law "the states must use open software (and hardware!) systems in their election machines"?
Should any entity (states included) be able to bypass the law by paying money? (or in this case, declining the offer of money)
Re:why by TomV · 2003-08-07 05:15 · Score: 1

Why not pass a law "the states must use open software (and hardware!) systems in their election machines"?

Because you then run into the whole States Rights quagmire and if you're lucky you might get an answer out of the Supreme Court within 20 years.

So long as you make OSS a pre-condition of Federal funding you bypass that whole issue. Any State that prefers to run Closed-source can do so. At the expense of its taxpayers. Probably not a very popular move. No problem.

TomV
Re:why by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 05:35 · Score: 0

No, but you can force Italics on people quite well.

viva italia!

credibility by DNS-and-BIND · 2003-08-07 03:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

Sorry, but a story filed by a "freelance journalist" from www.EcoTalk.org...I can't help but think that it's slanted in some way. I'd sooner trust a story from the New York Times with no verification than I would this story from a hard-left nutcase.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

Re:credibility by DAldredge · 2003-08-07 03:28 · Score: 1

Posters and mods on /. complaining about slant and bias in an artice...
Re:credibility by sploxx · 2003-08-07 03:35 · Score: 2

The point is that media may have an opinion and they may express their opinion and print stories supporting their opinion. But they should make things clear. They should not try to hide that.

BTW: As a liberal left-winger, I only see the (neo)conservative, and far right-wing deceiving people by manipulating media, voting machines etc. by the quiet method. Often, not really legal.
Contrary, very leftish people get their attention more by exaggerating facts and then believing in them. Some kind of stupidity.
Re:credibility by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

You, like many others, misunderstand how bias in the media works. Look, you know who the author is, and you can take a pretty good guess at his political leaning. Therefore you have all the information you need to apply your own critical thinking filters to the article. If you know the author is left-wing then you are perfectly capable of filtering out the more obvious left-wing bias. If you're reading $ARTICLE in $NEWS_SOURCE by $AUTHOR you may not have this information available to you, and thus you have to take everything at face value, which in turn exposes you to more bias on the part of the author.

So I'd rather read something like this from an obviously biased source than one from a source that claims to be "unbiased"!
Re:credibility by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'd sooner trust a story from the New York Times with no verification than I would this story from a hard-left nutcase.

So, do you have any evidence that this author is a nutcase? Any specific complaints about the content of the article?

If not, then it would seem that you are chosing to ignore information from people whose point of view. That "I won't listen to anyone who disagrees with me" attitude is exactly why there are so many idiots in this country. E.g. "The media is controlled by left-wingers, so I refuse to watch the news!" "Who told you that the media was biased towards the left?" "The guys on all the TV and radio programs I listen to..."
Re:credibility by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:10 · Score: 0

While the Hard-Left certainly has a tainted reputation (not unlike the Hard-Right), that doesn't make the article meaningless. In fact, all articles are slanted-that's the nature of media. You have to take what is said, understand it and where it came from, do your own research, and then formulate and share *your* oppinion.

Nothing inherently evil about it, just the way it works.

Also, try not to use phrases like "hard-left nutcase"--it takes your own credibility down a notch.
Re:credibility by schmink182 · 2003-08-07 04:12 · Score: 1

I'd sooner trust a story from the New York Times with no verification...
Not to be off-topic, but that reminds me of this comic.
Re:credibility by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 05:15 · Score: 0

I'd sooner trust a story from the New York Times
Should I assume you would grant NewsMax more credibility than the NY Times?
Re:credibility by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 05:31 · Score: 0

Amen! Well said.

Reminds me of a Doonesbury cartoon. A conservative says, conservatives don't waste their time being "fair". "We already know we're right, so we don't have to listen to anyone!"
Re:credibility by nelsonal · 2003-08-07 06:26 · Score: 1

Pearls is one of the funniest new comics out there. That little rat is hilarious.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.

It makes sense by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2003-08-07 03:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

It makes sense that they don't want their code to be open source, because then ALL the bugs will be found. When open source code is developed normally, people notice bugs/security holes a few at a time and fix them. But when software has been closed source for a long time, it's bound to have tons of bugs and holes. Opening the code up to public scrutiny would unveil A LOT of problems. And that's just not good for PR... especially in voting.

My guess is they just want someone to look through the code, maybe suggest a couple quick fixes, and then give the OK, so they can reassure the public. They don't really want to get to EVERY hole in the code. They probably just want show that they get numbers close enough that we should keep using/buying their stuff.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.

Re:It makes sense by plcurechax · 2003-08-07 04:51 · Score: 1

It makes sense that they don't want their code to be open source, because then ALL the bugs will be found.

Care to back that claim up? According to this paper by Dr. Ross Anderson, Cambridge University Computer Lab, not all flaws will be found by the good guys (i.e. the honest public) and fixed. Even with many times the resources of a single enemy.

Open Source != Secure by daoine · 2003-08-07 03:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm a big fan of the open source movement, but I'm not sure that voting software *needs* to be open source, because there is value in securing the source code itself.

Security through Obscurity is not Inherently Evil.

Of course, if the only security a system has is based on the fact that nobody can see the code, I'd say that system is hosed. I highly doubt voting software would fall into this category. It's unfortunate that obscuring code has taken on the negative connotation of "hiding bugs." That's not always the case. Keeping the inner workings of a system secret is a valid security measure, and used in conjunction with other means it can create a well-secured system.

I think the process they are taking is a step in the right direction. I believe that independent code reviews strengthen privately owned code. I think it's a mistake to deny access to those who have the ability to challenge the system. But I'm not sure open sourcing the code will make it any more secure.

Re:Open Source != Secure by frodo+from+middle+ea · 2003-08-07 03:31 · Score: 2, Informative

I believe that independent code reviews strengthen privately owned code
In theory yes, in practice NO. I remember about 5 years ago, I was working for a company which was developing lot of C code on Tandem Mainframes for a stock exchange .
Anyway the stock exchange asked an independent auditing company (the same one connected to enron ) to audit our code for Y2K and also security.
To cut the long story short, the auditors were very smart in figuring out that the stock exchange's IT dept. was a joke and they had some insider contacts with another company doing Tandem mainfram developments.
So instead of a fair audit, we almost lost our contract due to the manipulative tactics of the auditors and stupidity of the stock exchange IT dept, to the competing company which had some insider contacts with the auditing company.

--
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Re:Open Source != Secure by WindBourne · 2003-08-07 03:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Security through Obscurity is not Inherently Evil.
In this case, it is.
With normal elections, the abilty to tamper with the results are minimal. The reason is that the votes do not end up in one place. In addition, you have several different parties counting at all times (typically Dems and Republicans). With this approach, it offers a single point of entry. It is possible for the votes to be rigged here either directly or indirectly. Somebody could offer 10 to 100 million dollars to the coder or even CEO within the company (keep in mind that some elections are spending a great deal more money to win them these days; apparently it pays off). Or since it may have a unknown opening, only the bad guys would know. Only the problem is that the bad guys would be a party member.
BTW, the orginal bribe may be to simply forget about an opening, rather than the introduction of one. Then the party would simply introduce something to manipulate it nationaly. At that point, they would manipulate close elections. Totally undectable.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Open Source != Secure by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:31 · Score: 0

a voting system that couldn't be made open source is a bad/suspicious(!) voting system and should be replaced with another voting system that could be made open source.
Re:Open Source != Secure by gilroy · 2003-08-07 03:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Blockquoth the poster:

Security through Obscurity is not Inherently Evil.

When it comes to voting software, yes, it is. The people have the right to know that their software is as secure, bug-free, and outcome-neutral as possible. Like laws, the code to count ballots should be accessible to any interested citizen -- and there should be absolutely heinous penalties for anyone who uses a binary compiled from anything other than the open code.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:Open Source != Secure by row314 · 2003-08-07 03:52 · Score: 1

It's unfortunate that obscuring code has taken on the negative connotation of "hiding bugs." That's not always the case.

True, but the more power/money involved, the greater the temptation to cheat (from simply cutting corners to intentionally compromising the system). That's why the connotation is there - because history shows that's the way to bet. Thus the need, as you point out, for independent code review. (Of course one of the best ways to insure independence is to allow anyone access, which brings us back to opening up the source.) However, we need to take it a step further; what we need is a system (i.e. the whole thing, including hardware/software/procedures/etc.) that is verifiable. Not an easy task, of course.

Bruce Schneier wrote a good article on the pros and cons of this last year; see Secrecy, Security, and Obscurity in the May 2002 Crypto-Gram.
Re:Open Source != Secure by fedork · 2003-08-07 03:59 · Score: 1

Well, StO (Security through Obscurity) IS evil and here is why (and specifically why in this case):

it would _possibly_ stop some 'hackers' from breaking into the system, but it would it make it much easier for people who do have access to the system internals (programmers, operators etc.) to do whatever they please, while making them virtuually uncontrollable. So you have an ability to affect elections, and, since BIG MONEY is involved with almost any elections there will always be someone who would want to take advantage of this ability.

The reason why current system is more or less fair is that no one can easily take control over it and it is under public control.

If it is open source however it will make those in control of the system 1) accountable 2) interested in it being really secure because they realize that those 'hackers' may not be on their side, but on the side of their opponents.

"Independent code review" does not halp much, it just makes the group of people in control a little wider.

--
...remember good 'ol times when IP used to mean Internet Protocol....
Re:Open Source != Secure by b!arg · 2003-08-07 03:59 · Score: 1

But the question is, can you keep it secret? It seems to me that history tells us no. There will always be some sort of security breach somewhere, somehow. Some group of h4x0rs will make it a target be it foreign or domestic. You just can't rely on secrets as part of your security, even if it's a minimal part. So just take that out of the equation and open-source it and REALLY make it secure. In a way it's an incentive to keep it secure because anyone that wants to see it, can.

--

Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
Re:Open Source != Secure by WindBourne · 2003-08-07 04:01 · Score: 1

Security through Obscurity is not Inherently Evil.
BTW, security through obscurity is how the soviet union and China do things. They are in hopes that it will never get out. Much of what the USA does (or did) is actually in the open. All through the cold war it worked well and it still works well today.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Open Source != Secure by schon · 2003-08-07 04:02 · Score: 1

if the only security a system has is based on the fact that nobody can see the code, I'd say that system is hosed. I highly doubt voting software would fall into this category.

OK, so you highly doubt it. What proof do you have to back up your suspicions?

None.

Because the software is closed source, you - as a member of the voting public, and arguable one of the most important players - have no proof that they have any sort of security at all.

That's pretty much the whole point.

It's unfortunate that obscuring code has taken on the negative connotation of "hiding bugs." That's not always the case.

You're right - it's also good for hiding design flaws. And that's all it's good for.

Keeping the inner workings of a system secret is a valid security measure

No, it isn't. Keeping the inner workings of a system secret does nothing but keep the inner workings secret. It does nothing to ensure the security of a product, and in fact reduces the security of the product, by reducing the number of people who might be able to find (and fix) flaws in the system, and by lulling the vendor into believing that they're doing something effective, when in fact they're not.
Re:Open Source != Secure by Chanc_Gorkon · 2003-08-07 04:05 · Score: 1

Your right. They do. But odds are, the people don't give a rat's ass. I mean we geeks do only because we know this stuff. Joe Six Pack could give a rat's ass. If it was up to JSP, they'd still be using pencil and paper.

--
Gorkman
Re:Open Source != Secure by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:09 · Score: 0

Only in the US could the two parties be good enough to be counted as 'several'. Most of us actually need several parties with different views!
Re:Open Source != Secure by Politburo · 2003-08-07 04:24 · Score: 1

You know, that really is going to depend on how the software works. The programmers should have no access to the actual machines to be used (obviously for testing purposes they will need to use the machines). The source code should be reviewed by another agency or company, and some sort of verification procedure (like md5sum) implemented (even if the code is open source, it should be reviewed by an agency or company with documented auditing procedures). A separate group should be loading the software onto machines and verifying the integrity of loaded software. A further separate group (local elections board) should be in charge of configuring the machines for individual elections.

This would not remove all problems of course, but would make it much more difficult to be able to bribe one person or one company and suddenly have full access to this software. We currently have computer programs which do very, very important tasks. We trust these programs with our lives constantly. Auditing, testing, and implementing mission-critical code has been done before, and this is no different.
Re:Open Source != Secure by IWannaBeAnAC · 2003-08-07 04:24 · Score: 1

Exactly. Even with open and verifiable hardware and software it is possible to have a secure, physically tamperproof (if you want it) system. The difference is the "secret" parts are crytographic keys utilized in well-understood ways, using recognized and provably true algorithms, not some "obscure" hacked-up in the back room after marketing dept complains system who's "security" relies on nobody guessing that their data is ROT13 encrypted before it is emailed to the election tally room.
Re:Open Source != Secure by WNight · 2003-08-07 04:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you've ever worked in an office, with a boss who is being pressured to release a product, you know why something needs outside audits if it's supposed to be secure.

If this is a regular project, up for bid, it's going to be as absolutely horrid as they can get away with. You know, trillion bit encryption, rotating one-time pads, etc, etc. All the snake-oil you can shake a stick at.

Open source doesn't guarantee security, but I wouldn't trust corporate-produced security unless it's open source.

The voting mechanism in use in Canada is very open source. They give you a piece of cardboard and let you stand in a little room with a pencil. You mark the square directly corresponding to the person you want to vote for, fold the ballot in half, and walk out into the open, and drop your ballot, into the same cardboard-box-with-a-slit-in-the-top as everyone else. Representatives from every party are there, as well as any voters who want to simply watch the process.

Later, the box is taken to a room with the same multi-party auditors and opened. In plain view of everyone, ballots are counted into different piles.

I won't accept a voting machine until every stage of the process is as auditable as that cardboard box with paper ballots. You can have fancy ways of printing those ballots if you wish, but they need to be clear and human readable. You can electronically count my vote for up-to-the-minute poll results, but the authoritative answer has to the the paper, or something just as auditable to the average Joe.
Re:Open Source != Secure by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:42 · Score: 0

Damn right!

We KNOW that the USA has a corrupt and unelected government, a horrendous human rights record, and camps full of political prisoners.

Hurray for openness and accountability!
Re:Open Source != Secure by MCZapf · 2003-08-07 04:43 · Score: 1

OK, you had a bad experience. But, what you describe wasn't truly an independent code review, since the auditors had all those inside contacts. I still think it's useful to have a truly independent, impartial, conducted-by-people-with-expertise code review.
Re:Open Source != Secure by Falsch+Freiheit · 2003-08-07 04:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

[...] I'm not sure that voting software *needs* to be open source, because there is value in securing the source code itself.
You're missing the point. The point is democracy.

The biggest reason for making the source open for voting software isn't security. The biggest reason is accountability. With a paper-based system, anybody (the losing candidate in a close race?) can audit the results by looking at the materials, seeing where the marks or punches or whatever are and counting. The components of the voting system are understandable and open.

With closed-source voting software, the single largest, most complicated and most important component of the voting system is a "black box". There's no way to know for sure what it's doing, other than to test that when you do A the proper response B happens and not C. Because it is software, it'd be remarkably trivial to write code designed to pass the tests but still bias the vote in a real election.

It's not just about hiding bugs, it's about hiding intentional flaws.

An independent code review is mostly a sideways step only slightly in the right direction. It's still not accountable to the public, only to a larger secret-holding group. It decreases the odds of conspiracy by increasing the number of people who'd need to be "in on it". You can't totally eliminate the possibility of conspiracy until we're all in on it.

And democracy is all about everybody being "in on it". Anything that reduces knowledge of decisions or accountability reduces democracy.
Re:Open Source != Secure by innocent_white_lamb · 2003-08-07 09:37 · Score: 1

But odds are, the people don't give a rat's ass.

So? I might not know much about plumbing but I can still look at construction codes.

I mean we geeks do only because we know this stuff.

So let the geeks look at it. If there is any problem, one of said geeks can blow the whistle.

Joe Six Pack could give a rat's ass. If it was up to JSP, they'd still be using pencil and paper.

And I agree with JSP. Normally I'm one of the first to push a high-tech solution to any problem (let the computer do the heavy lifting!) but when it comes to voting I think pencil and a ballot paper is just fine and dandy.

--
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!

Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:17 · Score: 0

They are probably using Patriot act as the explanation of why to keep a security expert out.

I don't care about the code... by JayBlalock · 2003-08-07 03:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

But for the love of god and all that is holy, WHY are they fighting so hard against paper records? It makes no sense. (unless you are conspiracy-minded) Seriously. I just can't come up with any decent reason that Diebold et al would be so strongly against hooking a printer up to the system to produce a physical record. Much less why our elected officials would buy into such an idea.

--
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.

Re:I don't care about the code... by ihummel · 2003-08-07 03:28 · Score: 1

Because Diebold knows that if you use paper, you don't really need them at all. The silly political types might decide that paper alone is good enough when there is a budget crunch and Florida is just a distant memory.
Re:I don't care about the code... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-08-07 03:29 · Score: 1

Hey, the designers of the Queen Mary thought the ship would be so stable on the seas they didn't install handrails in the corridors.
The ship gained a reputation for being very unstable and rocky. It almost capsized once. (Ironic since the Queen Mary was the ship used for the exterior shots on The Posieden Adventure.)

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:I don't care about the code... by Obsequious · 2003-08-07 03:35 · Score: 4, Informative

It's quite simple: because it adds cost.

Just list the components: a printer; ink cartridges; paper. Note that the last two are consumables, and ink cartridges are even perishable, in a way. (If you let them sit around too long, they get dried out -- or at least non-laser cartridges do.)

Envision, then, what it would take to run an election, remembering that these happen maybe once a year at best. You have, say, 10 machines per polling station. On the days leading to the election, each machine must be installed, powered up, and tested. Then, you have to connect the printer, test the printer, and change any cartridges that might have dried out in the meantime.

During the election, you have to keep the printers fed with paper. The ink might run out on a system halfway through. The printer might jam. Because of this you have to keep spares on hand, from the ink to the paper to the print mechanisms themselves. You only get one shot at election day, after all.

Meanwhile, of course, the polling workers have to be trained and prepared to deal with all this.

In other words, it's a rather significant amount of cost and effort to add printing support to such a system. Even if you don't use standard printers but some other technology, you still have similar problems: e.g. a cash-register-style printer (which is all you'd need) might still jam, and needs to have its paper changed, etc.

So, that's why the manufacturers (and probably even municipalities) are opposed to paper. I don't agree with them -- I believe there SHOULD be paper verification.

I see their position, but it would be nice if they were thinking of something other than the almighty buck.
Re:I don't care about the code... by JayBlalock · 2003-08-07 03:39 · Score: 1

That's possibly it, but given how much of a discount our government can get buying things in bulk, I have a hard time believing the cost of paper and ink would be THAT much of a deterrent.

--
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Re:I don't care about the code... by Wylfing · 2003-08-07 03:40 · Score: 1

But for the love of god and all that is holy, WHY are they fighting so hard against paper records?
[Cynicism ON] Maybe you don't understand. You see, in the political parties' view the problem with Florida in 2000 wasn't the lack of integrity in the voting system, it was that they had too hard a time tampering with the results. In an all-electronic, non-reviewable voting system, nobody in the voting public can see whether the votes were tampered with. I anticipate more "surprising" election results in the future. [Cynicism OFF]

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Re:I don't care about the code... by Obsequious · 2003-08-07 03:49 · Score: 1

Well, I don't think it's so much that, as it is the fact that (in the case of ink at least) you can't store it forever. Anyway, the governments aren't too concerned about the ink and paper or equipment costs, I think, as much as they are concerned about training the workers.

I mean, around here the poll workers are usually retirees, housewives, and so on -- interested people with time on their hands. Training these people to work with a new polling machine is bad enough, but you're basically doubling or tripling the training requirements as soon as you add in having to mess around with paper and ink and so on.

Also, the governments by law have to store those paper ballots for a certain amount of time. They may actually look at a paperless system and say, "Yes! Cheaper storage since we don't need a warehouse/basement for the ballots!"

So, it adds cost in a ton of ways, beyond just the initial cost for the goodies.
Re:I don't care about the code... by BiggerIsBetter · 2003-08-07 03:49 · Score: 1

I personally like the idea of individual polling stations printing locally, and folks like Xerox could easily provide production laser printers which can handle the workload. There's also no technical reason that the votes couldn't be printed remotely via ssh tunnel. Output them to something like those super-fast super-reliable DocuPrint lasers.

Making paper copies of things really isn't a big problem.

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:I don't care about the code... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

Whats wrong with a simple dot-matrix fanfold printer and a very large box of paper? The chances of them failing are low. If thats too complex, how about a thermal transfer printer and a very very long roll of paper? Even less chance of that failing!

Technology doesn't always have to be complex or failure prone. The problems you're thinking of essentially apply to cheap consumer inkjet printers, yet there are plenty of other suitable options with significantly lower maintainance overhead. In many cases it would be no worse than maintaining mechanical voting machines on voting day.
Re:I don't care about the code... by aridhol · 2003-08-07 04:01 · Score: 1

There's also no technical reason that the votes couldn't be printed remotely
The voter can't verify the vote if it's done remotely. If I get a piece of paper that tells me who I voted for, I can verify that it's accurate.

--
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Re:I don't care about the code... by smack_attack · 2003-08-07 04:02 · Score: 1

Use thermal paper like they use in cash registers.

--

Hammer of Truth
Re:I don't care about the code... by b!arg · 2003-08-07 04:08 · Score: 1

I can't see how that is a whole lot more work than having to pre-print the ballots and deal with the machines that take the votes from you (This is in Seattle, WA). And anyone that lives in or around King County and has read a paper on a fairly consistent basis knows that this is not as easy as it may sound either.

--

Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
Re:I don't care about the code... by babbage · 2003-08-07 05:46 · Score: 1

On the other hand, building a system that [a] prints receipts while also [b] maintaining the secret ballot principle could be tricky.
Whenever I've voted (three different jurisdictions to date), there has always been a series of stations that voters have to pass through: [1] check in, [2] take a ballot (optional, depending on the voting technology), [3] enter a booth to vote, [4] deposit the ballot in some kind of tallying machine (again, optional depending on the technology), [5] check out.
If enough technical intelligence were added to this process, then figuring out who voted for what could be reduced to a fairly predictable traffic analysis problem. If you vote mid-day, when the lines tend to be short, it wouldn't be hard to pin down that voter John Doe checked in at 1:17pm, that a vote for candidates A, B, & C was recorded at booth 5 at 1:19pm, and that John Doe checked out at 1:20pm. Guess what, you've just figured out who John Doe voted for.
In the June 2003 issue of Cryptogram, Bruce Schneier pointed out that:
Video cameras in cell phones are a potential tool to buy elections. One of the basic tenets of a good election is that the ballot is secret. Someone can offer to buy a vote, but the buyer has no guarantee that the seller will deliver from the privacy of the voting booth. But video cameras in cell phones have the potential to change that; the buyer can demand proof of a vote bought before he pays. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3033551.s tm>

One of my big fears with all these electronic voting schemes is that they will also make it easier to get around "secret" ballots.
If electronic voting ever becomes the norm, I too want there to be an old-fashioned paper audit trail. On the other hand, that paper trail has to be done in a sufficiently anonymous way, and I don't have an answer for how to implement that. I do however appreciate that getting it right isn't likely to be easy, and that bugs in the system will cause serious problems in the first few elections in which such systems are employed (fraud, buying votes, unaudited software errors, crackers, etc).

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Re:I don't care about the code... by smack_attack · 2003-08-07 05:55 · Score: 1

If you vote mid-day, when the lines tend to be short, it wouldn't be hard to pin down that voter John Doe checked in at 1:17pm, that a vote for candidates A, B, & C was recorded at booth 5 at 1:19pm, and that John Doe checked out at 1:20pm. Guess what, you've just figured out who John Doe voted for.

There's no logical reason to have timestamps attached to votes.

--

Hammer of Truth
Re:I don't care about the code... by babbage · 2003-08-07 06:29 · Score: 1

But, unless the voting system accounts for this somehow, there's no physical reason that someone couldn't manually monitor votes as they spool off the dot-matrix printer or thermal tape or whatever it ends up being. Sprinkle enough "intelligence" to the system and you start having the opportunity to do things that weren't possible before, and when this happens it will break or be abused.
I still think that electronic voting systems as currently being considered are attacking the wrong problem. We want fast, accurate counting. We need the system to be auditable, though this isn't always discussed. It seems to me that we could achieve this by having a traditional paper ballot of some kind, and have technological systems to automatically tally the votes.
This is how standardized tests like the SAT have been scored for decades now, and it has a lot of virtues going for it: the original documents are preservable & trustworthy, the counting technology is fast & presumably reliable, tampering should be pretty obvious, etc. I don't see why this reasonably well tested technique isn't at the forefront of most e-voting proposals floating around today. There may well be better approaches, but crap like the Diebold approach are not among them.
The nice thing about this idea is that it doesn't need to involve much of a process change from how things are already done. All you're doing is switching the paper ballot the user receives with some kind of "fill in the bubbles" form and then speeding up the offline processing of the forms after the ballots close for the day. There should be few if any chances for fraud or error that weren't there already, which seems to meet a kind of "first do no harm" principle that seems necessary to me.

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Re:I don't care about the code... by ChaosDiscord · 2003-08-07 06:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

But for the love of god and all that is holy, WHY are they fighting so hard against paper records? It makes no sense.

Unfortunately paper records are nearly worthless.
Great, I've got a receipt that says I've voted for Bob Nifty. How do I know that the machine actually counted that? Or worse, what if a bug (or evilness) in the code caused 1 in 1,000 ballots to be handled wrong. I'll look at the receipt and it says "Bob Nifty", but I actually voted for "John Keen". With odds of 1 in 1,000, it's likely than some voters will never look at the receipt and notice the problem. So maybe 1 in 10 actually complains. At 1 in 10,000 complaints (basically, 1 per polling location), poll workers are likely to just chalk you up as an idiot who made a mistake. Even if they acknowledge the problem, can they really correct it? Even if they do, what about the people who never noticed because they assumed that the machine would do the right thing?
Given all that, I'm being given a paper record that I need to review (if the voter doesn't review it, the computer can just record with erroneous result in its database and print it and no one will know). What's the advantage of the computerized voting machines over just writing my choices on paper in the first place? We've still got the paper, still got the occasional need for hand recounts. All we've done is add a complicated piece of machinery between me and my vote!
Well, perhaps the paper record is completely anonymous, and I have to give it to election staff. Then, if there is a question about the validity of results, you can hand count the paper records and compare it to what the machine claims. Well, so long as a reasonably large number of people verify that the paper record that they get is correct, I guess. But what have we gained over using machine readable paper ballots? Nothing, really. Actually, we've gained additional complexity (and thus, potential problems).
Take a well designed machine readable paper ballot. My locality uses some. It's a big sheet of paper and there is a large arrow pointing directly to each candidate's name. There is an inch or inch and a half gap in the arrow. I fill in the arrow of the candidate I like. I then feed my ballot into the counter machine (which is very simple). The most important benefit is that "my vote" is an actual piece of paper that I marked. There is no machine between me and the canonical representation of my vote. If there is a concern that the counting machine is misbehaving, you can simply pull out the ballots and easily hand count them. There is no risk of someone claiming that the machine wrote the wrong candidate on the ballot since you made the mark yourself. Power outage? System failure? Break out the candles and keep voting! Just pile them up and feed them through the counting machine when you get the chance.
Computerized voting is a terrible idea. Getting paper records out of the computerized voting machines is a bandaid that destroys the meager benefits that the machines provide while failing to fundamentally fix the problem.

--
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Re:I don't care about the code... by Politburo · 2003-08-07 06:52 · Score: 1

So, that's why the manufacturers (and probably even municipalities) are opposed to paper. I don't agree with them -- I believe there SHOULD be paper verification.

There has been no paper verification in my district as long as I have been alive. We used mechanical systems, and switched to electronic voting systems about 4 years ago. Why is paper verification suddenly a neccessity for most people here?
Re:I don't care about the code... by Qzukk · 2003-08-07 08:07 · Score: 1

Personally, the current idea of a paper record doesn't go far enough. Its not enough that the machine gives me a printout of the buttons I pressed, I want a unique ID (that isn't associated with me personally in anyway) and the ability to come back in a year and have the system tell me the way I voted. That will ensure that the system doesn't print out how I voted and then record whatever it feels like.

Yet even then, that doesn't tell me that the system didn't record my votes, and then the votes the programmer wanted it to. There simply is no way to guarantee anything in an election, regardless of how it is done. What keeps the current counters from counting my ballot the way they feel like? The fact that if theres a recount, someone else might get the job? Are there few enough counters that a little deception can get tracked to a specific person?

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:I don't care about the code... by swillden · 2003-08-07 08:24 · Score: 1

Exactly.
Here's how an electronic voting system should work:
The voter should use a large, easy-to-read touch screen (accurately calibrated) to select their votes. When they're done, the machine should print out a paper ballot that contains a complete list of the voter's choices, in a nice, easy-to-read font, plus another list of the voter's choices in a machine-readable format, such as a 2D barcode (it may be possible to use an OCR-able font so the result is both human and machine-readable, but barcodes are more reliable). The ballot should not identify the voter. The voter deposits this ballot into a lockbox, just as they do now.
The paper ballots should be forwarded to a central location for counting, as usual. Counting should be be done by machines that read the 2D barcode. This is the official tally. In addition, a statistically significant random sample of the ballots should be selected for hand-verification. Each of these ballots is run through the scanning machine, and the computer-read result is presented to people who verify it against the human-readable portion. This process establishes the accuracy of the machine-counted tally.
If anyone really questions the machines, of course, a full hand recount can be done.
It doesn't matter whether or not the voting machine software is open source, but the code used by the vote-tallying equipment should be available to anyone who wants to see it, and the equipment itself should be available for inspection under controlled conditions. It might be a good idea to have closed-source voting machines, with a standard ballot format and basic usability requirements, so that multiple vendors can compete for the voting districts' business.
I think this process satisfies all of the requirements for privacy, accuracy and verifiability, while still making the counting process efficient and relatively inexpensive. Allowing some competition in the area of the expensive part of the system (the voting machines) should help to keep costs down and quality up, but there's really no way voting machine errors can alter the election outcome.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:I don't care about the code... by geekoid · 2003-08-07 09:01 · Score: 1

I think if I can go to the store, by one item, get an 8 inch receipt, and have an 18 year old change the paper, we can find a away to deal with this issue when it comes to voting.
Of course, what the print out says you did, and what you actually did, does ot need to be the same.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Not only open source code.. by Gefiltefish11 · 2003-08-07 03:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not only should the code for voting machines be made open to any interested member of the public, the whole voting process should be opened to the public.

Provided that it does not infringe on the privacy of individual voters, it seems reasonable and much more secure to allow any interested party to view the voting process in real time and at any level, provided, of course, that the process were set to read only ;)

Re:Not only open source code.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:37 · Score: 0

For a thorough account on security issues, involving not only software but hardware as well, see http://24.221.230.253/ Quite informative

If you want it open... by TWX · 2003-08-07 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

you need to build it. They're not interested in building it open source apparently. Remember, Diebold makes ATM machines and other commercial products, and they have stiff competition. By the design of their business plan their software won't be open.

So, if you want to see an open source implementation of voting software, something that you can argue is perfect and be able to show the world such, you need to make it. Diebold and their competitors won't.

If you can build the software to make a secure voting system, someone else can design the hardware once the software is ready. That seems to be what people are missing here. Design the system right and the hardware will be built to work. Design the hardware first, and the system will be dependent on whatever wacky design is chosen.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:If you want it open... by sploxx · 2003-08-07 03:39 · Score: 1

Are there open standards for voting machines and transmission protocols you can adhere to?
If not, it's pretty complicated for an open source alternative to be successful.
It's B2G (business-to-government) or how it's called nowaydays. They sell the government a "solution" and if it's closed source, it will be so from the top to the bottom.
Re:If you want it open... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-08-07 03:42 · Score: 1

It should point out that the rules of accounting by which ATMs operate is open source. Every bank follows a set of published standard accounting practices.
Banks are regularly audited by both industry AND government. They also rely on the government to enforce laws, and track down those who rob banks.
There is no "pure capitalism". It has to be coupled with a baseline of social services and law enforcement to operate.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:If you want it open... by wolf- · 2003-08-07 03:55 · Score: 1

So, if you want to see an open source implementation of voting software, something that you can argue is perfect and be able to show the world such, you need to make it. Diebold and their competitors won't.

Nor should we sit around and DEMAND that Diebold be required to share their work with the world. I agree with the parent, if you want it, write it.

--
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
Re:If you want it open... by aastanna · 2003-08-07 05:49 · Score: 1

I couldn't disagree more.

If the government mandated that all voting software must be open source then what would their competition do?

Any competition they have would need to be open source as well to comply with this rule, and what's more, it's a lot easier to detect someone stealing your code if both systems are open source.

Even better, if you are first to market with an open source propritary solution (i.e. no one is allowed to steal code, ever, but they can look at it all they want) you get the benifit of all the free audits. Like the one done by that university on the leaked code a while back. You can make improvements based on suggestions from the public, and you get generally better systems.

BSOD by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:18 · Score: 5, Funny

your vote has caused a fatal exception in kernel32.dll - try picking another option

I thought that was what Palladium was for. by waxmop · 2003-08-07 03:19 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Well, isn't that the point of having trusted binaries?

--

--
Long-term effects of Bush deficits

Re:I thought that was what Palladium was for. by DAldredge · 2003-08-07 03:21 · Score: 2, Funny

No. The point in having trusted binaries it to stop piracy so MSFT (and others) do not have to worry about people using their software with out a license. How else do you expect them to continue to grow their revenue each quarter?
Re:I thought that was what Palladium was for. by WNight · 2003-08-07 04:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Palladium is mainly about preventing the user from tampering. The binary containts a signed hash from the author. If the OS can't verify the signed hash it prevents it from running, or at least prevents it from accessing protected media like the DVD drive, or your encrypted music, etc.

Nothing in Palladium was designed to help users. It doesn't even help stop email viruses as they claim, because they're almost all exploits of "properly signed" software. Even if Palladium was did stop viruses, all it'd do is stop them from playing your DRMed MP3s while they wiped your drive and emailed your personal documents across the net.

The big problem with DRM to protect a voting machine is that if the software and hardware are done by the same company, there's no extra safety. You could be somewhat sure their software wasn't tampered with, except by them, but the problem here is that we don't trust "them".
Re:I thought that was what Palladium was for. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 07:41 · Score: 0

Nothing in Palladium was designed to help users

Well except for the frits chip itself maybe, which is to contain hardware based crypto procesors acording to the spec. These may be usable for speeding up ssl, pgp or ipsec depending on the supported algorithems. Also the tamper resistant hardware might make it around a hundred times more difficult to tamper with a system while having physicall acces. Not only password hashes can be secured to be only decrypted if the system has booted without tampering (sortof like a hardware "syskey" as found in win-nt/2k) but it also becomes posible to use crypto to make sure files can only be decrypted if file system ACL`s interpreted by trusted and signed code permit it, rather then by anyone with acces to the disk or system and the ability to run an os with administrative privileges or disabled acl checking.

This is ofcourse until a simple way of messing with the chip hardware without it burning up is found, the privat key for signing the "trusted" code is cracked or microsoft/other os makers screw and keep leaving holes in the "trusted" code. (They wont leave gaping holes of the ie or iis size though, microsoft know how to design a secure os but they keep screwing up on the implementation to say nothing about their efforts to bring application level to new lows every time (dotdot bug 3 times in iis file handling....) )

As for voting machines, a tamper proof chip checking for tampering with the boot process and only accepting signed software would make it a lot more difficult to tamper with these machines after they have left th factory. This seams to be the most vulnarable part of the who electronic voting process, making sure there is no tampering when the systems get set up by election officials, used by voters and then "counted" by officials again. With the higher stakes both the tamper proofing and the asynchronus crypto would have to be beefed up compared to DRM though. Afterall the x-box showed that as soon as sensitive byte leave tamper resistant chips unencrypted, no mather what speed, they will get cought... This means that the tamper resitant chips in voting machines will have to be specificly designed for their purpose, which is expesnsive considering only a couple of thousand units will be build.

And in a surprise landslide... by packethead · 2003-08-07 03:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Independant hopefull Kevin Mitnick was elected President of the 2004 elections.

--
.sig

Re:And in a surprise landslide... by fedork · 2003-08-07 04:11 · Score: 1

Seriously, I do not think computer security and reliability is there yet (will it ever be) to trust things THAT important to them. There HAS to be a material trail (paper ballots would do). Bits are way too easy to flip without leaving any evidence...

--
...remember good 'ol times when IP used to mean Internet Protocol....

Insecure, closed source voting software? by ihummel · 2003-08-07 03:19 · Score: 3, Funny

Before, it was whoever had the best campaign and the most money that won. Will elections in the 21st century be determined by whoever has the best crackers?

Why should the code be open source? by gmag3 · 2003-08-07 03:19 · Score: 1

The voting machines aren't open source, so why should the code for this system be open source?

Open Source doesn't solve this problem! by xphase · 2003-08-07 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Why isn't this code open source by law?"

This wouldn't fix the problem of faulty(by design) hardware, lack of audit trails, and no trust in the delivery method.

Sure with open source we can see the code, but that doesn't help if it is compiled by a compiler that you can't see the code for, run on microchips that you can't see the code for, and administered by people you can't trust.

The ``but it should be open source'' comment that gets thrown around in every single story about electronic voting does not take into account everything that happens to the code _AFTER_ we would be able to see it.

Anyway,
here is a link to a page on Electronic Voting:
Dr. Mercuri's Page on Electronic Voting

--xPhase

--
The following sentence is TRUE. The previous sentence is FALSE.

Re:Open Source doesn't solve this problem! by Dutchmaan · 2003-08-07 03:43 · Score: 1

No one is saying that open source is the only solution, just a step in the solution. The "solution" as a whole (hardware to software or vice versa) must be created openly for all to scrutinize and help provide a solution for...

After all isn't this in order to form a more perfect union??? ...or perhaps technology(capitalism) and democracy don't actually mix.
Re:Open Source doesn't solve this problem! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 10:39 · Score: 0

>>"Why isn't this code open source by law?"

>This wouldn't fix the problem of faulty(by >design) hardware, lack of audit trails, and no >trust in the delivery method.

The code should be designed to run on commodity hardware using standard compenents of established specs, assembled to standard specs, with case locks, etc. and handled according to similiar procedures as equipment for other voting methods, ie. with oversight, and with the added requirement of inspection and verification by multiple parties, simultaneously. .

There's no valid reason for not providing an audit trail and paper records, both to the voter and to the polling station, and the vote registrar.Paper and ink aren't that expensive, not with all the billions of reams of paperwork that gets printed out every day by govts. in the US. The cost argument is entirely specious and irrelevant. You can't other wise buy the assurance an audit tral provides. Like the machines and their support contracts don't cost out the ass. The Diebold machies do have printers, as well as the capability of recording to smart cards.

The last election we had here, the printers weren't used, but the smart cards were. Transmission was by smart card, deputy escorted, the dialout port was not used. Not inspiring confidence. I could see half a dozen ways to compromise the process. I suggest the output of individual machines be broadcast on a wireless channel or something. That way both the registrar and any scrutinizers will get the same copy of the votes counts for that machine, and any evidence of tampered transmission or later derived results will be apparent.

>Sure with open source we can see the code, but >that doesn't help if it is compiled by a compiler >that you can't see the code for, run on >microchips that you can't see the code for, and >administered by people you can't trust.

Transmit by distributing by a broadcast wireless link to a peer-to-peer network like a Freenet. More work to verify, adds a whole nother layer, but the actual transmission is then available to all, to verify not just the tranmission, but the VMS at the other end. You just have to take care that there is no functional mapping from voter to vote.

Public scrutiny, which in practice can only happen if the code is open source/pd and standardized hardware with open specs, at least provides a check against just such an eventuality as malicious or faulty compilers. Multiple compilers and compiler binaries generating from the same source will reveal disparities, etc.

>The ``but it should be open source'' comment that >gets thrown around in every single story about >electronic voting does not take into account >everything that happens to the code _AFTER_ we >would be able to see it.

You are right, openness should extend to every aspect of the entire electronic voting process and protocols. Done right, the result would be a more trustworthy system than has ever existed before.

--rgb

Paper vs paperless by Ioldanach · 2003-08-07 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is still possible to have a valid election, even with a closed source voting system. The key is to have the voting machine spit out a piece of paper where the voter can see the votes written down and then confirm them. It doesn't even have to be a paper the voter handles, it could be behind glass so the voter merely can see that what they voted for is on the paper. Then, in the case of a contested election, the checks can be made against paper as well as the bits. In a case where the ballots don't match, paper overrules the bits.

Granted, I think an open source system is the only sensible way to go, and the people writing them should be protected by copyright and patents, not secrecy. After all, if they're all required to be open, its going to be awfully hard to hide the source code you stole.

Re:Paper vs paperless by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-08-07 03:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

The actual registration of votes is not the problem.
The problem is in counting the votes. You have to track the chain of custody from the voting booth to the final number. Every step of the way should require a certification from an election official. The certification states that the official saw the numbers, they made sense. If something is completely screwy the official is obiligated by law to declare shenanigans.
As such, you could stage an election with paper and pencil, stones, or broken clay pots. The computers should only be used to make the counting faster. They cannot be trusted in any other regard.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Paper vs paperless by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:17 · Score: 0

>It doesn't even have to be a paper the voter handles, it could be behind glass so the voter merely can see that what they voted for is on the paper.

As long as you're looking through the glass, just point to the candidate you want and skip the booth and messy bits and bytes completely.
Re:Paper vs paperless by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

I would go one step further and say that during each election a randomly selected group of precincts would be automatically audited. Perhaps you could add a couple requested by each candidate. This would minimize the likelihood of cheating (vs. trying to make the election close but not so close that anyone calls for a re-count) and would, over time, raise or maintain the public faith in the system.

Synopsis by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:20 · Score: 0

So you're already making excuses for when Bush wins in 2004? That in itself speaks volumes.

Diebold's own network isn't secure! by phillymjs · 2003-08-07 03:20 · Score: 4, Informative

According to this story Wired is running today, Diebold got 0wn3d back in March. They were given a nearly 2GB archive of the stuff that was found by a person claiming to be the hacker who got in.

If a company can't properly secure its own network, how can we possibly trust them to create a secure voting system?

~Philly

Re:Diebold's own network isn't secure! by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-08-07 05:12 · Score: 1

Maybe because the people that run the network are not the same people who work on the voting system? "Hey Bob, could you fix this critical bug in the Vote-O-Matic?" "Sure Dave, just as soon as I finish updating our website."

Where I work the marketing department releases material with spelling errors not infrequently. Their work is not a reflection on my ability to write a magazine article, e.g.
Re:Diebold's own network isn't secure! by Saeger · 2003-08-07 10:15 · Score: 1

the marketing department releases material with spelling errors not infrequently. not infrequently? Why the hell has that kind of confusing not-not-true language become so not uncommon lately? Almost makes you want to drive your not unexpensive certified pre-owned automobile off a cliff.
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:Diebold's own network isn't secure! by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-08-08 01:33 · Score: 1

I don't like it either, but I was at a loss for a word or phrase that describs the place between frequently and infrequently. Moderately often? Somewhat occasionally? Oftentimes but not regularly?

Besides, I'm a weatherman (among other things). I'm used to using ambiguous phrases :)

Hackers? by brokencomputer · 2003-08-07 03:20 · Score: 1

Its pretty pitiful that a hacker could gain access to the kiosk at the voting place. You'd think someone could spot a guy hacking the machines. I wonder if the online voting will be web HTML/java based or if it voters will be required to download an application to vote. If the second is true, I hope they have a client for all the operating systems.

--
The Television Wiki

Re:Hackers? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:20 · Score: 0

Why would they support multiple OSes? Just because they offer an extra option to make voting easier, users of an OS other than the one they would choose (and we all know what it would be) can go vote just like they always have.
Supporting more than one OS is likely to cause problems because of a static budget being stretched over development for more than one platform.
Re:Hackers? by AKnightCowboy · 2003-08-07 07:53 · Score: 1

Supporting more than one OS is likely to cause problems because of a static budget being stretched over development for more than one platform.
Sounds like a job for Java. The app doesn't have to best fast, just multiplatform.

Why isn't this code open source by law? by stratjakt · 2003-08-07 03:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why should it be?

Why dont I get to follow my paper ballot, meet the person who counts it, give them a math test to make sure they can do the arithmetic required, and wont "carry the two" and fuck everything up?

Open source software wont fix anything.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:Why isn't this code open source by law? by garcia · 2003-08-07 03:56 · Score: 1

because we know that there are checks and balances with REAL people who are REAL determined that their party win (Republicans, Democrats, etc are all counting these votes individually).

We have gotten complacent with computers and their abilities.

If this crap isn't open source we are just going to believe whatever it spews without and checks?

No thanks.
Re:Why isn't this code open source by law? by illtud · 2003-08-07 04:30 · Score: 1

Why dont I get to follow my paper ballot, meet the person who counts it, give them a math test to make sure they can do the arithmetic required, and wont "carry the two" and fuck everything up?

Dunno about the US, but you're allowed to attend the count and watch the ballots being counted in the UK. You're welcome to follow the paper ballot all the way from the booth to the result.
Re:Why isn't this code open source by law? by IWannaBeAnAC · 2003-08-07 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

You do. In Australia at least, scrutineers are allowed at every step of the process. While I suspect the counters would be a bit pissed if you stopped them in the middle of the count to give them a maths test, there is nothing stopping the scrutineers from repeating the calculation and comparing answers.
Mind you, I don't know how the scrutineers are selected. At minimum, each party can provide scrutineers, but I'm not sure whether the general public can. The system works well enough in Australia that there has never been any suggestions of systematic problems. (Well, Queensland might be an exception!)

Fraud by Design by CaptainZapp · 2003-08-07 03:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

it makes sense that an organization like IACREOT, that supports paperless computerized voting systems, which are secret by their very design, would not want computer experts who disagree with that position at their meetings." (emphasis mine)

And that's exactly what's dead wrong about voting machines in general and Diebolds AccuVote in specific.

It's about as plausible like those industry strength, propriatery, uncrackable encryption devices with a secret, secret algorithm (which is certified by the association of creative spooks).

If we (as the voters) allow for such unaccountable, unauditable and error-rigged devices we can give the key to the town right away to he who maintains the devices (or even a few creative script kiddies for that matter)

--
ich bin der musikant

mit taschenrechner in der hand

kraftwerk

Diebold Developers by ratfynk · 2003-08-07 03:24 · Score: 1

To see the real origin of voting software see http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/1 1/0015240&mode=thread&tid=133&tid=186

--
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!

Re:Voting Software = REPUBLICAN MANIPULATION by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:25 · Score: 1, Funny

Remember the 2000 election. It's not how many votes, but who Daddy installed on the Supreme Court bench.

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, let it die already. Anyone still harping of the 200 election is a braindead obsessive nutcase that is in dire need of a lithium milkshake.

I am not registered to any Party, and I don't really like any of them, but you "REPUBLICANS ARE DEMONS!" people are the biggest fuckheads I have ever witnessed. You're worse that the rightwing assholes who tried to claim Clinton personally had 40 people killed in Arkansas.

GET A FUCKING LIFE!

idiocy by pogle · 2003-08-07 03:27 · Score: 1

Yay, lets pour more money down a black hole of voting software that's really not needed at the moment, and leave Maryland's state universities wallowing in underfundedness so they have to continue to raise tuition 2-3 times a year, reducing services to non-existance, and laying off dozens of staff memebers.

Sorry for being slightly offtopic, but it feels good to rant about this. Mid-semester tuition raises because the governor would rather have a fancy voting machine than fund the education of the future.

Although I am surprised that Diebold let SAIC see their software. And I won't be surprised if they discover its utter crap. We use Diebold at the university too, and its very problematic on such simple things as magnetic card swipes. The machines frequently have problems and fail to charge (or mis/double charge). Its a lousy system, but unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area to recommend better.

--
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.

Re:idiocy by pogle · 2003-08-07 03:30 · Score: 1

"The review ordered by Ehrlich will not cost the state additional money, Fawell said."

And before someone chimes in with this little quote from the bottom of the article, I saw it, and my initial rant was an 'in general' rant on the whole voting machine issue, not just about this study.

--
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.

Right of Inspection by 4of12 · 2003-08-07 03:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why isn't this code open source by law?

The source code doesn't strictly have to be under a free or open source license.

However it is vital that every single voter should have the right to examine the software and the hardware of the election process.

Without that right, there's nothing to prevent elections turning into the kinds of events that Robert Mugabe has been staging in Zimbabwe.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."

Use paper ballot with immediate scanning by Phoenix-kun · 2003-08-07 03:29 · Score: 3, Informative

I really like the system we are now using in Florida with some caveats. You're given a paper ballot with fill-in bubbles to mark your choices. You insert the paper ballot into a safe-like container that immediately scans and tallies the ballot. I've not seen any cases where there were mistakes, but I assume it would function like one of those vending machines that take paper money and reject the ballot if there was a problem. However, my one concern is that the questions and choices are stated and marked in clear text (of course). In the process of feeding your ballot into the machine, your choices are clearly visible to whoever is standing nearby. If they can deal with that privacy issue, I think it is the perfect solution.

--
Phoenix

Re:Use paper ballot with immediate scanning by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:37 · Score: 0

We have that in Minnesota too. But there is a special holder you use to submit it to the machine so it remains covered as the machine sucks it in. Pretty neat.
Re:Use paper ballot with immediate scanning by sploxx · 2003-08-07 03:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, but there is the whole transmission line from the scanner to the counter that can be observed. And then some secret service people asking you some not-so-nice questions afterwards, if you wrote "wrong"...

I don't want to show my vote to a machine, either. That is as bad as showing it to a human.

Until someone has an idea how one can safely suppress the personal information at the man-machine interface and only give the machine statistical information (Like if you throw the vote into a box with a hundred other votes!), electronic voting is a bad idea.

Throw the paper votes into a box, let it scan them after the box is *full* and then recheck them by a human, that would be ok. But this has no advantages over the current system.
Re:Use paper ballot with immediate scanning by gmhowell · 2003-08-07 08:15 · Score: 1

That's what we've been using in Maryland for about ten years now. Guess they needed a rounder wheel.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

In this case, OSS is bad! by borgdows · 2003-08-07 03:29 · Score: 0, Redundant

If the code had to be opensource, SCO would sue the voters for using some of their IP included "important portions of the voting system" and would require Darl MacBride for President as fair indemnity for the violation of SCO intellectual property!

Internet Voting by rf0 · 2003-08-07 03:33 · Score: 1

Yes electronic voting seems like a good idea but will it allow people to vote online from homes securly proving there ID? That might be the only way to reverse the trend of lower voter turnout

Rus

--
Cheap UK and US VPS

open source is a security risk by blair1q · 2003-08-07 03:33 · Score: 0

The fact is, some people can be trusted to make closed-source code. And most people writing open-source code can't be trusted to remain trustworthy. Making closed-system security code open-source increases the likelihood of someone finding an exploit and exploiting it for their own gain. Closed reviews by competent, trustworthy groups will be just as effective in finding security problems and bugs, which can be fixed without alerting bad actors that an opportunity for mayhem exists.

We *don't* do telelections? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:36 · Score: 0

I'm assuming since you were busting on someone for not voting that you do vote.

So, when's the last time you actually met a candidate for a major office, and actually had a discussion with him over issues?

Like most of us, you probably get all you know about a candidate from mass media.

Re:We *don't* do telelections? by TWX · 2003-08-07 03:50 · Score: 1

"So, when's the last time you actually met a candidate for a major office, and actually had a discussion with him over issues?"

Actually, I did work for one of the current mayor's businesses before he was elected. I met the man several times. I didn't vote for him. I also did work for his campaign manager, and until I did actually meet the candidate I was thinking about voting for him.

Spin doctoring is very effective against most people. It's easy to make an image (in this limited case) or break one (as happened in the 1996 Presidental race with Bob Dole) because of bad campaigning advice. Dole didn't speak in the third person normally. It was advice from his campaign manager. Bad advice, for it made him look like he was detached from his ideas, somewhat senile, and a poor public speaker. Clinton was able to be the opposite, looking informed and alert.

Apparently you're not familiar with what a "Telection" was on Max Headroom, either. In Max Headroom, it was illegal to turn off your TV. Voting was based on what channel the candidate was affiliated with, so when it was election time you were to tune in to the network that your preferred candidate was using.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Results for 2004 Marlyand elections by Lord_Slepnir · 2003-08-07 03:36 · Score: 4, Funny

They're showing off the source code for a voting system, so you know that some people will find security holes in them (and not tell anyone). Here's what I predict the presidental election will yeild:

GW Bush: -234,524 votes
Troll4x0r: 538 votes
Howard Dean: 864,234,234 votes
Natalie Portman: 784,245 votes

Re:Results for 2004 Marlyand elections by Dutchmaan · 2003-08-07 03:58 · Score: 0

Does anyone else think that Howard Dean sounds like a hotel chain, ice cream brand, or lounge singer???
Re:Results for 2004 Marlyand elections by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 12:15 · Score: 0

I think you meant to say that they all got 18,181 votes.

To prove just how insecure they are by Wireless+Joe · 2003-08-07 03:36 · Score: 1

The next time someone breaks ito a Diebold server, they should not tell anyone, but instead should see if they can ensure that "Cowboy Neal" wins the next few big elections. Inserting the CN code shouldn't be a problem for someone who can get into their info in the first place.

Re:To prove just how insecure they are by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 11:38 · Score: 0

I hope someone does this. Mr. T for president, foo!

That's my job by Inexile2002 · 2003-08-07 03:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Seriously. One of the things I do for Comp Sec is change management and version management. There are VERY strict auditing standards that companies like this need to meet. In the US there is a SAS 70 auditing standard that companies need to meet in order to do things like this. Up here in Canada, we call it a Section 5900 but its the same basic idea.

The way it works is, a company says that there are controls in place to assure people that something is or is not happening. If someone wants to test those controls, they'll call in a team of qualified IT auditors and we'll do a Section 5900.

For the 5900, the people hiring us to do the job (could be the company in question, a regulatory board, a judge, a client etc) will draft a list of risks or controls. These controls are things they want to see in place.

So, for a voting machine, the people requesting the 5900 would list controls similar to the following:
-All changes to code are authorized and approved.
-All changes are adequately tested, approved and testing is not carried out by the original developer.
-No changes are introduced to the code after testing.
-Changes are promoted and versioned by someone other than the original programmer.
-Code that is installed into the production system is the same code that was tested and approved.

... and so on.

Then the auditors will go in and verify that these controls exist, that the risks these controls are designed to cover off are adequately covered and that the controls are effective. If a company fails a SAS 70 or a 5900, they usually HAVE to fix the problems.

Also, it usually isn't that hard to get your hands on a Section 5900 or SAS 70 report. Most companies will happy give them out unless they failed them or there are other NDA issues. As a voter, you probably have rights to these reports, and even if you don't, your elected representatives definitely do.

Re:That's my job by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:16 · Score: 0

None of what is outlined above answers the question about the mechnism accurately registering the actual votes or leaving a reliable audit trail.

Say you are a candidate from party X and you also happen to be on the board or in the executive team of a voting machine company.

The company could authorize a code change to the machines to make sure all party X candidates win where the machines are used AND said code would still pass the 70/5900 checks because the changes were "authorized and approved", presumably by management.

What is really needed is machines that ASSIST in creating a token that the voter then reviews and
passes on with the token being retained for N years for audit purposes.

The actual token counting machines would need to be structured such that they could count the tokens but not interpret what the counts mean.
Re:That's my job by Inexile2002 · 2003-08-07 05:09 · Score: 1

Normally I don't reply to ACs but you do raise a valid point. No amount of auditing, assurance and control can prevent insider criminal conspiracies, and if all you go on is a 70/5900 for something as critical as a voting machine (or medical gear etc) you're not being smart about the whole thing

That is why code reviews, 70/5900s, independent reviews of the hardware etc are essential. In the end through, if an individual, party or secret Cabal operating from a Secure Undisclosed Location were to try and rig an election, an electronic voting machine would probably make things easier.

Not that recent history shows that its that hard regardless.

Maryland? Crooked elections? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:39 · Score: 0

Say it's not so in the land of Spiro Agnew and Parris Glendenning!

They're probably having the code reviewed because it didn't give the results they wanted, per old Joe Stalin: it's who counts the votes...

getting around any possible corruption by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:39 · Score: 0

why not record people's votes, and print them out a record of their vote with some kind of ID number. then publish the preliminary tally.

then a week or two later, have the people come back and enter their same ID number and the same way they originally voted, and tally that.

and then compare the two tallies...

Good choice with SAIC by cryptoluddite · 2003-08-07 03:40 · Score: 1

because it takes one to know one.

But it doesn't matter since all electronic voting is untrustworthy no matter how much review and or so-called security. There is no way for people to verify or track the electronic votes without using machines, and machines can be made to lie. People can too, but look at the typical poll worker...

if thousands of grandmas are riggin votes then you're really screwed.

Re:Good choice with SAIC by chamcham · 2003-08-07 04:39 · Score: 1

Yes, but SAIC will atleast verify that there won't be any so-called hanging chads, or so we hope. It'll be a 1 or a 0. Now... if you can enter just the right answers to cause a buffer overflow and pop in some executable code, you could make whoever you want to win.

rhetoric by grue23 · 2003-08-07 03:40 · Score: 1

Why isn't this code open source by law?

Because there's no public mandate to make it open source? Or was that a rhetorical question? Besides, there's always the argument that security is less likely to be compromised if the only bodies that verify the code are folks like SAIC.

No computers at all by gnugrep · 2003-08-07 03:40 · Score: 1

Just for the record, I'm a computer programmer by profession, so I'm not against computers per se. I just think that we should not have computers at all in the actual casting of votes. We should just use paper and ink. It is a technology that everyone understands (and if they don't, they shouldn't vote anyway). It will take longer to tabulate the votes at the end of the day, but so what? The ballots will be open to audits and understood by everyone who can read, not just a small cadre of computer professionals.

Rubin, Chaum, who is next, Morse?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:42 · Score: 0

Finally Rubin (of RSA fame) speaks up and the scandal gets respect and coverage.

Now Chaum (another famous cryto patent holder) gets banned?

What is next, Robert Morse turns up sleeping?

In Maryland You can Register Your Dog To Vote by mcwop · 2003-08-07 03:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

It happened: Link Here I posted this in another voting related story, but it couldn't be more relevant here.

--

"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

Re:In Maryland You can Register Your Dog To Vote by pmz · 2003-08-07 04:53 · Score: 1

In Maryland You can Register Your Dog To Vote

Well, given that a dog would probably have a good chance of graduating from a U.S. highschool, why not?

"And, now, a word from our valedictorian who not only has the highest GPA of this class but brought us to the Maryland State Frisbee Championships!"
(applause)
"Grrrrr...Arf!"
(mor e applause)
(valedictorian bites at groin, then sees a rabbit in the bushes and darts off the stage)
(standing ovation)

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Open Source Voting Software by jcsehak · 2003-08-07 03:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Okay I just checked sourceforge, and I saw one open source voting project, with no activity. Why aren't we doing something to change this? Why aren't we writing our own voting software? We can test it out in small groups, eventually use it in communities, counties, states, and finally in national elections. The country is tending toward electronic voting; IT NEEDS TO BE OPEN SOURCE.

A poster said earlier that the only reliable method of tallying votes is counting them by hand. That may be true, but look what happened last election. Wouldn't you feel safer if you could go through all the code line-by-line, and know for yourself it was secure, rather than have to trust some truck driver to not get lost with the ballots?

One huge benefit of electronic voting: we could be a true democracy. Want to decide if we should go to war? Lets all vote for it. Lower taxes? Get your vote in, Sept. 19th. Everyone voted for no taxes, and things got fucked up? We'll schedule another vote Oct. 19th to vote again, and unfuck them. Think about it: technology today is about to allow us to do something that has never before been even attempted on a large scale - rule by the people. The president could be a figurehead! Congress could exist for the purpose of suggesting laws for the American people to decide, rather than making them!

So who's the fucker who registered truedemocracy.org? Why don't you give it up so someone can put it to good use? I'm no programmer, but I'd be more than happy to give up some of my time to coordinate a project like this. Anyone who's interested, feel free to get in touch with me. Oh wait, I forgot - this is Slashdot - a lot of complaining about how things are, but no balls to fix them.

--

c-hack.com |

Re:Open Source Voting Software by maxume · 2003-08-07 04:23 · Score: 1

A true democracy could be very interesting. That said, I have some serious reservations. What would be considered a quorum? Once that is established, how is voter apathy dealt with? One great thing about having a selected few make our laws is that we can make them spend their time studying things in detail, and arguing with people that are vehemently opposed to their positions etc.
I find it quite easy to have an opinion on most issues, but it is a whole other thing to have an expert opinion and deep understanding of an issue.
Having said all of that, I do realize that I am taking a somewhat rosy view of the current system, and that politicians usually have agendas, but why not have just a bit of optimism?

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Open Source Voting Software by aebrain · 2003-08-07 19:26 · Score: 1

There's an open-source electronic voting system, that is compiled on an open-source compiler, and runs on an open-source operating system, on standard commercial hardware.

It's called eVACS and was used in the Australian Capital Territory elections in 2001. More details (AND SOURCE CODE) available at the ACT Electoral Commission website.

Or you could just look at any of the past /. posts. Maybe if I post the same data often enough, someone might just read it and take notice. But then, the election didn't happen in the USA, so maybe not. *SIGH*

DISCLAIMER : I work for the mob that made it. 6 months from contract signature to the election, total cost to make less than $150,000 USD. I wasn't on the development team though, too busy making spaceflight avionics. But They Did Good.

--
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist

Free Software by fredtheshingle · 2003-08-07 03:45 · Score: 1

The voting software should be Free Software, but that's highly unlikely. However, maybe this raises a (seemingly insignificant) question: if voting systems are all front-end-software-based, will true believers in the Free Software movement even vote? Could the government be creating a situation where people feel obligated not to vote, simply because of the software which is used to register their potential votes? Maybe absentee ballet is the answer? Will we still have paper ballets? I hope so! Though this problem does raise some questions, no matter how you feel morally towards software, you should vote regardless of the recording method (if you can vote using half a brain, and pick a candidate who will actually do something for this country).

hard-left nutcase.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:47 · Score: 0

Those are the ones that worship at the OSS alter, hoping that their fat bird God will come down and smite everything MS.

hard-left nutcase == OSS geeks

SAIC = Military by arichar4 · 2003-08-07 03:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

The state of Maryland just asked SAIC to issue a report on Diebold touch-screen voting machines.

My prediction: They will issue a report that puts a seal of approval on these voting machines. It will be almost impossible to debunk their report.

This is just to shut people up. SAIC = Military.

So far, we have the Pentagon involved with Accenture/election.com
General Dynamics,
Diversified Dynamics,
Northrop Grumman

All getting involved in voting systems -- as are the Saudis and the Pentagon. Why?

Take a gander at the companies run by SAIC and below this, their board of directors

At SAIC we have over 35 companies, subsidiaries and equity partners. A partial listing is provided below.
http://www.saic.com/about/companies/
AMSE C LLC
Specialists in full ship systems support: command and control systems, combat systems, communications, information warfare, main propulsion systems, hull & deck systems, auxiliary systems.

Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC
A joint venture between SAIC and Bechtel, Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC provides research, engineering and nuclear science capabilities to meet the unique challenge of science and engineering for the Yucca Mountain Project.

Data Systems & Solutions
A joint venture between Rolls-Royce and SAIC, DS&S incorporates Rolls-Royce engineering/controls expertise with SAIC's systems integration and information technology skills.

Hicks & Associates (H&AI)
Defense industry consulting.

Saudi SAI
Installation and maintenance of computer systems, telecommunications systems, and other data analysis systems in Saudi Arabia.

Members of the board:

D.P. Andrews
Corporate Executive Vice President, Federal Business, SAIC

W.A. Downing
General, US Army (Ret.)

B.R. Inman
Admiral, USN (Ret.)

H.M.J. Kraemer, Jr.
Chairman and CEO,Baxter International, Inc.

M.E. Trout
Executive Vice President, Cytyc Corporation (?? someone want to look this up?)

J.A. Welch
General,USAF, (Ret.)

A.T. Young
Executive Vice President, Lockheed Martin Corp. (Ret.)

Re:SAIC = Military by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 05:01 · Score: 0

My prediction: They will issue a report that puts a seal of approval on these voting machines. It will be almost impossible to debunk their report.

This is just to shut people up. SAIC = Military.

First off, SAIC is not going to rubber stamp the voting software. There will be an independent evaluation. Maryland will get the results regardless of the outcome. What the state decides to do with the result of the investigation is up to them.

As an aside, we don't have the budget in MD for computer-based voting in the first place, but that's a separate issue. Our system of paper ballots works just fine thank you. The money ought to be spent on that whopper of a deficit that the previous administration in Annapolis stuck us with.

Next, SAIC is NOT the military. We may have customers in the military, but then again we have customers all over the globe. Some are government and some aren't. If you had half a brain you'd know that we're really a secret front for the CIA (Note that SAIC is CIA's spelled backwards)!

Moderators: PLEASE stop modding this parent up as informative. Try flame-bait trolling idiotic clod instead. Copying a list of the BOD without comment or context does not count as informative.
Re:SAIC = Military by arichar4 · 2003-08-07 05:21 · Score: 1

Panties in a bunch? Sorry, I don't trust any report that is made by a company that has so many extreme right wing people on their board of directors. This will be a white wash , ordered by PNAC
Re:SAIC = Military by chamcham · 2003-08-08 04:14 · Score: 1

The board was recruited because of how heavily they were already networked. These connections help SAIC greatly in its winnings of contracts, be it military, gub'ment, or commercial.

SAIC _does_ have a large number of contracts in government and military, but only 1/7th of the employees in the company work on material that requires a security clearance. That leaves over 85% of the company doing other things.

Don't judge a company because of its board of directors, or because of their previous title. SAIC does good work and it is done by good people.

Der Marianne Rickenbach... by GeneralEmergency · 2003-08-07 03:51 · Score: 1

Googling Marianne Rickenbach turned up the following info:

Photo and email address
(Near the bottom, and oh yea, turn up your beer goggles to "FULL")

MRICKENB@montcopa.org

Have fun...

--
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency

Secrets in security by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2003-08-07 03:53 · Score: 1

If you can change a secret cheaply and do so regularly, it makes sense to keep it a secret. PGP session keys are a wonderful example.

If you can't change a secret then the secret is a weakness. If your software is burned into ROM embedded in epoxy in thousands of voting machines then you have no good way to recover from a leak of the source code. In that case, might as well publish it and get the benefits of distributed auditing.

Then there's whether you can detect a compromise. If the Polish resistance steals one of your Enigma machines, you could theoretically check inventory records and discover that one went missing. If someone copies the bits of your source code, you may never know.

open source by law? by tf23 · 2003-08-07 03:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not open source because a private company devoted it's resources to create it, and owns the copyright on it. (I'm assuming now)... It obviously needs to recoupe that investment, so it keeps it's code to it's own.

Simple enough. I really don't know why you'd question why it's not open source.

--
http://slashdot.org/~tf23/journal

Re:open source by law? by bjelkeman · 2003-08-07 04:16 · Score: 1

Online voting systems are very hot at the moment (as in one can potentially make some good money from it). The companies involved with this are trying to get the "first mover" advantage. They want to look good and appear successful in a very immature market.

They are scared of people who have been thinking about this a long time, like Open Source advocates. Someone like Shaum is able to make them look bad with a couple of quick quotes to the local news paper. Something which can potentially make or break a company which is early in its VC funding process. They really don't want that to happen. They think a good way of avoiding it is to keep Open Source advocates out of the process, such as a conference.

Quite simple really.

--
Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation

"Why is the code not ope source" by jbottero · 2003-08-07 03:54 · Score: 1

The code is not open source because it was developed by a private (vs government grant) company for a commercial product.

And why? by siskbc · 2003-08-07 03:54 · Score: 1

because we haven't made it so yet. Remember Government by the people...

And have we made a good case for why it should be open source? Remember, around here it's taken as gospel that Open Source is a "Good Thing," this isn't the case elsewhere. I'm not necessarily taking a contrary position, but it's a question that needs to be answered clearly.

Obviously security is the main concern here - but one could make a case that this isn't like windows, which hackers can play around with all the time at home. For systems with limited distribution, one could make a compelling argument that Closed Source would be more secure, because the hacking threat is smaller.

On the contrary, if the source were opened, one might not be able to trust that there would be more white hat hackers than black hats for such a high-profile application (ie, anti-US). I don't even think we could assume that a white hat with a name to make would work with the code authors outside the media and a forego a full whitepaper deployed on the eve of an election. A lot of whitehats have recently taken to giving authors about 15 minutes to patch bugs before publishing them. That's not something we can have with a system like this, it's too dangerous.

There are a lot of issues to consider here, and it can't be taken as granted that anyone outside /. and Stallman's disciples will assume that OSS is best here as a matter of course.

--

-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

Re:And why? by bigpat · 2003-08-07 04:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

"On the contrary, if the source were opened, one might not be able to trust that there would be more white hat hackers than black hats for such a high-profile application"

Hacking is of little concern here. Since we aren't talking about Internet voting, so the only opportunity to hack would be while you are in the voting booth, with nothing but the interface that is given to you. So assume there is a touch screen or something with a limited number of options.

Making this software open source so that we can all look at the code is really just to make sure that there isn't some algorithm that drops every 3rd vote for a particular party or adds it to the wrong tally. Paper ballots are retained for auditing by third parties after the fact if there are questions about how the human tally was conducted. But computer recorded voting does not have such directly auditable methods, so we must be certain that the systems are not flawed or biased.

Voting by computer terminal might make it faster to count the votes, but it is more akin to walking up to a sheet and telling the person behind the sheet who you are voting for. You lose the physical evidence of the vote unless there is some direct physical recording made. Regardless of how you desing the system, it is essentially relaying the vote without any direct physical evidence of the vote. Any subsequent recording of the vote is at least once removed from the actual person casting the vote. Unlike with paper ballots or even those horrible punch cards where the ballots are direct physical evidence of the vote.

So, that is the argument in a nutshell. If you are to be forced to trust a machine or person to record your vote accurately, then we have a right to know the procedures that they will use to record the vote.

Otherwise and unless there are many layers of accountability, both before the election and after, then let's just stick with paper ballots and optical scanners.
Re:And why? by ajs318 · 2003-08-07 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

How dare you presume to tell me that I am not allowed to supervise the process by which my elected representative will speak in my name?

Get your head out of your arsehole. It's because of idiots like you that your country's in the mess it's in.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:And why? by TomV · 2003-08-07 05:07 · Score: 1

How dare you presume to tell me that I am not allowed to supervise the process by which my elected representative will speak in my name?

+20 insightful end of discussion game over I rather think.

TomV
Re:And why? by Politburo · 2003-08-07 06:48 · Score: 1

Voting by computer terminal might make it faster to count the votes, but it is more akin to walking up to a sheet and telling the person behind the sheet who you are voting for. You lose the physical evidence of the vote unless there is some direct physical recording made. Regardless of how you desing the system, it is essentially relaying the vote without any direct physical evidence of the vote. Any subsequent recording of the vote is at least once removed from the actual person casting the vote. Unlike with paper ballots or even those horrible punch cards where the ballots are direct physical evidence of the vote.

Why are people so concerned with a copy or record of their vote? Before my district got computer systems for voting, we used huge mechanical beasts. You turned levers for your candidate in each row, then turned a master lever to 'record your vote'. This incremented a counter in the back of the machine, similar to an odometer. You got no paper record. You got no other verification. The only paper used is a small slip with a serial number on it which is used to verify the total votes taken by the machine. Then if Total votes recorded > Total votes taken, you know you have a problem. In fact, the electronic systems work exactly the same. You push a "button" (touch screen) for the candidate you want in each row, then touch the button to submit your vote. The electronic systems also use the paper slip to audit the total number of votes recorded.

Open Source in this case is important. by Art+Pollard · 2003-08-07 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have to admit from the onset that I am no fan of open source. This is for a variety of reasons. (It is probably sacrilege to state that here.)

Voting machine software is however a case where I firmly believe that open source is not only important but necessary. The ability to vote either among a certain group or among the populace as a whole goes to the heart of our democratic republic. If votes are not tallied properly, not only may mistakes be made but there is the very real possibility that the country through forged votes may be manipulated by those who have nefarious purposes in their heart.

The cryptographic community a long time ago discovered the best way to ensure the security of a cryptographic algorithm is to provide the algorithm to their colleagues. The rest of the cryptographic community then responds by trying to break the algorithm or in the least trying to discover the weaknesses. Because of this review process, the algorithms are then adjusted until they are highly secure. On the other hand, when cryptographic algorithms are kept secret, the review process is skipped and it is not uncommon for unsecure algorithms to make it on the market. When this happens it can cost lives and money.

The same can be said in the case of voting machines. If the source code is not released, security problems will likely go unnoticed until discovered by accident by someone who may or may not have the public's best interest at heart. In fact, the likely hood of it being discovered by someone who wants to manipulate the system will actually go up as they are more likely to be able to obtain the source through deception or to take the time to decompile the voting machine binaries. With the large number of voting machines that could be used around the country -- or in storage between use -- it would not be hard for someone to obtain at least the binaries for the voting machine software. And this goes to the heart of the matter which is this: Someone who wants to manipulate the system will be able to obtain the source either by bribery, theft or through decompiling the software's object code. Thus in a closed source environment, the only people who would not have the source and be able to easily discover the problems would be the good guys.

Bad idea. by ShadeARG · 2003-08-07 03:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why can't I buy people's votes? If I have a vote that I don't want, and someone wants a vote, they should be allowed to buy mine.

Because that would make the system worse than it already is. The percentage of people that do not vote is astounding, and you can be sure those votes would be sold. It's bad enough that people vote just because they think a certain candidate is a good speaker or they are a member of their political party. If votes could be bought then the political giants with the most cash would win every time. This is exactly how government positions should never be filled.

If you think about it, an election is like a high speed race. The only difference is that the voters are behind the wheel. With that in mind, I'm surprised the system allows uninformed voters to actually cast a vote without knowing about the issues and the politicians.

Before you can drive, you take driver's ed. Every election before vote time, there voter's ed should be a requirement. The issues are constantly changing, as well as the politicians. If this was manditory like a driving test (written or hands on, doesn't matter), then the people would be far better informed. Imagine the difference that could make. Imagine the turnout.

Re:Bad idea. by 91degrees · 2003-08-07 04:12 · Score: 1

Of course its a terrible idea. I wasn't being serious.

It's just that it comes from the same school of thought that says theat elections should be run as cheaply as possible. If we're going to use capitalism to justify using voting machines, then we use the same reason to justify vote buying.

Not fantastic logic on my part, I readily admit, but really I wanted to make the point that capitalism and government are not always a good mix.
Re:Bad idea. by ShadeARG · 2003-08-07 04:21 · Score: 1

Point taken, It wasn't meant as a flame.. just an interesting idea and to point out to the less informed just in case they thought "Yeah, why not?"
Re:Bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 07:51 · Score: 0

If votes could be bought then the political giants with the most cash would win every time.
That's not how it works now? If you're not from a political family with party ties you have absolutely no hope of being elected to any major office. People are stupid and vote for the popular person.
Re:Bad idea. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 08:54 · Score: 0

With that in mind, I'm surprised the system allows uninformed voters to actually cast a vote without knowing about the issues and the politicians.

Funny that you say this. The entire reason for the limitations on the franchise by the founding fathers had nothing to do with keeping people down or eliminating dissenting opinions (this is obvious from the intense competetion of ideas that they had) but had everything to do with making sure that the people who were influencing the polocies and execution of the government were well informed and proficient.

The problem with unlimited franchise is the same problem that you face when you get out on the freeway to drive home, specifically, most people are idiots who are so self centered and distracted that they cannot focus on what matters.

Ulimited franchise in the USA has resulted in people in office that support polocies and procedures of government that eliminate freedom under the guise of security, that destroy the free market system and the prosperity that it brings with it, and that have exchanged the constitution for a political landscape dominated by special interest groups.

People in the USA now only group together to form self-interest societies. They are out to advance themselves with at best no regard for others and at worst the expense of all others. This used to not be the case. In fact the constitution was written by men who were interested in using their positions and power to benefit others, not themselves. Quite a big change to these days of me-me-me politics and hand-out economics.

Ok, rants' over..gotta take my blood presure medication.

Oh my Christ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 03:59 · Score: 0

You would need beer goggles that went to 11 for that bitch. Whew! Talk about a face for radio! I wouldn't fuck her with Taco's dick!

vote buying by mikeee · 2003-08-07 04:01 · Score: 1

But remember, you have to insure that the paper trail *can't* be used by a voter to prove who they voted for - that would allow verifiable vote-buying, which would be bad...

Hardcopy logs seem a no-brainer, though.

Re:vote buying by homer_ca · 2003-08-07 05:23 · Score: 1

It's easy enough to make the paper trail anonymous. If there's a UID on the ballot, don't link it with the voter. Once the voter verifies the printed ballot, it gets dropped into the ballot box. The voter doesn't leave with the ballot.

blurring of language by killthiskid · 2003-08-07 04:02 · Score: 0

You know what kills me from the wired article:

"To gain credibility back, they ... have to do a line-by-line audit to make sure that their intellectual property is still sound," said Stutzman.

Who the hell calls code -intellectual property-??? WTF?

I can just see a memo sent out by some PHB...

From this moment forward in order to enhance share holder value and increase synenergy all software and code shall be referred to strictly as intellectual property.

So now the already over used misnomer of IP, which already includes copyright, patent, trade secrets, and four hundred other unrelated laws, rights, misc, shall also include any form of software, be it in binary or code form, including code that is open source, public domain, or proprietery.

I'm going to start calling my bowel movements intellectual property, just to be safe.

It is like they are just ramping up for a lawsuit.

Re:blurring of language by gorgon · 2003-08-07 04:28 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm going to start calling my bowel movements intellectual property, just to be safe.

You should really call it intestinal property. You could still call it IP, though.

--

And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
Re:blurring of language by killthiskid · 2003-08-07 05:22 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Ack! Who the hell modded me down! Crack smoking mods... this is valid stuff... I'm being serious.

Open Source? by Codeak · 2003-08-07 04:03 · Score: 1

Open Source isn't for everyone or thing... But anything as important as a voting system should be transparent and open to public review, which is not nessarily open source! Propritary software has a few benefits... 1) A reasonable expectation of problem resolution. Volenteerism is nice but inconsitant at best. 2) When #1 fails, money can be recovered and a new project started. Who do you sue when Open Source causes $ loss? You may not like the message, but don't bother shooting the messenger he's wearing a bullet-proof vest with a flame retardant outer shell.

The ultimate goal... by KC7GR · 2003-08-07 04:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

...May be to throw up such discouraging obstacles that people will simply stop voting.

Call me paranoid if you want, but it strikes me as odd that the US government is even allowing voting machine software to be closed-source. SAIC has been a virtual lap-dog for all kinds of well-shrouded government and DoD contracts for decades, most of which are heavily classified (I know this because a friend of mine used to work for them).

And Diebold is now allowing SAIC to "review" its code? Given SAIC's heavy federal connections, does this not strike anyone else as a Fox-Guarding-the-Henhouse scenario?

Don't even get me started on the possibility of back doors in voting software that would allow special interests who shelled out enough $$ to easily rig an election.

Like I said, I hope this is just my paranoid side jumping at shadows. Unfortunately, I have little proof one way or the other.

--

Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

Blue Feather Technologies

Re:The ultimate goal... by chamcham · 2003-08-08 04:01 · Score: 1

My ethics training at SAIC (something all us employees go through every two years) said that we're not supposed to do stuff like that. Then again, the pens and pencils they were giving out at the seminar (at a SAIC building) had labels from a Hotel in another city on them.

I guess stealing pens and pencils is fine, but back doors are bad.

Why isn't this code open source by law? by CognitiveFusion · 2003-08-07 04:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lawmakers are people, elected by money and other people
The majority of software is closed-source so a profit can be made
The majority of people believe that secrecy is always equivalent to security. Trying to convince them exceptions exist is an uphill battle because this belief is often deeply ingrained.

--
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it. ~A. Perlis

Re:Voting Software = REPUBLICAN MANIPULATION by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:07 · Score: 0

Actually partisans of "either" party aren't paying attention. It's all Coke vs Pepsi as far as the mass marketed candidates are concerned. They're both bad for you.

Computerized Abuse of Votes Already Happened by SilentMajority · 2003-08-07 04:19 · Score: 1

According to the book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, hard evidence gathered during a 2-year investigation of the 2000 presidential election revealed that the problem wasn't just "hanging chads".

The author states that the investigation uncovered CDs that contained lists of MANY THOUSANDS voters who were disqualified because they had supposedly been convicted of crimes. There are several interesting items (all verifiable because they are not mere opinions) related to this:

1. The disqualified voters were predominantly blacks and democrats. Less than 400 names were republicans so you do the statistical math about this being pure chance.

2. The supposed crimes took place IN THE FUTURE. The original list contained future dates of crimes such as year 2007 and so on. I'm reminded of technology used in the movie Minority Report but that is fiction--this is real life.

3. When this error was reported to the appropriate authorities (I do not recall the official title of the person), the "solution" was not to requalify these "future criminals" but to blank out the fictional future dates of crimes! I'd like to know WHY! And please, lets not jump to conclusions simply because the benefitting candidate's brother was governor where this happened. Jumping to conclusions don't help so lets just stick to facts that can be confirmed & verified.

4. This story was covered by non-profit news organizations like the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) but no American for-profit company even mentioned it while they constantly reported about ridiculous "hanging chads" and "lets move on" stories. BTW, the BBC is huge and is used by 90% of the British it wasn't a tiny local news show that published this story.

5. The election was decided by less than 600 votes so doesn't the discovery of MANY THOUSANDS of illegally disqualified voters deserve a full investigation?

As a patriotic American, I don't want to believe any of this stuff and it really pisses me off to hear about it. What I'd like to know is if this stuff really happened as the author (investigative reporter) stated--these allegations are more relevant to our country than any "Monica" story (which also sucks BTW) but it didn't receive ANY airtime in the USA by media corporations who'd benefit by upcoming decisions from the FCC. These same US media giants were campaign contributors to the benefitting candidate so this is simply tragic. Maybe our country needs something similar to the BBC that the British can count on for more objective, non-profit news.

If voting were computerized, won't abuses such as this be easier to commit?

Another interesting assertion made by the book is that the Bush family had business dealings with Osama Bin Laden's family in Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration made the FBI avoid doing certain investigations that would uncover this. I don't know if this is true but it is kinda creepy given that the book was published WAY BEFORE the Bush administration's current attempts to censor Saudi Arabia's alleged involvement in 9/11.

I don't know about you folks, but I lost someone in 9/11 who happened to be working at the WTC that day. She and all the others who died deserve better than this. We shouldn't avoid investigating certain involved parties because it would be politically uncomfortable for the President to explain how his family may have provided money to Osama's family members which in turn provided money to Osama himself. IMHO, intentionally putting a one's own political career and thereby weakening US National Security should be considered treason at most and grounds for impeachment at least. At a minimum, there should be a full investigation that at least matches the one performed during the "Monica" fiasco.

I've never voted for a Democrat before but I'm seriously considering voting for them if this nonsense continues.

UCITA and budget cuts by autechre · 2003-08-07 04:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Two interesting points, one which was brought up in the article and one which wasn't:

I'm a resident of Maryland, and employed by a state university. The previous administration made a mess of our finances (which were excellent up until then), and now the state is suffering budget cuts, particularly in higher education. This has resulted in hiring freezes, elimination of positions, and layoffs.

I've been voting in elections here for almost 8 years now, and I don't seem to recall us having problems like Florida's. Baltimore uses a system where you mark a paper with a special pen, and the paper is fed to a machine. It looks like a standard multiple-choice test, not confusing at all. Why is it absolutely necessary for us to be the first state to buy these shiny new toys when our financial situation is so dire? This will just bring more pressure to legalize gambling (although we already have a state lottery and Keno, so I don't see why people upset about real casinos aren't protesting those).

Second, remember that Maryland is a UCITA state. Under UCITA, isn't software required to be fit for the purpose for which it is designed? There's also something in there WRT implied warranties concerning data. It will be interesting to see whether this plays a part.

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.

John hopkins researcher to speak at NSF by Danathar · 2003-08-07 04:22 · Score: 2, Informative

For those of you who are in Northern VA. The Researcher at John Hopkins who looked at the Diebold systems is doing a presentation on his findings at the National Science Foundation, room 110 Aug 12th at 4pm.

If you can't make it, I've drafted an intern to tape and encode it for download. It will be archived a day later at http://www.ngi-supernet.org/conferences.html

If any of you are interested please tell me so I can post it as a bittorrent instead of burning down the web server.

Just respond to the thread...thanks!

electronic machines MUST provide paper backup by ChristTrekker · 2003-08-07 04:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

The only way I'll ever trust an electronic voting machine is if they provide a printout I can verify on the spot before dropping it in a box, so that it can be used for auditing purposes. Ideally, the source code should be open source. But even if it is not, providing a marked paper ballot that can be manually counted (if necessary) ought to be sufficient.

--

Constitutionally Correct

Re:electronic machines MUST provide paper backup by monkeydo · 2003-08-07 06:01 · Score: 1

That would make the electronic part the equivilent of a big expensive electronic marker. Here we use paper ballots that are like scantrons. You black out the bubble next to the guy you want to elect. Then it goes through the reader which either validates it and drops it in a box, or if you are stupid and can't mark a bubble spits it back out. You know immediately if your vote was counted, and you get the chance to correct it if you f*cked up.

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Re:electronic machines MUST provide paper backup by Politburo · 2003-08-07 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

The manual printout in the grandparent's case is to provide a paper trail in case of suspected tampering. Then, persons can go back and count the printouts for a verified count. The printout, imo, should not act as a "did the computer read my choices correctly" (as this is a trivial task and is currently not done on electronic voting systems already in place), but should act only as an alternative voting record. In 99.99% of the cases, the computer would still keep the original, electronic, vote tally, and no manual counts would be done.
Re:electronic machines MUST provide paper backup by ChristTrekker · 2003-08-07 06:55 · Score: 1

Agreed. That is the cheaper (and probably more sensible in the first place) alternative. I was saying that if we have to have e-voting, then they must provide a paper backup. But you're right, it would be easier and cheaper to just have scantron-able paper in the first place. You can use them like paper ballots for manual recounts, or you can run them through the machine to get done faster.

The problem is this assumes we keep the current single vote plurality system. I'm an advocate of voting reform (Condorcet's method, baby!) and I don't know if "fill in the bubble" would work there. Needing X bubbles besides each of the X candidates' names so that you can rank them all would be a little tedious. But if handwriting recognition is good enough to get most checks read correctly, it ought to be good enough here.

--
Constitutionally Correct

Uh oh.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:34 · Score: 0, Troll

The Governor of Maryland is a Republican. You know what that means: it's time for Slashdot to argue against code review of voting software.

Use Aegis for that! by nietsch · 2003-08-07 04:34 · Score: 1

You just gave a very good description of aegis.
It is only a tool, so you still need a proper secure organisation around it, but I could let this good opportunity to plug my favorite SCM go by.

--
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you

Re:Use Aegis for that! by greenrd · 2003-08-07 17:56 · Score: 1

Yes, aegis is a mature tool (it's about the same age as Perl, i.e. very old in Internet terms), follows the UNIX philosophy well, and with many more features than CVS. More disciplined though, so not for everyone.

--
Female Prison Rape in NY

Coming soon, to an election near you: by YrWrstNtmr · 2003-08-07 04:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Absentee electronic voting.

"H.R. 1377, the Military Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2001 introduced by Representatives Mac Thornberry, Duke Cunningham, Sam Johnson and Helen Tauscher would be a major step in improving the process. This legislative initiative provides for the Secretary of Defense to expand an electronic voting pilot program to test the system in the 2002 general election for the implementation of the ultimate solution - Electronic Voting."

SAIC & CALEA by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

SAIC has been heavily involved in CALEA implementation. You know - the requirement to add wiretapping capabilities to the US phone system well in excess of the actual number of wiretap authorizations issued? Check out SAIC's Annual Report. Also note this paper by a high level SAIC drone attacking anonymous remailers as a threat to national security.

I've had some conversations with SAIC types. Given a choice between civil liberties and cool surveillance technology, they will always pick the surveillance technology.

Any machine can be hacked by siskbc · 2003-08-07 04:42 · Score: 1

Hacking is of little concern here. Since we aren't talking about Internet voting, so the only opportunity to hack would be while you are in the voting booth, with nothing but the interface that is given to you. So assume there is a touch screen or something with a limited number of options.

I'll admit a fair amount of ignorance of the whole computer voting thing, but I assume the thing has to be 'netted up to communicate its results with something. To me, there's your backdoor for hacking potential.

Also I wouldn't discount walk-up hacking regardless. They don't screen polling volunteers really well - I don't think it's completely inconceivable that a hacker, having had ample access to the software, could figure out a way to, say, run a "patch" of the software. I'm assuming this runs on a typical computer, and with any machine, physical access basically equals root access for anyone savvy enough.

Making this software open source so that we can all look at the code is really just to make sure that there isn't some algorithm that drops every 3rd vote for a particular party or adds it to the wrong tally.

I certainly appreciate that, and I would think it a good idea if I was convinced all other avenues of hacking were cut out, but I'm not convinced they are.

--

-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

Re:Any machine can be hacked by bigpat · 2003-08-08 03:29 · Score: 1

"I certainly appreciate that, and I would think it a good idea if I was convinced all other avenues of hacking were cut out, but I'm not convinced they are"

So, you are suggesting that closed source software somehow reduces hacking? I think or friends at Microsoft have proven otherwise. Sure, open source means someone could take the code and change it and then make it look like the original software, but with checksums and the like this could probably be eliminated.

"I'll admit a fair amount of ignorance of the whole computer voting thing, but I assume the thing has to be 'netted up to communicate its results with something. To me, there's your backdoor for hacking potential."

I don't know what the features of specific systems are, but my understanding is that what is being talked about are these vote taking terminals not some sort of internet voting, that means that the connections between machines, if there are any, are just cords that might run along the floor of an election hall. And the election results are probably still reported over phone lines and such. So, I guess the argument here is the same for all open source vs closed source debate... Is security by obscurity better than security by open design? I think for operational details obscurity is best... IE when are events scheduled, so when would the right time be to breach security. But for systems of security the best option is for there to be wide understanding of the methods used, so that sloppiness and flaws can be discussed openly. Otherwise evn the most simple flaws can exist and be exploited for long periods of time without anyone being aware.

SAIC runs major Internet Access Point by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:49 · Score: 0

SAIC is heavily involved in civilian telecommunications - very interesting for a firm whose top ranks are made up of so many ex-spooks (NSA, military intelligence agencies, et.) and a firm that particilates in so many contracts involving surveillance technology.

A quote from this press release :

On July 28, 2000, SAIC/Telcordia was chosen as the Operator for NAP of the Americas after completing an extensive Request For Proposals (RFP) process. SAIC/Telcordia will design the technical specifications for the NAP and collaborate with the developer of the NAP building to ensuring proper and successful implementation. SAIC/Telcordia will build the technological infrastructure for the NAP (including routers, switches and other optical and electronic equipment), run the day-to-day operation of the NAP, facilitate the recruitment of new member companies, and create an environment favorable to carriers, ISPs (Internet Service Providers) and other telecommunications companies to exchange information.

So what are a bunch of spooks doing operating a large Internet network access point, hmm?

Karma Whoring For Freedom by roystgnr · 2003-08-07 04:50 · Score: 1

I would have expected someone else to mention this already, but I don't see it among the high-scoring posts, so let me spread the meme:

First, as some people have pointed out, open source is not a magic bullet or even close to being a sufficient solution for preventing election tampering. Even if you know that the published voting machine source code is secure (and it will be a lot harder to verify this in a situation where the coders may have a huge incentive to insert accidental-appearing back doors deliberately) you still have to make sure that the hardware has no back doors, that the compiler has no back doors, that the computers used to load the software onto the voting machines have no back doors... it's just not feasable to make a trustworthy system that can do all that. We'd be better off sticking with paper.

But now that meme I was getting to: we'd be best off combining electronic voting with paper. The obvious way to do so is with paper ballots designed for optically scanned counting (which would give fast results but still leave a paper trail to settle disputes), but cryptographer types have come up with better ideas still. The best system I've seen so far is at vreceipt.com, which lets you verify that your vote was included in the total (but in a way that makes it impossible for anyone else to know who you voted for), and makes it impossible to alter any counted votes (or to add new votes, assuming independent observers are making sure that polling places aren't padding their numbers) or count them inaccurately without a 1-2^bignum chance of being caught.
It is possible to obtain election results in a way that prevents tampering but is more convenient and reliable than counting paper ballots. Perhaps it's too early to hold our elected officials over the coals until they implement such a system, but for now we can at least spread the word that such things exist and that for some reason a few people are trying to push tamper-prone closed systems on us instead.

The world would be a safer and better place by hey! · 2003-08-07 04:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

if only everyone who thought about security reminded themselves of the basic and fundamental fact every time they looked at a system like this:

Prevention alone can never be an adequate security measure.

This is a very simple principle that any person should be able to understand, if they only have the moral courage to accept it. This would greatly clarify situations like this one, because people would be asking the right questions.

I'm not saying that prevention is not useful, just that a wise assumption has to be that any preventive measures we take and and probably will be. These systems are not crackable because their preventive measures were bad although they may have been bad. They are crackable because any system is crackable. What I am afraid of is that an evaluation of these machines only will look at how robust the protective measures they provide are. While it is a good idea to get an independent review of these measures, it is a bad idea to put much credence in them. The fact is that even the brightest and most professional person in the world is not going to be able to anticipate all the ideas in the world.

Security has to consist of a number of independent goals, including:

Prevention
Detection
Response
Damage mitigation

We need to ask what any system provides in each of these areas in order to asses security.

For example, if I put Grandma's diamond ring in a a safe deposit box in the bank, the thick vault walls and doors do provide prevention. However without alarms (detection) and police (response), those walls wouldn't stand much of a chance to a determined attacker. Detection and response capabilities are in themselves the single most powerful preventive measure -- much more so than the vault design itself.

On top of that, if I am wise, I take out an insurance policy on the trinket (damage mitigation).

Looked at this way, how would we evaluate a voting system?

Is there any way to manipulate the results the system reports?
Is there any ironclad way to detect such a manipulation?
Is there any way to trace the manipulation back to the malefactor?
Is it possible to mitigate or undo the damage of manipulation?

Looked at this way, the manual paper ballot would be an almost miraculously robust system if it were a piece of software. It is capable of accurate counting the voter's intent, while completely anonymizing the voters choices. Prevention is accomplished by physical control of access to the ballot box, and by chain of custody of the ballots to the counting place. The greatest opportunity for manipulation comes up in tallying the results.

However it is possible to detect and mitigate such manipulation by recounts. Of course we want to avoid situations where recounting is necessary, but the recounting process itself is not to blame. Electronic methods of vote recording eliminate recounting at the expense of making it impossible to establish independently whether fraud took place.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

DNA from fingerprints is why by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 04:52 · Score: 0

you're votes are not anonymous unless you handled everything with latex gloves. and didn't breathe to hard.

Look at it this way. Corporation A wants politician B elected. Corporation A also happens to manufacture voting equipment. politician B is elected.

You think it was bad with fundies and ecofreaks now? Wait till the corporations start deciding exactly which politicians are elected. Finding out about a bought politician will seem like a quaint Idea.

MOD PARENT UP! by nietsch · 2003-08-07 04:53 · Score: 1

if only he considers voting democrats. Not that they are much good, lucky I don't live in the USA.

--
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you

Re:Voting Software = REPUBLICAN MANIPULATION by SilentMajority · 2003-08-07 04:56 · Score: 0, Troll

Based on your argument, should people who "harp" about 9/11 let it die already and drink lithium milkshakes? Both events are important to us patriotic Americans and the only ones who downplay these are the ignorant, the terrorists and the people who committed election fraud.

WAKE UP! This isn't about the stupid "hanging chads" everyone universally is sick of hearing about. Hanging chads seem like mere incompetence, not election fraud to me. So don't associate annoying stories we've all heard to the relevant stories we have not yet heard.

This story is about computerized voting and there is new hard evidence that certain computerized abuses occured in the 2000 election.

According to the NY Times best-selling book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, a 2-year investigation of the 2000 election showed that we Americans did not even once hear about the real abuses during that election which were reported in the non-profit BBC (British Broadcasting Corp) but not even mentioned once by any of the media giants in the US (who happened to have contributed to the benefactor of the abuses).

WHAT WE DIDN'T HEAR IS THIS: Many thousands of voters were illegally disqualified for having committed crimes years in the future (2007, 2008, etc.) The vast majority of these disqualified voters were blacks and democrats. When this was reported to the authorities, they simply BLANKED OUT the future dates of crimes so these voters were still disqualified!

Since the abuses took place under the charge of the benefitting candidate's brother and the Supreme Court decision to stop the recount was decided by judges appointed by the benefitting candidate's father, this is much bigger news than the former president trying to weasel out of confessing to a marital affair.

Especially considering that the election was decided by less than 600 votes, the discover of many thousands of illegally disqualified voters based on FUTURE criminal convictions should be discussed and investigated at least as much as the "Monica" story.

Open source? Pah... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-08-07 05:07 · Score: 1

Open source is not a panacea for what ails the world. What a voting system needs is a review by qualified people (not just anyone who might take an interest in it). And I mean the whole system, hardware, software, communications. Once a system is approved there needs to be some way to ensure that only approved systems are used in elections. Sorry, a job of this scope requires the government to oversee it.

Re:If you want it open...then open must be..... by Macrolord · 2003-08-07 05:14 · Score: 1

...understood. Notice the use of "proprietary" and "open" below.

excerpted from:
http://www.banktech.com/story/coverStory/BNK200208 07S0018

"That, in turn, has been facilitated by a move away from proprietary OS/2-based platforms and toward open Windows NT- and IP-based platforms. Almost all legacy ATMs run on OS/2, explained Dove's Hayes. "IBM is withdrawing support of OS/2. The industry is moving to Windows NT as the new standard for ATMs."

California law... by Soong · 2003-08-07 05:15 · Score: 1

...requires that all the source code in a voting machine be turned over to the state. Although, I doubt we have a team of experts checking it over. It's probably just sitting in a vault somewhere.

But still, with these fancy gui kiosk voting machines, doesn't that mean the state of california should have a copy of the Windoze (CE?) source code?

See CA Code, section 19103

--
Start Running Better Polls

What no Cowboy Neal option? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 05:17 · Score: 0

You forgot the first rule of elections. There is always a Cowboy Neal option.

Re:What no Cowboy Neal option? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 11:32 · Score: 0

> You forgot the first rule of elections. There is always a Cowboy Neal option.

It's there, it seems he accidentally listed it first.. :)

Here's a theory. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2003-08-07 05:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

The system doesn't get hacked. Or it does. It doesn't matter, because this time, (after being burned once already), the people are paying attention. --Heck, this Diebold stuff, (Die-Bold???? What's with that etymology?), and its inherent problems is even making real news.

So. . .

The people will be watching closely the left hand of the magician, (misdirection). Maybe there will be some election fraud, maybe there won't be. It doesn't matter, because the people will get their president of choice. --I'm guessing, Democrat, Howard Dean.

Still theorizing here. . .

Now some say that Bush need only set another war going during the campaign, and that this will assure his re-election. Maybe. --Thing is, to do so, he'll need to do some very unpopular things. Like recalling tens of thousands of reservists to active duty. --Because the U.S. military is spread very thinly. Or even more un-popularly, calling a Draft. (Collective shudder. Is everybody here over the age of 21? No? I see. Hope all you youngsters like combat boots and DU.)

"The scramble to find replacement units for Iraq duty is stark testimony to just how thinly the 480,000-strong U.S. Army is stretched.

Of the Army's 33 active-duty brigades, 21 are deployed overseas -- 16 in Iraq, two in Afghanistan, two in South Korea, and one in Bosnia. All but three of the rest are either preparing for one of those missions, recovering and retraining after one of those missions or held in reserve. " Story here

So maybe this will be enough to piss everybody off. --There's already a scandal brewing on the back-burner about Bush's lying to congress. There's the crappy shape of the economy, thanks to Bush's complete mis-management. And there's the fact that he's an ex-coke head who can't even talk properly without making a hundred and one creepy Freudian slips. (I lost my link, but there are long lists of his verbal screw-ups all over the web. Go look. It's just crazy!)

Of course, if things get really bad, all Bush need do is punch that big red button and call down a state of emergency, and that's the end of the show. Democracy over, bub. Welcome to the new Amerika.

However, this Howard Dean guy. . .

Looks bright and new. He's saying all the right things. --While he was governor, he managed to keep Vermont out of deficit while the rest of the country went to shit. He's openly criticizing Bush's stupid war on Iraq, (a war which is getting a couple of kids killed every day. --And those are just the official numbers.) People are losing faith in Bush, and Dean sounds like a good guy. He's also talking about some social welfare reform which all the millions of people too broke to afford medical coverage, might just perk up enough at the sound of to head in droves to try out those new DieBold machines. . .

Problem is, Dean is also being backed by the Zionists. (Now, please, moderators, curb your knee-jerk desire to mod me into dust at the first sound of Jewish conspiracy, and at least finish reading this. There's no hate here or Trollish nonsense. Just listen). . .

A man named, Steve Grossman, is Howard Dean's head of campaign Fundraising.

What does that mean? I'll tell you:

Steve Grossman was ALSO the president, -not just some pamphleteer, but the president- of one of the most powerful Israeli lobby groups in the entire world, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Steve Grossman shed his official Democratic posts in 1992 when members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee elected him as their president. Now, Grossman has co

payment? by chocolatetrumpet · 2003-08-07 05:23 · Score: 1

And, who hires the auditors? Hrm...

--
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.

Re:payment? by Inexile2002 · 2003-08-07 07:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Whoever wants assurance that the systems are working. An interest group of voters could hire the auditors if they wanted to. I've worked for government, banks, insurers, shareholders, the companies themselves... anyone with a stake in the process.

That doesn't mean that the company making the software would let them come in and audit - but these are a fairly big deal and it would be VERY strange if someone with an interest was willing to pay for an audit and the company in question was unwilling to let the audit go forward.

But auditors qualified to do 70/5900s are not something there are tonnes of. The big 4 Accounting firms maintain them, and some smaller shops. But this is all tied into accounting and business management standards.

And as much as people point to Enron/Anderson and say you can't trust the big four - its just not true. One falsified SAS 70 or Section 5900 report and a whole multi-billion dollar company with 10s of thousands of employees can unravel. There is checking, double checking and very rigid standards of audit evidence that are required for these things.

Every piece of work I do gets checked by at least three other people.
Re:payment? by HiThere · 2003-08-07 08:53 · Score: 1

However, this wasn't the first time Anderson was implicated in this kind of scandal. It was around 1970, and I don't remember the details, but they were involved, and it hit the front pages of the newspapers. And here they are again, so the penalties must not have been too severe.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:payment? by Inexile2002 · 2003-08-07 09:40 · Score: 1

Lol.

The first time around the penalties must not have been to severe - hell - the second time with the Enron thing the legal penalties weren't actually that bad either.

But the thing that the big 4 (formerly big 5) accounting firms sell is their opinion. And the worthiness of that opinion is the value of the company.

Blow your credibility like Anderson did with Enron, and your company has no product to sell. Anderson was a POWERFUL reminder to the other four big accounting firms of the consequences of that sort of thing. Anderson did not disolve like candy-floss in the rain because of lawsuits, fines or other monetary issues. It folded because they lost all their customers. They lost their customers because they blew their credibility.

The companies in that industry self regulate because if they don't, they'll shrivel up and die.

Dasvedanja by Dukael_Mikakis · 2003-08-07 05:49 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter, the code will vote for you.

At least I hear that's how it is in Soviet Russia.

________________________________________________
I crochet because I'm lonely; I'm lonely because I crochet.

Guilt by association, one bad apple, etc... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 05:51 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter that different people are in charge of the network security and the voting system-- the general public's perception is that the whole company looks bad because of something like that. If the company's not hiring competent network admins who can adequately secure their network, how do we know the people creating this secure voting system are not just as deficient in their abilities to to their job?

This is why high-profile individuals lose their jobs with high-profile companies when said individuals get caught doing something wrong. If Company X doesn't rid themselves of Senior VP John Doe when the cops raid an S&M dungeon and catch him chained to the wall in a gimp outfit getting whipped by a dominatrix, public perception would be that Company X condones deviate sexual activity-- an almost certainly wrong perception, but then I never said that the general public isn't a bunch of bloody twits, did I?

The real problem is ... by Dukael_Mikakis · 2003-08-07 05:54 · Score: 0

Eventually M$ will make M$ElectoralCollege or some program like this and people won't be able to vote because they'll be too busy closing pop-ups the whole time.

________________________________________________
I crochet because I'm lonely; I'm lonely because I crochet.

You don't need traditional printers... by stomv · 2003-08-07 06:05 · Score: 1

You need cash register printers.

The spooled paper is easy and convienient -- every cashier knows how to load the paper in correctly (hence, it isn't hard to train on loading). Ribbons? They are like the electronic typewritter ribbons... easy as pie to install new ones. The hardware is durable, not too costly, and quite robust. Furthermore, there is an industry of technicians that can come to a facility in $foo hours to repair the hardware on site. If you have $bar voting machines, and one printer goes down, the $bar-1 machines should do O.K. until the technician arrives on site.

Don't over-tech the problem. Use minimal hardware to print, and use a system that gets abused far more often than a home system. Use a cash register reciept system for printing, and you'll have durable, configurable, simple hardware, and cheap supplies.

(I don't work for a printing company, but I do work weekends supervising the cashiers at a Home Depot).

--
Support a few technologists in Washington.

Even an ATM gives me a Reciept by NickFusion · 2003-08-07 06:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't automatically eliminate fraud, but at very least, I should be given a receipt of my transaction (vote), and a printer ought to be making an archival copy at the same time for recounts.

Imagine if your bank instituted a no-paper-record policy.

--
What were you expecting?

Internet Voting = Bad Idea by SPrintF · 2003-08-07 06:59 · Score: 1

Internet voting is an intrinsically bad idea.

A secure, private polling location is the only defense against vote coercion.

How secure would a woman's vote be if her husband is standing over her shoulder while she casts her ballot?

Suppose your employer set up a polling station in the office "for the convenience of his employees" and "strongly recommended" that you take advantage of this. Would you feel secure that this "polling station" wasn't recording your keystrokes for the PHB's examination?

Sorry, no. Internet voting cannot be made to work for reasons that are social rather than technological.

--

Honesty. Loyalty. Kindness. Laughter. Generosity. Magic!

given up on open source...going a diff. route by JimBobJoe · 2003-08-07 07:03 · Score: 1

I'm going to be asking my state representatives to allow individuals who decide not to vote on the machines the ability to vote by good old pen and paper.

The pollworker system is actually pretty good. You have two "democrats" and two "republicans" (most of the time that's the case, but independents and other party people can be switch-hitters) and they watch over a particular precinct. The four person design was put in place to count votes when they were pen and paper. (Even in the county I live in, we have machines that count the votes and print the votes on magnetic tape and paper tape. However, votes for write ins are still counted by the pollworkers.)

So individuals who do not trust the machines can just vote pen and paper and let the pollworkers count em. I like that, because I trust the four people who I've seen at my polling station for many years now a lot more than some dingbat company and their closed code.

So, where IS the source code? by Tangurena · 2003-08-07 07:14 · Score: 1

So, who has an online copy of the source code that Diebold left publicly available? All the mirrors seem to have been taken down since the story originally broke months ago.

The difference is... by arth1 · 2003-08-07 08:33 · Score: 1

At some point we would have to collectively trust the bastards, the same way we trust automovite manufacturers and inkjet printer manufacturers to look out for our best interests.

The difference is that Moscowitch and HP don't have any interest in our cars crashing and our inkjets substituting words. Rather the contrary. The voting operators and manufacturers, though, might quite well have an interest in "steering" an election.

Regards,
--
*Art

mod this guy by geekoid · 2003-08-07 08:36 · Score: 1

-1 luddite.

Instead of doom and glooming this, why not get active to see a process it put in place so we can trust electronic voting?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I can see it now by geekoid · 2003-08-07 09:08 · Score: 1

IN a surprise electtion a 'Mr. Smith' has one the election for president.
we go love to Presidents Smiths news conference

"People of...America. It sickens me .... to be here... This Freedom, if there is such a thing).. is lke a virus..."

At that point several shots where fired at are new leader, which he skillfully dodged.

Personally, I welcome are new robot leaders..

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Voting Software = REPUBLICAN MANIPULATION by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 09:14 · Score: 0

The truth is a troll? What he said was a fact -- it was reported on the BBC that republican controled corporation Choicepoint scrubbed tens of thousands of innocent black people and democrats from the voting rolls (acting via Katherin Harris). The US media has said just about nil concerning this even though the NAACP sued the state of Fl based on this info and the state settled out of court! Wake up America.

No civil rights by dimss · 2003-08-07 09:41 · Score: 1

I don't care because I don't have a right to vote in my country. 30% of us don't have.

Doonesbury by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 10:02 · Score: 0

Here and here.

North Dakota also changing plans by puck71 · 2003-08-07 10:10 · Score: 1

I live in North Dakota, and I recently saw an article about how the move toward the Diebold voting machines in the state has been put on hold because of the recent publication regarding the lack of security, etc. I think it's good that states are taking it slow and making sure it's done right, rather than just rolling out the first thing that comes along.

Will the real Maryland please stand up? by judoMan · 2003-08-07 10:32 · Score: 1

Bravo for Maryland; I think electronic voting systems have the potential to compromise the integrity of our democracy, especially in these sensationalistic times. Folks are always looking for a conspiracy, and politicians love to play up that angle against their opponents ("My opponent answers to big business, not to you").
Can you imagine the hell that would break lose if one of these systems was compromised in such away that a major election was altered? Especially if it came to light after a few years after the fact (e.g. after the wrong president has been in office for two years with two years to go)? The ramifications would be ghastly.
These systems need to be foolproof, but that's not possible in this world. Almost foolproof is attainable, however, and kudos to Maryland for raising the issue. Is this really the naive state who was the first to pass UCITA into law?!? -jm

Oh boy! by pair-a-noyd · 2003-08-07 11:38 · Score: 1

If SAIC gives it a clean bill of health then I'll KNOW 100% that everything is totally on the level.

I really trust SAIC..

I already posted that by corkhead0 · 2003-08-07 12:53 · Score: 0

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=72311&cid=6528 165

on a different article and got no mod points! Grrrrr. You own me karma! ;)

Re:Voting Software = REPUBLICAN MANIPULATION by SilentMajority · 2003-08-07 14:24 · Score: 1

Thanks! My thoughts exactly.

When I saw my response tagged as a Troll, I was pretty shocked myself.

Who knows? Maybe the AC who posted the original message I responded to didn't like what I had to say and was able to mod my post down with his real account.

I'm kinda glad though. It prompted you to post more info regarding this such as the successful NAACP lawsuit, Choicepoint and Katherine Harris.

Frying Pan, meet Fire by phred · 2003-08-07 14:29 · Score: 1

SAIC! This is some kind of cruel joke.

SAIC made the DNS the shambles it is today.
You could look it up.

SAIC, NSI. What a strange history.

--
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.

Is this a good idea... by Goonie · 2003-08-07 16:07 · Score: 1

A question worth asking at this point is whether more citizen-initiated referenda is a good idea.

There are arguments both ways, but it's not a laydown misere.

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)

Re:Is this a good idea... by DunbarTheInept · 2003-08-07 18:54 · Score: 1

For example, the current California budget crisis was caused by voter propositions that didn't have to form a coherent policy with each other. Proposition: Do you want to enact government program foo? Yes. Proposition: Do you want to enact government program bar? Yes. Proposition: Do you want to enact government program baz? Yes. Proposition: Do you want to collect the high taxes needed to fund those previously approved programs? No.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Is this a good idea... by ajs318 · 2003-08-07 22:08 · Score: 1

My solution would be to turn it around and go from the opposite end. Bar elected bodies from dealing with issues related only to a mere subset of the people they represent. For example, no higher authority than a parish council should have jurisdiction over anything which has effect only within that parish. District and county councils would be responsible for collating parish laws and policy documents and making general statements for the purpose of clarification {e.g. 'riding a bicycle to which a dog is tied is permitted in Upper Piddle and Nether Piddle; but not in Middle Piddle, where a fine of 37.5p shall be imposed unless the offender dismount from the machine with a 180 degree flying leap and untie the creature'}, but anyone can do that - no decision-making is involved, so it doesn't matter whether it is done by a tory or a socialist. Every decision that can affect people would be made at the lowest possible level -- by {the representatives of} those who would be affected by its consequences, but not those who would not. Obviously some decisions need to be taken at high levels {e.g. transport infrastructure is properly a national or even international concern}. But, by and large, local policy should shape national policy rather than the other way around. Additionally, taxes should be collected regionally and distributed upwards to national / state and federal governments. I think this would solve many concerns. Most of the "decision-makers" in your life would be real people - and you would know where they lived, where their kids went to school &c.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Why isn't this code open source by law?" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 16:08 · Score: 0

For the same reason that the code in a radar gun isn't open...
Makes you wonder?

Slashdotters... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-07 16:20 · Score: 0

I say we take a vote on this!

Why does it even need to be this complicated. by way2muchsense · 2003-08-08 04:29 · Score: 1

I don't see it that way. What is a ballot? A list of names with checkboxes, right? We used to do it on a big sheet of paper, so why do we need a big, fat, bloated computer program to do the same thing?

The way I see it, it's a damn html form (or something like that). Why not do the whole thing in perl and be done with it. Want to check and see if your system is kosher? Easy. Do a diff from the distribution CD. Piece of cake. Hell, I can make something like that in a month or two.

--
Republicans are idiots.

Slashdot Mirror

Maryland Plans Code Review for Voting Software

307 comments