U.S. Bars Lab From Testing E-Voting Machines

joshdick writes to point out a NYTimes story on the decertification of Ciber Inc. from testing electronic voting systems. It will come as a surprise to no-one here on Slashdot that experts say the deficiencies of the laboratory suggest that crucial features like the vote-counting software and security against hacking may not have been thoroughly tested on many machines now in use. From the article: "A laboratory that has tested most of the nation's electronic voting systems has been temporarily barred from approving new machines after federal officials found that it was not following its quality-control procedures and could not document that it was conducting all the required tests... The federal Election Assistance Commission made this decision last summer, but the problem was not disclosed then... Ciber... says it is fixing its problems and expects to gain certification soon."

Comments

Personal experience with Ciber

[elrous0]

Having worked with Ciber before myself, I'm not surprised. They basically leech off government agencies foolish enough to hire them. They charge a lot of money to essentially tell government agencies what they want to hear (which, in this case was "The e-voting machines are fine"). Their actual research methodology is, shall we say, "suspect."

The real question

[morgan_greywolf]

The real question is whether or not Ciber were following their procedures, but why they were not. There should be a full-scale investigation into things like, oh, maybe how much money has passed between Diebold and Ciber, and how much stock ownership Diebold has in Ciber and vice-versa. If you want to know why things happen the way the do, one merely needs to follow the money.

so its a problem of documentation

[bhalter80]

Basically they've been bared from approving new machines until they add a step to their test cycle called "fabricate documents". Unless officials are overseeing (actively watching) the testing process there is no way to determine which tests were run and passed and which tests simply were documented as passing.

Re:WTF?

[simm1701]

Paper print out for voter's records, paper print out on a roll visible behind safety glass screen that the voter can verify which is archived for verification - its not difficult - shop tills (checkouts) have been doing the same thing for years.

And the net real-world effect will be...?

[maidopolis]

I wonder whether this decertification will cause anyone to wonder about the advisedness of using these very same voting machines in elections?

After all, we would not want to use untested electronic equipment in other crucial areas of life, like medical equipment. Why allow them to run/determine elections?

But why?

[PopeRatzo]

It's never been explained, to my satisfaction, why the use of paper ballots (or at least paper TRAILS), had to be replaced with the computer-voting machines.

And not just replaced, but REPLACED RIGHT NOW with very little public input and negligible testing. Whenever I see such a huge rush to change something that's worked remarkably well for generations I get suspicious. When I see such a huge rush to change something that's worked for generations without any meaningful dialogue about whether it really should be done, I get even more suspicious.

When I see that same huge rush to change something upon which our Democracy depends, and that's been open to public scrutiny and has worked well for generations and replace it with some closed-source stuff that's not been sufficiently tested and the CEO of the company who provides said closed-source, easily hacked systems is also a major contributor to one of the political parties and who GUARANTEES DELIVERING A VICTORY TO THAT PARTY, I simply assume that the whole thing is pretty goddam crooked.

Re:But why?

[ajs318]

Only in the USA could a corporation's secrets be valued more highly than the Democratic Process.

Any voting system requires Universal Comprehensibility in order to be trustworthy. After all, how can you trust something that you cannot even understand? The use of Open Source Software is not enough: it restricts the set of people who can understand the system to competent programmers.

Elections should not depend upon any technology that is beyond the understanding of a school leaver with passing grades. Pencil, paper, slotted boxes, wire seals and hand-counting have been used successfully since democracy was first invented. Everybody can understand how they work -- and, just as crucially, all the potential failure modes.

What's more, using complex machinery doesn't change the failure modes, nor the need for vigilance. If the voting machines use a paper journal roll, someone still has to inspect each and every machine to make sure that the take-up spool is empty at the beginning of the election, and certify same by fitting a tamper-evident seal which prevents the machine from accepting votes. How is that any better than someone checking that each and every ballot box is empty, and sealing the slot with a tamper-evident seal?

Outsourcing certification makes no sense.

[hey!]

OK, the government should not be in the business of designing and manufacturing equipment.

But why outsource the certification of equipment? This is precisely the kind of task that a government bureaucracy is best suited for: you have a routine task that is done by established rules and procedures. It's hard to see how a private company could outperform a government agency at apply a set of standards with unforgiving rigidity. The problem with government processes is that even good people working in them (of which there are many) are hampered by the bureaucracy's rules and culture, which limit the scope of individual initiative and judgment. In this case it would be a good thing.

The hard thing in the whole process is creating the certification standards. Here there is considerable use for consultants from academia and business.

What this suggests to me is that there aren't really standards. It looks like they just took the whole mess and swept it under the rug, letting the vendors select a sham certification organization.

This is an abdication of an important responsibility the government has. Not just to ensure free and fair elections, but to make sure it spends our money responsibly.

Misleading headline

[EQ]

RTFA! Ciber is not banned from TESTING, but from certifying the machines as properly tested. This is due to Ciber not properly performing the tests, including completing the proper paperwork and observing the safeguards that ensure the tests are accurate. A better headline would be "Government Halts E-Voting Machine Certification - Testing is inadequate"

Sheesh. Come on /. Editors, you should at least *rad* the linked article you are posting and put a *proper* headline on it, rather than the misleading inflammatory crap that you used. KDawson proves yet again that he is an utter boob when it comes to editorial selection and headlines. Time to fire his ass.

Smash them

[demo9orgon]

If the machines and their code are still obfuscated by the next election then the machines should be destroyed.

If the government and it's anointed tools aren't up to the job then it's the duty of the citizens to take care of the problem. It's why we have the right to bear arms. It's why Thomas Jefferson's memorial has such pithy inscriptions. We sadly, currently, live in exactly the situation the founding fathers foresaw.

If the only effective protest is the destruction of the tools of misrepresentation, and if people are willing to die for their freedom and to protect their country and their constitution there shouldn't be any problem. We should fight the threats at home before exporting our expertise to damage others abroad at the behest of corrupt industries. Our politicians have been funded/emplaced by the very companies who seek to profit the most from a muddled vote. If voting is our one sure way of getting a message across then it needs the same kind of protection that the Constitution requires. It requires and demands the right of the citizenry to implement deadly force to secure it's own voice.

With the long lines and the availability of floors and blunt objects in polling places it shouldn't take more than an hour after polling facilities open to accomplish the task nation-wide.

And to all those citizens who think this isn't the solution, please reply with one that's rooted in reality, and not some "hugs and tea" fascimilie of reality.

Cheers.