Slashdot Mirror
Diebold Admits ATMs Are More Robust Than Voting Machines
An anonymous reader points out a story in the Huffington Post about the status of funding for election voting systems. It contains an interesting section in which Chris Riggall, a spokesman for Premier (formerly Diebold) acknowledged that less money is spent making an electronic voting machine than on a typical ATM. The ironically named Riggall also notes that security could indeed be improved, but at a higher price than most election administrators would care to pay. Also quoted in the article is Ed Felten, who has recently found some inconsistencies in New Jersey voting machines. From the Post:
"'An ATM is significantly a more expensive device than a voting terminal...' said Riggall. 'Were you to develop something that was as robust as an ATM, both in terms of the physical engineering of it and all aspects, clearly that would be something that the average jurisdiction cannot afford.' Perhaps cost has something to do with the fact that a couple of years ago, every single Diebold AccuVote TS could be opened with a standard key also used for some cabinets and mini-bars and available for purchase over the Internet."
I don't think they need to be as physically secure, there's always a voting official in the room in plain sight and several other people working there. It doesn't need to be built like an ATM that will be randomly placed in dark alleys.
I hate to play devil's advocate, but an ATM is an extremely complicated mechanical device. It doesn't shock me in the slightest that they're more expensive to produce than an electronic voting booth.
Of course, their voting products do suck, although I don't think that cost has terribly much to do with it.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
But the voting officials cannot enter the booth, so any attacker could do something to the machine without it being noticed until after the elections.
Polotics and money, what a great parallel.
So the banks are more impportant than the ballots here. But it's what one would expect in a plutocracy.
Tne bankers and stockbrokers know what's important in America, and it isn't your vote. What's important ios the campaign "contribution" bribery to both major party candidates.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
'Cause election jurisdictions can afford to buy entire systems they have to throw away once they're discovered to be inadequate.
Politicians love to say one thing and then pay for another.
And voters want more expensive services but refuse to pay higher taxes to pay for them. Bad combo.
The problem isn't that an average person can understand what they're voting for, it's that you have to be clear to a really dumb person, because they can vote too. If your machine is too complicated for half the people you don't have a fair election.
It's science -- bad science -- of two types:
1. Bad application of technology, including massive security holes.
2. Bad management science, leading to sloppy security and confused product design. I disagree.
Engineering is all about making compromises - the old adage "good, fast, cheap, pick two" holds true today just as much as it always did, even if the three options in the list change occasionally.
In this case, I'd argue that the three options are "Simple, reliable, cheap, pick two".
Simple - any fool can use it, it's really not complicated.
Reliable - Verifiably correct, very hard to mess around with without it being immediately obvious.
Cheap - Pretty self-explanatory.
A voting machine that prints off a paper ballot which the voter deposits in a lockbox still seems the best option to achieve this.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I'm not sure this is a valid conclusion. The same people aren't making decisions in each case. And while we like to think we place a high value on the integrity of our voting system, it's hard to put a dollar figure on that, which is what the people running the budget need.
Banks, on the other hand, can easily place a dollar figure on the value of their ATMs' security, and show their decision-makers that X dollars spent on securing them will easily pay for itself.
I'm not happy with the situation, but I don't think you've got a single set of people saying "transactions are more important than votes."
The comparison between security in voting machines and ATM's is a strawman designed to get government officials to throw more money at 'secure as an ATM' voting machines. ATM's are secure because a somebody owns them, runs them, and controls access to them, with voting machines the opposite is true. The slimebags at Diebold cannot be so stupid as to not understand this, they are simply hoping to milk 'upgrade' money out of the taxpayer.
BTW: By voting machine I mean one that counts your ballot, not one that prints your ballot.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Really? Or that lawmakers will say "If I make this law, more people will go to jail, which means more money for my buddy's company which means, he'll have another one of those bitchin parties again this year" ? Do you really think that?
Not trying to disagree with your unchecked captialism point but your proof stinks.
You'll have that sometimes...
The ballot must be anonymous. "Show me your voting receipt or you're fired."
I've only used an e-voting system a couple of times, but in every instance I was always visible to the voting officials. They couldn't see who I was voting for but they would have certainly noticed if I did anything other than tap the touch screen.
Physical security isn't really the problem. There are always election workers and volunteers in the proximity of the voting machines. What is a problem is that smoke and mirrors are used instead of openness. I want to understand exactly how the votes will be tallied and what protections there are from tampering (and hiding the source code isn't a protection IMHO).
But I CAN do without them. Things I can do without:
- marijuana laws and their enforcement
- prostitution laws and their enforcement
- gambling laws and their enforcement
- airport "security"
- courtroom metal detectors
- metal detectors where I have to go for license plates
- "no smoking in bars and casinos" laws and their enforcement
- Airplanes to fly Milorad Blagojevich from Chicago to Springfield and back
- Upkeep on the Governor's mansion the Governor refuses to live in despite the Illinois Constitution
- Department of Homeland Security
- PATRIOT act and its enforcement
- DMCA and its enforcement
- ATF
And so on. I note with amusement that the ever-changing quote at the bottom of the page here says "The state law of Pennsylvania prohibits singing in the bathtub". Your tax dollars at work. Or as a couple of slashdotters' sigs note, "oh look, my tax dollars at work coming to arrest me!"mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest