Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Securing E-voting After Being Pwned
An anonymous reader writes, "After the Dutch we-don't-trust-voting-computers foundation demonstrated glaring security holes in Dutch voting computers last week, the Dutch government has ordered (Dutch) all software to be replaced, all hardware to be checked, unflashable firmware to be installed, and an iron seal to be placed on voting machines. A certification institute will double-check all measures, and on election day will cull random machines to check them for accuracy. The Dutch intelligence service AIVD has been approached to consult on the radio emissions issue. Furthermore, foreign observers will monitor the upcoming elections on November 22nd. But the action group is still not confident (Dutch) that all problems are solved." US elections are controlled at the local level, so unfortunately such a nationwide fix would not be workable here.
...of the group is that they are simply replacing eproms with proms, while the group demonstrated that the chips could be replaced, not just 'reprogrammed'.
This is probably still something some politicians 'fail' to see over here: we can buy these chips in any electronics store, so why reprogram them - apart from the fact that reprogramming would take much more time than simply replacing.
It (the prom instead of eprom) is probably a failing idea of the company Nedap, which makes these monsters. Heck, they need to change their own software too, from time to time.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
I get it, see, e-voting is worth all the trouble and hassles because it...does...what better than paper voting?
Maybe somebody can enlighten me, besides the ease of rigging an election what exactly do 'we' gain from e-voting?
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Arguments for local control of voting regulations.
(posting as AC to save my devil's advocate ass)
1 - The United States Of America was designed as a confederation of (mostly) independent states. Only the powers explicitly given to the federal government are not the jurisdiction of the states.
2 - The innovative power of the open market. The belief that by allowing a competition of ideas in how best to run elections (as long as they meet minimal standards) the best choice will be eventually reached.
3 - Local boards of elections consist of an equal number of members of both parties. The belief is that Democrats won't allow Republicans to steal the election, and vise versa.
The Netherlands (while still a small country) are about 70 times as large as Chicago.
Netherlands: 41,526 SQ KM
Chicago: 600 SQ KM
I know, I know... everything American has to be bigger by definition...
Paper ballots are subject to all the same security flaws that they have always been subject to. This means physical security for the most part. Ballot boxes can be "stuffed" and elections thrown into chaos quite quickly. In a bay in California they found several ballot boxes with uncounted votes still in them. In my state of WV they are still prosecuting people for vote buying and ballot box stuffing. Even when you use electronic voting with a paper receipt, they will still be vulnerable to all those security concerns. Until they invent the bullet proof way to get votes directly to the voting precinct reliably and securely, problems will be in every election with or without electronic voting.
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
do you know how big the Netherlands are
16 million people. This is of course less than nationwide in the US, but it's also less local than is normal in the US.
I remember when this was on the news (I live in the Netherlands), there was a spokesperson for Nedap who said something like:
``Our machines are fine. I don't understand why the website is called "We don't trust voting machines", rather than "We don't trust people".''
I think that about sums up their approach to security. We don't need any security measures; people should just behave themselves. Yeah, right.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I realise that everyone isn't on the same page about this, but I read Slashdot precisely because its geeky and slightly off-beat. "Pwned" looks good in this headline and thats why I clicked on the story.
If "professional places" choose to source headlines from Slashdot, they should surely accept how people communicate here. I see no reason why Slashdot needs to fit in with CNN's headline standards.
Be yourself, no matter what the cost.
Actually, no, not easily done. Especially not with the current Supremem Court, which is going to follow old caselaw and not change the status quo.
The court has said that conditions attached to federal funding are fine only if there is a direct link between the condition and how the money is spent, and only if the money is optional. That is, the federal government can't require the states to do anything - they'd just not get the money.
When the highway bill came out with an attached requirement that states impose a minimum drinking age, it was challenged, and it was only upheld because it was very optional and non-binding (Minnesota v. US or some such.) A state would only lose 5% of its highway money if it didn't comply. And it was far from a unanimous decision; Justice O'Connor wrote a scathing dissent saying that the conditions attached were far too remote, overbroad, and too little. Bam. And Clarence Thomas, being the textualist that he is, agreed.
On the other hand, Justice Stevens would be perfectly happy to abolish federalism and leave everything to the Fed. I'm hoping he retires soon.
I personally believe the problem is the 2-party system. Its just to few incitation to pull some things straight. Yes I totally believe that you are correct with your "I am bad, but I know you are bad too" politics betweet the two.
On the otherhand. We (most EU countries) have a proportional-election-system an thus usually e.g. 4 parties in the parlament, 2 together forming the government, which 2 varies due to the election results. Its just that 4 parties set the election rules, and 4 parties govern each other. The we are bad, you 3 are bad too thing just doesn't work that much, and thats good.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
US elections are controlled at the local level, so unfortunately such a nationwide fix would not be workable here.
Hmmm, the Dutch aren't exactly Botswana or some place in South America where votes might be escorted by military convoys. Yet, the Dutch will have FOREIGN observers?
Wow. Considering all the diebold bullshit going on, one would think and ask where are the INTERNATIONAL observers when US voting (local, county, state, federal) elections occur.
I think the UN should declare an occupation to several major US cities. Make things interesting a bit....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"