Slashdot Mirror
More E-Voting SNAFUs
tassii writes "Looks like Diebold is in yet more trouble. In this article from Wired.com, an audit of the Diebold E-Voting machines revealed that the company installed uncertified software in all 17 counties that use its electronic voting equipment. While 14 counties used software that had been qualified by federal authorities but not certified by state authorities, three counties, including Los Angeles, used software that had never been certified by the state or qualified by federal authorities for use in any election. And in this article, Wired.com is reporting that at least five convicted felons secured management positions at a Diebold, including one who served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that 'involved a high degree of sophistication and planning.'"
from the article: "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote," Shelley said. "Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter."
In my thinking this should mean the source code should be opened to the public to ensure continued trust in the system. "Trust us, we're the government" doesn't carry any weight these days.
Trolling is a art,
Sometimes the most advanced and easiest way of doing something isn't the best. I'll take pen+paper sign-in and handle-pull voting machines, thank you very much.
I got a +5, Troll
So what exactly is the problem with the way the rest of the civilized world does elections? (i.e. pen and paper and counting by hand)
It works, it has a paper-trail, any idiot understands the ballots, there are no hanging chads, and the entire voting system is entirely political and not commercia... oh, I see.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That we hear about this from Wired, as opposed to CNN? MSNBC? New York Times? Washington Post? Fox News? (well, the last is a rheotical question).
My point is, what does it take for the mainstream press to pick up on this?!?!?!?
Since the current government is committed to increasing efficiency wherever possible, the following plan will be pursued:
1) Get 75,000 WinCE-based Diebold machines built (and paid for!)
2) Send them to India and have lower-cost labour do the "voting"
Makes stealing elections MUCH more cost-effective!
Walden O'Dell, head of Diebold Election Systems, wrote a letter to Republican contributors in August that said "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
Maybe there really was much basis for his confidence ....
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Of course, if the conspiracy-theorists are correct and the company is a front for the RNC to control election results, or the company is in the business of selling results to the highest bidder, you'll be risking your life. Techno-warfare for the protection of our democracy.
The often suggested idea that we return to paper ballots misses an aspect of US elections that would make such thing difficult, namely the complexity of our elections. Although the national offices get most of the attention, ballots may include 20-100 other things to vote on. Everything from state representatives down to obscure changes in county and city charters that most don't even take the time to read.
These ballots have always been tedious to count by hand. Perhaps we could outsource the hand-counting to some third world country.
Woverly Harris Gooch, IV CTO American Fire and Bomb, LLC
What's the big deal? These guys sound like everyday, ordinary CEOs to me.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
From page 2 of the article:
"Shelley acknowledged responsibility for the failure of his own office to track what systems were in place and said changes would be made. He said he hoped the statewide review wouldn't result in the decertification of Diebold systems or the systems of other vendors."
The state board of elections did NOT audit these machines BEFORE THE ELECTION and KNOWING that Diebold installed uncertified software in past elections. Shelley also does not want the machines decertified. How can you decertify what you did not certify to begin with? And if Diebold REALLY IS in violation of their agreement (as Shelley claims) they should be cut out of the process IMMEDIATELY because they're NOT CERITIFED But...they're not... Why? (Because, just maybe this is a political witch-hunt? Naaaahhh..)
Lastly, Diebold says the "felon computer programmer" was released when Diebold acquired the company. Which means he never WORKED for Diebold. so there's no need to do a background check on him.
Planting cash machine weaknesses (or more likely: profiting from accidental weakness which they get to know about) allows them to obtain quicker and more anonymous rewards than tampering with elections would.
An obviously fake high-stakes election might lead to a thorough investigation, which might not only land the politician that profitted from it in hot water, but also his minions at Thiefold.
However, nobody would make as much fuss about cash machines that occasionnally spit out too much if the right cheat-code is punched.
Polls are much more efficient. For example, Howard Dean is the democratic nominee and nobody had to waste their time voting, electronic or not.
"Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding. Unless proposition 304 passes; and we all pray it will."
-Kent Brockman
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
It's good that this is being reported on Wired, but now that the situation has escalated to a company actually clearly violating federal election laws (uncertified software), employing former felons in information sensitive positions, and meeting each and every one of the tests to show method, motive and opportunity to commit election fraud, why isn't this making the front page of the NY Times and Post the same day? Why isn't CNN already reporting on this? Where's USA today? Where's Peter Jennings?
Who is John Cabal?
The point of the acquisition of media, or the concentration of media power, is to influence the electorate.
And no greater influence can be held over the electorate than replacing them outright with programmable machines.
So basically what you are asking for is to have the same people who aspire to control the electorate to call attention to their efforts at achieving even greater control over the electorate.
It's just not going to happen.
They see where America is going. They see the exodus of jobs going overseas that is to come (what we've seen to date is nothing), and they realize that the result will inevitably be the electorate veering hard to the left. And since they can take all their capital with them overseas that would be fine, except for one thing: the U.S. military.
They can't simply cede America to a reactionary leftist because there's no telling what kind of retribution would be exacted.
So they do this instead.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
exactly. A car may have power-assisted brakes and steering, but the power systems are not required to be operational. they are nice to have and make life easier, but if they cut out you can rely on your own muscle to continue functioning in an emergency.
So sure, go to electronic voting for fast initial tallies, clearer voter instructions etc, but definitely have your human-readable paper ballots as backups and for spot-checks.
the stakes are so high in certain elections that fraud attempts are already commonplace and guaranteed.
Jack Hitt did a story on Diebold for This American Life a few weeks back. It's a good listen and neatly sums up all the problems with untrusted computerized voting. I know WE know what the issues are, but it's refreshing to see this out in the public eye.
A description of the show and a realaudio stream (yeah yeah, I know) is available here.
Triv
It's interesting and disappointing to note how these stories are not picked up by the mainstream media.
Or at least, not yet.
All it's going to take is enough public sentiment against Diebold to change this situation... and this can only happen if msnbc, cbsnews, washpost, foxnews, latimes, et al pick this up.
I wonder what they're doing in the cash machine world that hasn't yet come to light?
>Yes, it's technology, so in that sense it may be of interest to nerds, but why front page stories about every single minor event that occurs WRT e-voting several times per week ?
w s&new_topic=8
3) Oh, and don't forget that along with the uncertified software on the Diebold machines in California, and the felons on the payroll reported in this sotry there are apparently some irregularities with certification records from the 2002 election in Georgia where Max Cleland was defeated (despite his having lead the all the polls up the election).
w s&new_topic=4
What's more basic and important to a democracy than voting? The message that this equipment and the companies involved are questionable doesn't seem to be getting out to the major media as much as it should. This is cheap publicity and many Slashdotters feel strongly about the issue. That by itself should be enough but if you want more detail or excuse: 1. The Diebold machine's software seems to have been designed to make fraud easier:
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/scoop/S00065.htm
Any competetant secretary who knows MS Access could jimmy this software without much help at all.
2. One of the other two companies that makes voting machines, ES&S, is owned in part by a Republican senator, Chuck Hegel, who was elected Senator two years after Nebraska bought his machines. He didn't see fit to disclose his substantial interest in ES&S, or the fact that he had formerly been chairman and CEO of this company in his FEC filings. Moreoever, there was an attempt to supress the publication of a story on this topic by a Republican political lawyer.
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=Ne
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=Ne
Don't you think that important criteria chosing the vendor for voting machinery should include the appearance of trustworthiness, and that the machine's be designed with security in mind and audited by software industry accepted outside experts? With the voting machine companies that appearance is entirely to the contrary, and the every reputable expert that has looked at them has concluded that they don't meet basic security criteria. Rather than attempting to remedy these shortcomings they've hired PR companies to spin the news.
read any issue of 2600 and think about e-voting, then go have a heart-to-heart with your elected representatives, especially if they are democratic as the democrats intend to involve from-home e-voting in the upcoming democratic primaries.
.016 years, or perhaps a modest six days. consider that humans need to sleep, and you have eighteen days. count breaks, errors, and certain numbers having to count the same switch at the same time to verify it, and you have a multiply of that, perhaps exceeding a month. now pay them all or otherwise convince them to spend all their time for one month counting microscopic switches. now consider that you will have to either print and provide for them on paper, or have them record on paper, the status of the switches to be verified. now accomodate the 1,000,000 vote-counters. you already have all the materials you need to have done the ballot by classic ballot means and also at the very least quadrupled the expenses. i urge you to ditch the computer junk and ask people to turn out to the booths, instead.'
'governor, this is a simple 64mbyte ram module. there are sixty-four million groups of eight switches in here. if you count each of these groups one per second, it would take you over two years. now consider that each little individual switch of on and off has to be verified. one switch per second, this would take you sixteen years, and would total more seconds than there are american citizens, almost twice as many. and this, just to count one storage device, dozens of which would be required to actually do the job of recording indexes, names, addresses, signatures and social security numbers, and other data that are collected in current ballots in order to ensure fair elections. there would have to be more storage, as well, to keep logs of all the electronic transactions required in order make sure the processes were secure and retractable, for the purpose of tracking down any offenders. now this task of sixteen years to count every switch in this chip has been multiplied by dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands. you may find enough volunteers to reduce the time required, but now reduce the volunteers, in the case of just 1,000 such citizens, by the requirement of ability to run an electron-scanning microscope and to work steadily at the task for as many as sixteen years. now find 10,000 electron-scanning microscope-operating humans who can work without stopping to eat, sleep, or drink for a year and a half and you're approaching the end of your problem. now find 1,000,000 such citizens and the work has been reduced to
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
He's not a manager, he is a domain expert.
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
I can't fault them for folks already in place at Global Election Systems (GES) when they acquired the company at the beginning of 2002. Nor do I believe that folks with a criminal history should be barred from IT careers. Someone with expertise in large scale fraud could be very helpful, if not invaluable, in finding exploits in systems you're trying to secure.
However, a development and management staff comprised of numerous folks with experience in stock fraud, money laundering, smuggling, cracking and grand larceny certainly calls into question the legitimacy of the projects they've worked on. The Diebold spokesdrone said that a few of them left at the time of acquisition, but did not say if any remained working at Diebold.
My own opinion is that Diebold itself is a criminal enterprise whose thin facade of trustworthiness has been torn down to expose the company's true character.
This calls into question not only Diebold's election systems, but all of their products including their ubiquitous ATM machines. Who knows how many of those have been cracked or if there's an ongoing fraudulent scheme (beyond ATM withdrawl fees) by Diebold to defraud Joe and Jane Citizen of their hard-earned cash.
Based on Diebold's behaviour, I don't think that that sounds terribly crazy.
If you're concerned about reliable voting in the US (and elsewhere) based on an open, auditable system, please go to http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/, read up on what they're doing, and volunteer to help out.
To quote from their web site:
The Open Voting Consortium (OVC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of an open voting system for use in public elections.
We are currently developing free voting software to run on very inexpensive PC hardware. The OVC voting system will accommodate different languages and scoring methods, as well as voters with special needs.
We expect to be fully operational by 2005, with the certification of version 1.0 of the Open Voting software. Meanwhile, we have demonstration software under development at http://sourceforge.net/projects/evm2003, which should be ready by the end of this year.
If you want to Help make it happen, then mailto:alan@openvotingconsortium.org to send us an e-mail.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Just a reminder to check out the Diebold memos for yourself. Find some more juicy stuff and get it in the news!
Free Speech, Free Software, Free Culture
Propenents of Open Source solutions for electronic voting systems should be concerned about this. I see no mention of this at Boxer's website, so it's hard to say exactly how this might be worded. But clearly, the process of performing and verifying such a vetting could be problematic for a distributed, volunteer development effort. Would it be just the "official" maintainers who would be subject to such constraints, or would such requirements require that patches submitted by non-vetted contributors be rejected purely on those grounds? My concern is that voting software should be evaluated and put into use on technical grounds, and in the pursuit of using the best available methods, we shouldn't be placing barriers into place which preclude the selection of well-written software.
--
If R is the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, does R contain itself?