Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Deathblow To a Voting Machine

Posted by kdawson on from the Dutch-e-voting dept.

SiggyRadiation writes "According to their newsletter (my English translation here), the Dutch group that 'doesn't trust the voting computers' has won a round against the industry and the civil servants that seem hell-bent on reintroducing voting machines — NewVote, made by SDU — that the Dutch minister of the interior has suspended. Apparently SDU provided 5 slightly different samples of its machine to the Dutch version of the NSA (well... the very humble Dutch version anyway) for testing purposes. Of those five, four machines emitted radiation in such a way that the votes cast could be monitored. SDU's NewVote received its final deathblow when it became clear that the one machine that stayed within the radiation limits used a green-on-red color-scheme for its screen. And that would be a small problem for the 4% of all men that cannot distinguish between red and green."

12 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. In fits and starts but it will proceeed... by Merkwurdigeliebe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, this is a blow, but in the end, electronic voting will overcome the shortcomings and the missteps and become they way to cast one's ballot. While there are presently insecurites and faults in the machines those will eventually be minimized so that they become more reliable and less fallible than traditional voting methods (which of course are less than infallible --but many don't want to acknowlewdge that.)

    1. Re:In fits and starts but it will proceeed... by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except there's a big difference between forging paper ballots, or having people vote multiple times under different identities, and using a computer-based system which could be altered easily enough to not record votes at all, record the incorrect votes, or have its count altered by an outside agent. Even the idea of a paper trail is somewhat laughable, as you're expecting people to hang on to this piece of paper for a significant time, on the off chance it might be needed to verify how they voted.

      Computer-based voting is a long way from being a reliable enough method to be used exclusively. I think for now there should be a concentration on creating ballots that are easily machine-readible, making the counting easier. Purely computer-driven systems will have to be phased in in small numbers, so they can be monitored and bugs ironed out. Perhaps give people a choice of what type of machine they wish to use. You're going to have to do a lot of work to convince me that this technology is robust enough and secure enough to be used exclusively.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:In fits and starts but it will proceeed... by Merkwurdigeliebe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The methods of fraud might be different, but the real question is what is the impact on the election(s) overall? Which method produces a more accurate count? When electronic voting proves more reliable it should be adopted as such.

      The banking system is based on computers (and thedre aren't many examples of exploiting the system --sure there is oversight by the account-bearer but the point is the errors are small overall). The major kinks in the electronic banking system have been worked out; they shall be worked out of electronic voting too --eventually.

      Inaccuracies will exist be it because of improper use, tampering, rigging, etc., but they shall be overall inconsequential and thus render the system effective.

    3. Re:In fits and starts but it will proceeed... by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And if someone can reprogram the machine to record votes a certain way, why can't they program it to dispense the correct paper audits as well?


      That's why they're behind glass where the voter can look at the paper before confirming his or her vote. If I told the machine I'm voting for Bob but the piece of paper behind the glass window says Alice, I (the voter) know there's something wrong.

      And a lock-box? Secure? You're right back to the same problem you have with paper ballots.


      Those problems aren't too bad; We know how to contain them, even though those are largely procedural methods. Folks can look at a lockbox for pick marks, and those boxes don't get lost without it being noticed; once an electronic counter is tampered with, there can be no proof whatsoever that that tampering even occured.

      I could cope with electronic voting if its security were only as bad as paper voting. The problem is that as it stands, there's potential for it to be much much worse -- and undetectably so.
    4. Re:In fits and starts but it will proceeed... by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With e-voting, you don't need to corrupt the officials -- you can corrupt the technicians, over whom the officials have no effective oversight. Even worse, some systems are so ineffectively built that they can be subverted by an individual without any inside access -- see the photos of unattended machines from the last elections, documentation on attacks that would work against them, etc.

      Further, there are effective countermeasures for ballot box stuffing. There are judges from both major parties at any polling location validating that one person walking in corresponds to one name marked off the rolls; the number of names marked off and the number of votes cast at that location can then be correlated to match. Physical security measures, again with oversight from each major party, are available to protect both the rolls (tracking which people voted) and the boxes (tracking how they voted); these can be stored separately to increase the number of measures which need to be compromised to pull off an attack.

      People understand physical security measures, and the adversarial system [where many of the folks involved in the actual work of implementing an election are selected by the competing parties] helps to prevent corruption. Not so many people understand electronic security, and it's much less amenable to traditional oversight and validation mechanisms.

  2. Wrong, voting machines are winning the battle. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "Wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet" protesters has been manouevred into a corner by the industry and the state. The group's principal argument has always been this:

    "Voting machines (without a paper trail) make it impossible to verify the fairness of an election"

    In addition, they have gone to show how election results could be manipulated, and how cast votes could be read from outside the polling station. The protesters have had a lot of success getting a number of machines removed from the elections, and they have certainly managed to put the issue onto the political agenda and the public debates. However, with all this media coverage, they are failing to state, re-state and re-re-state their principle argument: that there is a fundamental problem with using voting machines. I have never heard one of their spokespersons state that fixing these small problems with the computers is not enough, and is basically a side-issue. The machine's proponents have taken this opportunity to turn the fundamental problem into a side-issue.

    The press, politicians (who want to use voting machines) and the voting machine manufacturers jumped on the issue, stating: "You are right, there's an issue with certain machines but we'll get it fixed". When the machines get fixed, the protest group's role will have been played out. Any subsequent complaints about the fundamental issues with voting machines will be dismissed by the public as whining from a group who are just looking for any excuse to go on protesting.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Wrong, voting machines are winning the battle. by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...computers save time and money. In theory, the vote counts can be available the instant the polls close, and we need to hire fewer people to administer an election. Furthermore, it saves time for the voter. You walk in, tap a touchscreen a few times, and you're done. There are many more reasons, but in essence it's time and money.
      Ahhh.. only in a capital-obsessed culture is this even a meaningful reason, much less a valid one.

      I, for one, am willing to pay more if it means ensuring the integrity of my country's voting system. That anyone thinks otherwise seems, to me, at least... irresponsible.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
  3. But what if someone just looked over your shoulder by Radon360 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's nice to see that someone cares about the secrecy of the voting process, but I would think that integrity in the vote count itself would take a much higher priority over this issue.

    In some remote way, it reminds me of the military's concern long ago (and largely before my time) over the use of IBM Selectric typewriters, as the RF emissions (i.e. coils and motors starting and stopping, a primitive spark-gap transmitter in a sense) from the mechanisms could be detected and reconstituted into what was being typed from a short distance away.

  4. TEMPEST by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPESTrel=url2 html-3260http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST>

    a few years ago this was a big deal and everyone was worried that the government was going to use radiation emitted by CRT monitors to reconstruct what was on the screen, people even made special fonts that minimized this by blurring and breaking up the edges of glyphs.

    then LCD's became cheap enough for just about anyone to buy.

    i wonder if these machines use a CRT monitor

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  5. What's wrong with paper anyay? by xtal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love technology as much as the next guy, but what's wrong with paper voting? Canada uses it, it scales nicely, there's a perfect record of who voted for what, with a nice X right there. You can track ballots in, and ballots out. Nobody knows who put the X on the paper.

    Pushy sales jobs make me nervous, and these things are being hawked like a $500 used car.

    --
    ..don't panic
  6. Re:Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's a joke. laugh.

  7. SMS voting? by C0rinthian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why don't we make a reality TV show out of the election?

    Think about it. You get the candidates on TV, mebbe have them compete somehow. Have some experts in politics and government ask them questions that the candidates must answer. We can even have them tour the country making public appearances to try and gather support!

    And here's the best part: The people actually get to vote for who gets to be President! Just send a text message to 1-800-VOTEUSA and choose your favorite candidate!

    Imagine the ratings!