Maryland Plans Code Review for Voting Software

asmithmd1 writes "We already knew Diebold software is insecure, now the Baltimore Sun is reporting that the Governor of Maryland has asked SAIC to review the software in Diebold voting machines. Diebold has graciously allowed SAIC access to their proprietary code. Why isn't this code open source by law?" In a related story, a trade show for closed-source electronic voting systems is doing their best to keep critics out. Update: 08/07 15:23 GMT by M : Diebold's website security is less than outstanding.

Comments

Re:because

[garcia]

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:Paper vs paperless

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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.

SAIC = Military

[arichar4]

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:because

[Stubtify]

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/

Bad idea.

[ShadeARG]

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.