Slashdot Log In
More E-Voting SNAFUs
Posted by
michael
on Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:39 PM
from the situation-normal dept.
from the situation-normal dept.
tassii writes "Looks like Diebold is in yet more trouble. In this article from Wired.com, an audit of the Diebold E-Voting machines revealed that the company installed uncertified software in all 17 counties that use its electronic voting equipment. While 14 counties used software that had been qualified by federal authorities but not certified by state authorities, three counties, including Los Angeles, used software that had never been certified by the state or qualified by federal authorities for use in any election. And in this article, Wired.com is reporting that at least five convicted felons secured management positions at a Diebold, including one who served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that 'involved a high degree of sophistication and planning.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Open the damn source. (Score:5, Insightful)
from the article: "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote," Shelley said. "Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter."
In my thinking this should mean the source code should be opened to the public to ensure continued trust in the system. "Trust us, we're the government" doesn't carry any weight these days.
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:5, Insightful)
My thinking is that if the security can't withstand public scrutiny then it shouldn't be in use anyhow. Even if the source is secure, open disclosure is still needed. Without it, supporters of the losing side are always going to claim there was cheating or that the election was rigged... without public proof to the contrary.
Open sourcing of the code is needed for public confidense if nothing else.
Parent
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:3, Interesting)
Open sourcing of the code is needed for public confidense if nothing else.
Or at least a "dumbing down" of the system so Ma & Pa Kettle can understand it. Here in
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:5, Interesting)
As for "Trust us, we're the government!" that's something the founding fathers would NEVER agree with, as they didn't completely trust the government they themselves were creating.
Parent
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would you need to have ballot serial numbers to prevent that? Strike a person's name off of the voter's list when he shows up to vote, hand him an unmarked ballot and let him go and vote. Done. He can't vote twice because his name has now been stroked off of the list.
No serial numbers or ballot identification required.
Parent
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have any references for this? This is the first time I've heard of it. I'd also like to know who thinks it would prevent vote buying, since figuring out how to buy votes with such a system (e.g. pay half now, half when you can confirm the vote) seems so obvious.
Parent
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:5, Insightful)
Acually, it never did and it never will. In the case of democracy, the people must NEVER give in to government for voting systems that are not accountable, accurate and reliable. Diebold's #@$@ machines are none of the above.
Parent
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at the source code would be interesting, but it shouldn't give you any confidence in the system. Even in the (practically unattainable) ideal case, where the code is thoroughly analyzed by all the experts and they all agree the code is correct... there is still no proof that the code everybody looked at is the code that will actually be running on the voting machines. Even if you stand over the Diebold employees and watch them compile the source code and install the resulting binary on the machine, you still don't know if that code is what will be running on the machine during the election [acm.org].
The point is, having access to the (alleged) source code is no guarantee of accuracy. The only reliable guarantee of accuracy is having the system print out a paper receipt that the voter hand-verifies and turns in at the poll. Once you have that, the vote can be recounted by hand, if necessary, and any inaccuracies will be detected. Without that, no electronic system will ever be trustworthy.
Parent
"Power Assist" voting (Score:5, Insightful)
So sure, go to electronic voting for fast initial tallies, clearer voter instructions etc, but definitely have your human-readable paper ballots as backups and for spot-checks.
the stakes are so high in certain elections that fraud attempts are already commonplace and guaranteed.
Parent
Re:"Power Assist" voting (Score:4, Insightful)
Alright. You're paranoid and you may well be a fool for all I know.
Doesn't mean you're wrong though.
Parent
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:5, Insightful)
Auditors couldn't examine eight machines in various counties because they failed to boot up when turned on. Another 12 machines were in the Diebold plant in McKinney, Texas, being repaired.
Make them 'broke' so they can't be audited.
Ship them out of state so they can't be audited.
A great method to cover up a fixed election.
Parent
Re:Open the damn source. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, in this case it's not the government that we're being asked to trust. It's companies producing demonstrably untrustworthy products.
Unlike many (apparently) on
As long as we have a multi-party system, instead of a single-party or 'power and opposition' system, allegations of rigged votes will get attention.
And I know that this being
Parent
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
solving a non-problem (Score:5, Interesting)
It works, it has a paper-trail, any idiot understands the ballots, there are no hanging chads, and the entire voting system is entirely political and not commercia... oh, I see.
Re:solving a non-problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:solving a non-problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I see polititians getting on TV/radio and talking day-of election registration (hello kneee-jerk elections), or making Election Day a national holiday, etc... I think these people, like the folks behind e-voting, are trying to fix something that's not a problem to begin with.
Parent
Re:solving a non-problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The reasons are pretty straightforward -- people who are well off and have high-end salaried jobs are more likely to be able to get past registration barriers and to take time off from their weekday jobs (which are salaried, not hourly) to vote. By comparison, the less well-off are typically less educated and less likely to be able to take time to vote without a financial hit.
Now, the interesting thing about all of this analysis is that it's kind of backwards, because, IIRC, the more education and (to a point) income someone has, the less likely they are to vote conservative, and vice versa. There's a distinct lack of class consciousness in America, probably because the right has been really good at playing to the emotions and non-economic beliefs of the lower economic classes, while really pursuing agendas destructive of their actual economic interests.
----------------
Parent
Re:solving a non-problem (Score:4, Insightful)
How arrogant, to think that just because people don't vote, they must lazy. How you concidered that many thinks that none of the candidate will have their best interests at heart? Or that the election is fixed in such a way that the "right" candidate is elected by use of gerrymandering, thus makeing my vote count less?
There are many sick things with the election system, but lazy voters is not one of them.
Parent
Re:solving a non-problem (Score:5, Funny)
Old Wizard of Id cartoon:
Parent
Why is it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is, what does it take for the mainstream press to pick up on this?!?!?!?
Re:Why is it.... (Score:4, Funny)
Bush to lose ?
Parent
Re:Why is it.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pick up the phone and talk to the editor, then pick up a pen and write to the editor. Then get a half-dozen friends to do the same, and get them to get a half-dozen of their friends to do it, too.
Parent
Simple answer (Score:5, Interesting)
And no greater influence can be held over the electorate than replacing them outright with programmable machines.
So basically what you are asking for is to have the same people who aspire to control the electorate to call attention to their efforts at achieving even greater control over the electorate.
It's just not going to happen.
They see where America is going. They see the exodus of jobs going overseas that is to come (what we've seen to date is nothing), and they realize that the result will inevitably be the electorate veering hard to the left. And since they can take all their capital with them overseas that would be fine, except for one thing: the U.S. military.
They can't simply cede America to a reactionary leftist because there's no telling what kind of retribution would be exacted.
So they do this instead.
Parent
Re:Why is it.... (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but that Diebold didn't get sued out of existence for using "untrustable" or "untrusted" software is just sign of how individual-unfriendly, and big-corporation-friendly the USA have become. Of course, in truly democratic countries, the person who installed untrusted software in a voting machine would automatically commit a felony, and do hard jail time. The fact that it was not an isolated incident would compound that into conspiracy to commit a felony, and probably send 10-20 people in jail, and 5 people in the witness protection program for blowing the whistle on the others.
But then, where I live, while not perfect, certainly our rules(Quebec's) makes our politicians work a little harder not to appear to be corrupt, their success at this, is mitigated...
Parent
Productivity Uber Alles! (Score:5, Funny)
1) Get 75,000 WinCE-based Diebold machines built (and paid for!)
2) Send them to India and have lower-cost labour do the "voting"
Makes stealing elections MUCH more cost-effective!
Governments should not be trusted (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no reason to trust Diebold, for that matter. It is a corporation that has been contracted to change the way we vote, and the way we are counted.
I am committed to delivering ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Walden O'Dell, head of Diebold Election Systems, wrote a letter to Republican contributors in August [usatoday.com] that said "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
Maybe there really was much basis for his confidence ....
Re:I am committed to delivering ... (Score:4, Informative)
Many specialists remain convinced that a Republican team jiggered the vote-counting computers during the 1987 Presidential election that brought Chun's protege, Roh Tae Woo, to power.
Now, taking into concideration the election frauds in Florida, one does not need a tin-foil hat to see that voting computers will make election frauds even more easy.
Parent
Stop bitching and DO something (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, if the conspiracy-theorists are correct and the company is a front for the RNC to control election results, or the company is in the business of selling results to the highest bidder, you'll be risking your life. Techno-warfare for the protection of our democracy.
back to paper (Score:5, Interesting)
These ballots have always been tedious to count by hand. Perhaps we could outsource the hand-counting to some third world country.
Relax (Score:5, Funny)
What's the big deal? These guys sound like everyday, ordinary CEOs to me.
Diebold completely at fault? (Score:5, Informative)
"Shelley acknowledged responsibility for the failure of his own office to track what systems were in place and said changes would be made. He said he hoped the statewide review wouldn't result in the decertification of Diebold systems or the systems of other vendors."
The state board of elections did NOT audit these machines BEFORE THE ELECTION and KNOWING that Diebold installed uncertified software in past elections. Shelley also does not want the machines decertified. How can you decertify what you did not certify to begin with? And if Diebold REALLY IS in violation of their agreement (as Shelley claims) they should be cut out of the process IMMEDIATELY because they're NOT CERITIFED But...they're not... Why? (Because, just maybe this is a political witch-hunt? Naaaahhh..)
Lastly, Diebold says the "felon computer programmer" was released when Diebold acquired the company. Which means he never WORKED for Diebold. so there's no need to do a background check on him.
Re:Diebold completely at fault? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Why convicted felons are interested in Thiefold (Score:5, Insightful)
Planting cash machine weaknesses (or more likely: profiting from accidental weakness which they get to know about) allows them to obtain quicker and more anonymous rewards than tampering with elections would.
An obviously fake high-stakes election might lead to a thorough investigation, which might not only land the politician that profitted from it in hot water, but also his minions at Thiefold.
However, nobody would make as much fuss about cash machines that occasionnally spit out too much if the right cheat-code is punched.
screw voting (Score:5, Funny)
"Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding. Unless proposition 304 passes; and we all pray it will."
-Kent Brockman
Why isn't this on the cover of Newsweek? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why isn't this on the cover of Newsweek? (Score:5, Funny)
- Is Jennefer Lopez showing her boobs too much?
- Is Brittany Spears showing her boobs too much?
- When is Ben Affleck getting engaged again.
There is only so much space in a newspaper. They have to set priorities on what stories are important!
Parent
Paper 1.0 (Score:4, Interesting)
Radio (Score:5, Informative)
Jack Hitt did a story on Diebold for This American Life [thislife.org] a few weeks back. It's a good listen and neatly sums up all the problems with untrusted computerized voting. I know WE know what the issues are, but it's refreshing to see this out in the public eye.
A description of the show and a realaudio stream (yeah yeah, I know) is available here [thislife.org].
Triv
This is only at Wired ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or at least, not yet.
All it's going to take is enough public sentiment against Diebold to change this situation... and this can only happen if msnbc, cbsnews, washpost, foxnews, latimes, et al pick this up.
I wonder what they're doing in the cash machine world that hasn't yet come to light?
counting silicon transistors? (Score:4, Funny)
'governor, this is a simple 64mbyte ram module. there are sixty-four million groups of eight switches in here. if you count each of these groups one per second, it would take you over two years. now consider that each little individual switch of on and off has to be verified. one switch per second, this would take you sixteen years, and would total more seconds than there are american citizens, almost twice as many. and this, just to count one storage device, dozens of which would be required to actually do the job of recording indexes, names, addresses, signatures and social security numbers, and other data that are collected in current ballots in order to ensure fair elections. there would have to be more storage, as well, to keep logs of all the electronic transactions required in order make sure the processes were secure and retractable, for the purpose of tracking down any offenders. now this task of sixteen years to count every switch in this chip has been multiplied by dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands. you may find enough volunteers to reduce the time required, but now reduce the volunteers, in the case of just 1,000 such citizens, by the requirement of ability to run an electron-scanning microscope and to work steadily at the task for as many as sixteen years. now find 10,000 electron-scanning microscope-operating humans who can work without stopping to eat, sleep, or drink for a year and a half and you're approaching the end of your problem. now find 1,000,000 such citizens and the work has been reduced to
Mistake in the article (Score:4, Funny)
He's not a manager, he is a domain expert.
Diebold: Elections and ATMs (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't fault them for folks already in place at Global Election Systems (GES) when they acquired the company at the beginning of 2002. Nor do I believe that folks with a criminal history should be barred from IT careers. Someone with expertise in large scale fraud could be very helpful, if not invaluable, in finding exploits in systems you're trying to secure.
However, a development and management staff comprised of numerous folks with experience in stock fraud, money laundering, smuggling, cracking and grand larceny certainly calls into question the legitimacy of the projects they've worked on. The Diebold spokesdrone said that a few of them left at the time of acquisition, but did not say if any remained working at Diebold.
My own opinion is that Diebold itself is a criminal enterprise whose thin facade of trustworthiness has been torn down to expose the company's true character.
This calls into question not only Diebold's election systems, but all of their products including their ubiquitous ATM machines. Who knows how many of those have been cracked or if there's an ongoing fraudulent scheme (beyond ATM withdrawl fees) by Diebold to defraud Joe and Jane Citizen of their hard-earned cash.
Based on Diebold's behaviour, I don't think that that sounds terribly crazy.
Please support the Open Voting Consortium (Score:5, Informative)
To quote from their web site:
The Open Voting Consortium (OVC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of an open voting system for use in public elections.
We are currently developing free voting software to run on very inexpensive PC hardware. The OVC voting system will accommodate different languages and scoring methods, as well as voters with special needs.
We expect to be fully operational by 2005, with the certification of version 1.0 of the Open Voting software. Meanwhile, we have demonstration software under development at http://sourceforge.net/projects/evm2003, which should be ready by the end of this year.
If you want to Help make it happen, then mailto:alan@openvotingconsortium.org to send us an e-mail.
Can't post this too many times (Score:4, Informative)
Bill Could Rule Out Open Source Voting Software (Score:5, Informative)
Propenents of Open Source solutions for electronic voting systems should be concerned about this. I see no mention of this at Boxer's website [senate.gov], so it's hard to say exactly how this might be worded. But clearly, the process of performing and verifying such a vetting could be problematic for a distributed, volunteer development effort. Would it be just the "official" maintainers who would be subject to such constraints, or would such requirements require that patches submitted by non-vetted contributors be rejected purely on those grounds? My concern is that voting software should be evaluated and put into use on technical grounds, and in the pursuit of using the best available methods, we shouldn't be placing barriers into place which preclude the selection of well-written software.
Re:Oh great (Score:3, Insightful)
Four more years of Bush...
I'm not an American so pardon my ignorance: are these voting machines in states/counties with political leanings which normally wouldn't support Bush? Fuel my conspiracy theories.
Re:META: Please someone explain to me . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
What's more basic and important to a democracy than voting? The message that this equipment and the companies involved are questionable doesn't seem to be getting out to the major media as much as it should. This is cheap publicity and many Slashdotters feel strongly about the issue. That by itself should be enough but if you want more detail or excuse: 1. The Diebold machine's software seems to have been designed to make fraud easier:
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/scoop/S00065.htm
Any competetant secretary who knows MS Access could jimmy this software without much help at all.
2. One of the other two companies that makes voting machines, ES&S, is owned in part by a Republican senator, Chuck Hegel, who was elected Senator two years after Nebraska bought his machines. He didn't see fit to disclose his substantial interest in ES&S, or the fact that he had formerly been chairman and CEO of this company in his FEC filings. Moreoever, there was an attempt to supress the publication of a story on this topic by a Republican political lawyer.
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=Ne
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=Ne
Don't you think that important criteria chosing the vendor for voting machinery should include the appearance of trustworthiness, and that the machine's be designed with security in mind and audited by software industry accepted outside experts? With the voting machine companies that appearance is entirely to the contrary, and the every reputable expert that has looked at them has concluded that they don't meet basic security criteria. Rather than attempting to remedy these shortcomings they've hired PR companies to spin the news.
Parent