Slashdot Mirror
CNN Reports on Diebold
An Anonymous Reader writes "CNN has finally picked up the story about concerns about Diebold voting machines. It's about time this made it into the mainstream media." If you're interested, here are a couple
of related
stories.
explanation as to why there is no paper audit trail? Since that is the clearest, easiest, most obvious sore point, the first element to raise big, flappin' red flags with the most lay of lay-persons, what official explanation has Diebold come up with as to why there is no paper audit trail?
Civil Disobedience is a great example of how democracy should work.
A law made by "the people" is made to represent the best interest of "the people" in general. It should be fair and in proportion, and that should be the basis for obedience to that law. Making theft illegal is in everone's best interests, because it should protect your posessions.
When a law is out of proportion, unjust, or in any other case plain wrong, it is no longer in the best interest of the people in general, and thus should be void. "The people" ignore (break) the law, because they in general do not agree with it.
The ability for the public to act this way should prevent government agents from making laws for their own benefit (corruption). The public has a means of protecting their public interest.
If the voting system is corrupted, it's in the publics best interest to expose this. I'm not aware of who leaked the memos in the first place, but linking to material available on the web should not be punished IMHO.
I think it's utterly wrong to place responsibility of the counting of votes in the hands of a commercial enterprise, not if they don't give full and in-depth insight in the process, and allow auditing at every level at any time. Not because I'm an open source zealot or "liberal", but because I trust a commercial enterprise as far as I can throw them, and that's not very far...
Machines will never be appropriate for something this simple - and I say that in a cost effective paradigm.
The only way to be sure that a machine isn't fucking up or being abused is to print an audit trail..... which would use paper so any cost effectiveness goes out the window. Not even counting the cost of expensive machines etc.
The other reason to oppose this is to stop voting from moving anywhere outside of the polling booth (which is where the logic of electronic voting leads) -- because that will just lead to massive fraud, hacking, vote buying, and husbands standing over their wives and children during voting time to make sure they vote for "the party" (which shall remain unnamed).
it doesn't stand up;
technologically (security).
economically (it's madness)
or democratically (it has sinister implications, vulnerabilities and adds nothing other than a contempt for the average voters understanding of how ballots work)
So, from a gnu/linux and general tech lover, fuck off technology we don't need you here.
Seriously - this article didn't even mention the memos or the C&D letters.
Are college students the only ones willing to stand up to these guys?
This paragraph annoys me the most though,
They embrace it huh? They enjoyed the experience? What empirical data, the one he pulled out of his ass? That's something he'd probably enjoy. Interesting how CNN headlines the last section with "Critics Mistaken"
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
As far as I can tell - from various news reports - there have been a number of suspicious results. Suspicious in the sense of pointing to software flaws as opposed to corruption.
A number of results have thrown up the same odd set of figures a number of times.
I just wonder if this isn't a place where Benfords Law could be applied ?
ac
Apparently, the poster didn't actually read the article... It doesn't mention the Diebold memos about how easy it is to modify results. The article gives the reader the idea that those opposed to electronic voting machine are all technophobes that don't 'get' how great these new machines are.
In my opinion, this article does nothing to help. Not that it matters. My state managed to count its votes correctly back in 2000, and they agreed with the majority of the nation. Touchscreens aren't what Florida needs. They need better-trained officials, and apparently a better graphic designers... And better voters, judging by their electoral votes back in 2000... Just kidding.
Man, I love computers. But they sure are a pain in the butt.
Computer Scientists are usually:
"Use a computer to do it. Its 3 million times faster, can read your mind and do your ironing!"
And the non geeks respond:
"Nah, its too hard, expensive, dangerous and unreliable."
Whereas in this case it seems we can't disuade them from using it.
I wonder how long it would take to label these electronic voting systems as a joke if one were allowed a circumspect examination. Of course you won't be able to get anywhere near them because the developer company will claim security when the only real security is being completely open about it.
I really hope E-voting becomes a trustworthy standard. With the right people, this could become a reality. It would enable us to move democracy into a new era, where the public could vote on each policy.
Download the power of government to everyone, so that fairness becomes the new standard. Inform the public based on true logic, not stupid logic, like "if you vote for this, you will be good looking."
E Voting could allow us to venture into true democracy, where the people actually run things, instead of the few who profit from the losses of everyone.
I mean... if you BANK online, what's so bad about voting online? Seriously. My theory is that if it's not safe enough to vote online, then it is not safe enough to vote anyway. If the corruption is there to the point where you can't post a ballot online, then the same must be true with any form of electoral process.
If E Voting became a standard, we could have elected officials at all levels of government, not just the top. The problem with the way things are today, is that when you've got Mr. X who has been in the CIA for thirty years, his power is too great. He can make things happen so that it doesn't matter if the top official wants it or not, the will of these mystery men always railroad democracy for the common population.
But who's going to clean up government?
Who is going to make the world a better place?
It has to be the geeks. We have to be the ones to take the power back and download it to the masses, because most geeks believe in equality, and respect for everyone. And we're smarter than most of the corporations who are running things now.
I propose a Geekocracy. Let's shed this Duhmocracy.
according to this site, 80 percent of american votes are cast by machines built by one of two corporations (Election Systems and Software (ES&S) and Diebold Voting Systems -- both described as 'Republican'). Although this concentation does not directly preclude democracy, it does certainly make it rather vulnerable.
using an electronic voting system with an audit trail that is also a tax credit coupon.
;-).
When you go into a voting booth you get a card that has the time that the last person voted (this allows individual authentication of the voting record, more on this later).
You insert the card into the voting machine and, if you want a tax credit, your ssn. The time stamp plus ssn is one way hashed and the hash is printed on your card. The card number is then your tax credit authentication code.
At the time your card is printed (vote cast), another blank card with just a time stamp is generated for the next voter.
The voting machine records to two seperated databases, call them db1 and db2, the following;
db1( My_Candidate++, My_timestamp )
db2( hash( ssn, timestamp ) )
The db's writen to a permanent media, like maybe cdr, dvdr, or paper, or whatever.
db1 is used to tally the vote, it is also made publically available, db2 is sent to the IRS for tax credit validation purposes.
And last, a law is passed that forbids any entity from combining the two db's (this is the weak link, still have to think about this). In fact, no one but the IRS is legally allowed to have a copy of db2. Also, the oneway hash needs to have a crack effort barrier that is computationally huge (like a couple of minutes on an NSA machine
Pros
The tax credit ensures massive turnout
If you are paranoid about giving your ssn out, then you don't have to, but you don't get the tax credit either.
You can look at the publically available voting record to see that no votes were inserted between yours and the previous voter.
Cons
Possible breach of anonymous voting (but this also possible by other means, like bugging or social engineering).
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
The story didn't mention the company's bias towards one particular party. When I did a paper on electronic voting for a class earlier this year I found the company has strong Republican ties and the chief executive (Walden O'Dell) of the co. has personal connections to Bush/Cheney. The company donates almost exclusively to Republicans. O'Dell had a fundraiser at his house for Cheney which raised $500k earlier this year, has donated and raised money for the RNC and is a leader in Ohio with helping Bush with his re-election campaign. He's written in editorials on how he is committed to delivering votes to Bush. Normally I wouldn't complain on what a business person does in his free time, but with the business he's in I'm not sure that it's appropriate. And it really doesn't seem appropriate for the company itself to be this involved in politics.
v _h arris/index_np.html
I didn't realize until today that Salon has reported on this before.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/23/be
Another good page summarizing
http://www.snarkcake.com/004339.html
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
In reading all these comments on touch screen voting I've never seen the issue that bothers me most raised.
There is a constant refrain that any system can be hacked. Sure any voting system can be compromised but the how is all important. It you're going to stuff ballot boxes you need to have a bunch of people do it and they have too have physical access to the boxes. How many boxes can one person stuff, 1? 10? Many more opportunities to catch them in the act. In a computerized system one person can hack the whole election creating any results that that one person may want. This is IMHO a totally different magnitude of issue.
This sort of problem also favors the incumbent wildly, who has all the access to any part of the system they may want.
Just because any system can be hacked doesn't make all hacks the same. Some are worse than others and some favors one person or group more than others
I could go dig up quotes if you want, but that really is the gist of their argument. It usually focuses on how expensive and "unnecessary" paper verifcation would be.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.