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."

Comments

Cost isn't the issue

[athloi]

As usual, cost isn't the question.

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.

An ATM should be more expensive than a voting machine; the ATM has to dispense cash and be used 24-7 to do so.

A voting machine however should be secure, have an audit trail, and a clear interface so the average person can understand what they're voting for.

Re:In other words

[sm62704]

...unless that money can be used to buy votes elsewhere

The candidate doesn't matter; HE'S the one for sale. The scandal isn't the buying of votes, it's the buying of legislators. When you've donated ten million to the Democrat and another ten million to the Republican, it doesn't matter who loses, you win.

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[CastrTroy]

In Ontario, you get an option of giving your refund (assuming you have one) to the "Ontario Opportunities Fund" which is just a fancy term for paying off the provincial debt. I'm not sure how many people actually give any money to that. I would love to see statistics.

Re:Not the same people

[tha_mink]

So the banks are more impportant than the ballots here. But it's what one would expect in a plutocracy. --And--

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. Not only that, but I think it's important to point out that there are not a whole lot of people using pickup trucks to smash through the front doors of polling stations trying to steal voting machines. I know everybody thinks that Bush stole the election but it wasn't because the election machine didn't weigh 10,000 lbs. So yeah, I think that maybe you can't compare the cost of an ATM machine to a voting machine. After all, the cost of making paper ballots were never compared to to cost of making a dollar bill.

Crappy overly expensive underachieving design

[sjames]

Voting machines most certainly do NOT have to cost as much as an ATM to be appropriatly secure!

An ATM must be tamper proof. That implies heavy steel construction all around. It has to be larger because it has to hold a store of cash. That sort of construction is where bug costs come in. They are generally unattended for most of the day and they contain cash!

A voting machine just has to be tamper evident. Heavy ABS plastic construction (for durability) with unique keys would be adequate there. They are generally either secured away or attended by election officials. They contain nothing all that valuable to someone who would break in. (the only value to be had requires breaking in without leaving visible evidence) Tamper evident design is quite sufficient.

The card readers on those things are just plain excessive. You'll note when you push the card in, there's a rather solid clunk as it locks in. That speaks of a heavy mechanism with an oversized solinoid and spring. That in turn implies heavy relays and a big power supply. A mechanism more like the floppy drives on an old Mac would have been more appropriate to the problem and considerably cheaper.

Those savings could have gone towards uniquely keyed locks, better software, and perhaps a POS style receipt printer.

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[thermostat42]

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?

This seems like a fun game. Do you think its company's X strong moral fiber that will keep it from donating to PACs and paying lobbyists to argue for longer minimum sentences for crimes that pose relatively small dangers to society, when it will clearly benefit them financially? Do you think the lawmaker will say, "No I cannot accept your campaign contribution, because your positions are detrimental to my constituents"? Do you really think that?

Re:ATM's are also more secure

[Mysticalfruit]

You have hit the name on the head!

The problem I have with these electronic voting machines is that their internals are completely closed! Understand that the state of Nevada has more strigent controls over it's slot machines than it's voting machines...

Note, I'm taking this content from an awesome graphic I found on the internet... Thanks to whomever came up with it!!!

Software:
Slot Machine: State of Nevada has access to all software. Illegal to use software that is not on file
Voting Machine: Software is a trade secret.

Spot Checking:
Slot Machine: State gaming inspectors show up unannounced at casinos to compare computer chips with those on file. If there is a discrepancy, the machien is shut down and investigated.
Voting Machine: No checks are required. Election officals have no "known good" to compare against.

Background Security:
Slot Machine: Manufacturers subjected to backgroundchecks. Employees are investigated for criminal records.
Voting Machine: Citizens have no way of knowing, for example, whether programmers have been confvicted of fraud or have conflict of interest issues.

Equipment Certification:
Slot Machine: By a public agency at arm's length from manufacturers. Public questions invited.
Voting Machine: By for-profit commpanies chosen adn paid by the manufacturers. No public information on how the testing is done.

Dispute Handling:
Slot Machine: Casino must contact the Gaming Control Board, which has investigators on call around the clock. They can open up machines to inspect internal mechanisms and records of recent gambling outcomes.
Voting Machine: In most cases, a voter's only recourse is to call a number at the board of elections and lodge a complaint.

I do understand that a slot machine and an ATM works in a much more hostile environment where people are constantly working to break the system.

However, our Democracy is more important than some ATM and thus any system that's put in place that becomes an arbitrator of our Democracy's citizens to choose their elected officals should be held to even a higher standard.