Slashdot Mirror
The Diebold Voting-Machine Hack
Warm John writes to mention a short article on Doctor Dobbs Journal about the Hack that couldn't be done. "Hacking a Diebold voting machine was the focus of Cigital's Gary McGraw's keynote at SD Best Practices. He discussed 'Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine,' a paper released by Edward Felten, Ari Feldman, and Alex Halderman of the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy. 'The paper details a simple method whereby the Princeton team was able to compromise the physical security of a Diebold voting machine, infecting it with a virus that could change voting results and spread by memory-card to other machines of the same type.'"
I've seen plenty of pro-Microsoft and pro-Diebold posts get modded up. All you have to do is have a clear point, and show it. You didn't manage that. You said the fraud happens, and it doesn't make a difference if we can trace it or not.
It does make a difference. With a punch card, or a paper ballot, or even a mechanical voting both anyone can trace when fraud has occured. And in those cases we implement some security, track where the fraud came from (if we can) and redo the election.
With the current generation of electronic voting machines, we can't do that. I don't care who makes a good machine, but Diebold hasn't made one. And they've defended that design as if they think it is a good machine. Geeks don't like people who pretend a bad design is a good design. We'll tear into them. If they routinely defend bad design by saying it is good design and overlooking what we think are obvious flaws we'll notice, and start to expect that. Until they change, a group that decides who they like on the technical ability of a company won't like them. They are lying about their technical quality; at least in our eyes.
Maybe this is an example of free market forces at work.
One customer wants a secure, hardened, auditable, time proven machine with a user verifiable paper trail.
The other doesn't need any of those features.
Therefore two entirely disparate product lines.
One is designed to protect $.
The other is designed to protect democracy.
Who will guard the guards?
it's called 'peer review' and in the science world it's not only expected but mandatory.
my question is this: has diebold's product undergone any sort of peer review? if it's important enough for someone studying the genetic inheretance of grey hair, it's important enough for someone entrusted with running an election for the most powerful person in the world, dontcha think?
2 1337 4 u!
Avi Ruben also has an interesting blog article on his experiences as a poll worker in the recent Maryland election.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
I'll get mod-bombed right back down to Good Karma for this- but I have to say that I'm not at all sure it didn't happen in Ohio and Florida in 2004. The exit poll numbers, which had previously been extremely accurate in just about every election I'd ever heard of, were way off in those two states on the Presidential race- but the numbers were close enough that everybody focused on recounts instead (where possible).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
How come no one seems to be asking the slot machine manufacturers to make voting machines? They deal with millions - or billions - of dollars a day and seem to be able to account for every single penny accurately. As an added bonus, all they'd really have to do is change the 7's to donkeys and jackpots to republicans... Pull the lever for your new rep! Seriously though - they're the people who should be making the machines...