Slashdot Mirror
CA Proposes Rigorous Voting Machine Testing
christian.einfeldt writes "During her successful campaign for California Secretary of State, newly-minted California Elections Czar Debra Bowen spoke repeatedly of the need to use free open source software in voting machines to ensure the integrity of California's elections. Now that Secretary Bowen is acting on that campaign pledge, closed-source voting machine vendor Diebold worries aloud that rejecting its black-box voting machines could snarl California's elections. Diebold's concerns come at the same time that it is suing Massachusetts for declining to purchase those same voting machines." Quoting: "California's elections chief is proposing the toughest standards for voting systems in the country, so tough that they could [have the result of banishing] ATM-like touch-screen voting machines from the state. For the first time, California is demanding the right to try hacking every voting machine with 'red teams' of computer experts and to study the software inside the machines, line-by-line, for security holes."
Many car companies might, this is true. But I'd be willing to bet that some car companies would make it an option, albiet an expensive one.
As other posters have pointed out, there are cars sold that don't meet the CA standard. There's packages of solder that don't contain the "This product blah blah state of California blah blah" label. The point is, CA is deciding what's best for it, not for anyone else. It's not their fault if many large companies go along for the ride.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
It amazes me that the US can't get their elections done right. They have the technology to power the worlds most important financial systems, to pilote a drone on the other side of the world and beat any given human in a game of chess. WHY THE ##CK haven't they managed to come up with a voting system that's rock solid, transparent, secure and dependable?!? Why is that even a hard thing to do?
Heck, I think even _I_ could design such a system:
- Buy a standard issue PC with a standard issue laserprinter
- Make a simple voting program
- Give every voter a Live CD with a unique hard coded serial.
- The CD is inserted under the supervision of election workers, and the PC is booted up.
- The voters goes behind the curtain where they find a screen, a mouse and a printer.
- The voter casts his/her wote. The vote and the unique ID is stored on the local HD, and two coppies is printed out on paper.
- The voter comes out, ejects the CD AND KEEPS IT, and puts one paper vote in a ballot box. Keeps the other copy.
- The computer is powered down before the next vote.
This way one can always check the DB against the paper ballots afterwords. AND: Every citizen who thinks the election has been tampered with can A: Review the software on their CD. B: Check the official "election website", punch in the unique ID from the CD/paper coppy and verify that it's registered correctly.
This is not complex, this is not expensive, this is not difficult, and as far as I can see; this is practicaly fool proof given a certain degree of random manual chek of wotes. (To eliminate the factor involving electorial workers doing nasty stuff to the PCs etc.)
Or am I over looking something here...?
I can't for the life of me understand why California even considers doing business with Diebold any more.
Shouldn't the list of requirements for Calfornia's voting machine aquisitions have a clause about "Company should not have repeatedly lied to California legislators, covered up known flaws, nor violated deployment policies by modifying units in the field without validation of those modifications"?
Diebold has been in trouble with California before. The fact that they can continue to even try to offer voting machines in that state kinda surprises me.
The enemies of Democracy are
This issue is actually the very reason this woman got my vote in the last election. I'm glad to see she is holding to her promises. We definitely need more politicians to do this. She, unlike a large number of politicians, seems to have a reasonable grasp on the internets and tech as a whole.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/executive/bio.htm
They just take votes and record them. The only remotely novel programming problem should be the security, and they don't appear to have implemented any! How can these machines keep screwing up when ATMs keep on not screwing up?
I'm not a computer scientist, but I know many of you are. Is there some hidden level of difficulty here? Some reason why making voting machines should be such a challenge for Diebold?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.