Slashdot Log In
Diebold Admits ATMs Are More Robust Than Voting Machines
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Apr 25, 2008 07:23 AM
from the votes-on-the-cheap dept.
from the votes-on-the-cheap dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: Diebold Rebrands What No One Wants 175 comments
Irvu writes "Diebold has apparently failed in their bid to sell their tainted elections systems unit. Unable to find a buyer the CEO of Diebold promised that the system will be run more 'openly and independently.' To prove that they are serious, they renamed it. Diebold Election Systems is now Premiere Election Solutions. They still sell GEMS, AccuVote OS and the ever-unpopular AccuVote-TSX which performed so disastrously in California's Top-to-Bottom Review under the same names. Apparently their rebranding effort only goes so far."
Submission: Diebold Admits ATMs Better than Voting Machines! by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Best Parallel Ever! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Best Parallel Ever! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Not the same people (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Parent
Re:Not the same people (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Not the same people (Score:4, Informative)
so in reality.. the CC has to do a few more transactions and alittle leg work.. (what my 50$ covers) and the company selling stuff gets nothing but lost inventory and the fraud guy makes off with the stuff..
untill the CC companies here in the US are held accountable for the transactions then they have zero incentive on putting together more expenisve and effective security into the cards/transactions.. because it doesn't effect their bottom line..
and the reatail places are screwed because their only option is to stop accepting CC's.. and if you do that in the US you might as well clsoe your doors as most of the population doesn't cary cash any more.. and sadly most of them don't have the cash to cary.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
now either A.. they have managed to get barly litterate minimum wage people that can read barcodes nativly OR they just don't give a shit..
Re:Best Parallel Ever! (Score:4, Informative)
I do. every time I buy something I pay state and local sales tax. Every time I earn a paycheck I pay income tax. Every time I buy beer I pay an excise tax.
I'm paying for the ATMs, too. The bank gets its money from me when it charges me fees and invests my checking account money for their profit.
I expect my elected officials to do their damned jobs without my nagging. It's their responsibility under the state constitution to ensure a secure vote.
Parent
Re:Best Parallel Ever! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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!"Parent
Re:Best Parallel Ever! (Score:4, Informative)
More info here at the FEC website [fec.gov].
Parent
Re:Best Parallel Ever! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Best Parallel Ever! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Best Parallel Ever! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Best Parallel Ever! (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Yes. (Except for the part about the party.)
Do you think the number of speeding tickets issued is affected by the potential income through fines? Do you think the propensity for police to confiscate property is affected by the ability to then auction off that property?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words (Score:2)
Voting is important, the security of the vote is important, unless that money can be used to buy votes elsewhere. It also becomes a great issue to underfund so when a politician loses they can blame voting machines for it because no one wants to admit they lost a popularity contest
Re:In other words (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And voters want more expensive services but refuse to pay higher taxes to pay for them. Bad combo.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, their voting products do suck, although I don't think that cost has terribly much to do with it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The voting booths have nothing to do their mainline business.
This a bit like AM General admitting that their LSSVs aren't as robust
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't "downgrade" a 747 into a vending machine, even though the 747 is the more complex bit of machinery and has proven to be extremely reliable.
They're two separate things entirely. Granted, yes, Diebold's experience with ATMs does make them appear more qualified to build voting machines, though there are still several important fundamental differences present.
Parent
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course you can:
1: Pull 747 up to gate.
2: Allow cockpit crew to leave, keep flight attendants.
3: Cancel engine maintenance contract, keep galley contracts.
4: PROFIT!! (not really, but couldn't resist)
To use:
1: Walk down jetway into 747, take a seat.
2: Push flight attendant button.
3: Flight attendant wheels cart to your seat, prepared to dispense peanuts, mini-pretzels, or soda.
4: Take you peanuts, mini-pretzels, or soda and exit the aircraft.
I didn't say that a downgraded 747 made a very good, convenient, or profitable vending machine, but with a few organic parts, (the flight attendants and ground service for the galley) it can make one. Perhaps a parallel for Diebold voting machines.
Parent
What is Our Democracy Worth? (Score:3)
Re:What is Our Democracy Worth? (Score:4, Informative)
A fundamental change is needed, one that will either have the states ceding power tot he federal government to develop "the one true" voting machine used in all districts *or* we get off this technology merry-go-round and use paper ballots - as a bonus it will give the losing politicans more time to round-up lawyers to challenge their loss...
Parent
India has affordable/ secure voting machines (Score:5, Informative)
A simple machine, that has been tested and verify can be sealed with stickers with signatures of election officials.
A machine (think diabold) with all kinds of inputs (think keyboard plugs) and complexity (think OS, DB etc...) cannot be easily sealed and verified by election officials.
I found two interesting articles about India's EVM
The two things I found interesting:
1) EVM cost = $230 (hard to tamper with, and relies on election officials to keep secure)
2) Diebold cost = $3300 (easier to tamper with, and relies on election officials to keep secure)
This points out two things: voting systems don't have to be complicated or expensive to work well, and that security depends both on the machine and the voting process.
Just like with paper ballots the election officials need to ensure security of the voting and counting process.
In Canada we have some electronic voting at the municipal level in some cities (mostly optical scan machines).
A comparison of EVM and Diebold
http://techaos.blogspot.com/2004/05/indian-evm-compared-with-diebold.html [blogspot.com]
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Voting_Machines [wikipedia.org]
The issue is not about cost. The issue is crappy design, and politics in the selection of voting machine vendors.
Parent
Ironically named? (Score:5, Funny)
This makes perfect sense (Score:2)
He's (somewhat) correct. (Score:2)
That being said, there's no reason that over time a voting system cannot have a similar level of security and accuracy. Open code review and structure review of the devices will allow security experts to
Is this a joke? (Score:2)
Cost isn't the issue (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Cost isn't the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Cost isn't the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Parent
Yeah, right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The Bush Administration has $500B to spend on prescription pills for the elderly, but cannot find $100M to fund 10,000 new border patrol agents on the southern border.
2) New Orleans had plenty of money to waste on welfare programs and such, but didn't have any money to spend on getting its own fixes for the levies, even if they were only gradual repair contracts.
3) All of the pork barrel spending that goes on in Congress.
4) The congressional hearings over steroid use in professional sports. I don't agree that it is the state's business at all, but isn't this what we have the DEA for?
5) Doing things like setting up honeypots to catch people who might have a passing interest in child porn when there are still people getting away with the actual production of the same in U.S. territory, child molesters and Americans flying overseas to do the same.
6) Passing and enforcing drug laws when there isn't even enough room due to the War on Drugs to guarantee that someone who commits 1st degree murder will get life in prison. Same thing for how the WoD has made it much easier to argue that the system just cannot handle the burden of locking up dangerous criminals permanently.
Explain away engineering defects (Score:2, Interesting)
And shoddy/insecure design... As something they can't afford to do without?
I call BS. The customer has an expectation of the manufacturer doing a good job of designing their devices and not selling defective product lines: there would be no sale if the manufacturer were honest and told the product was not robust. There can be no excuse for letting a generic key open the device, when individualized locks are easily purchased.
The customer would keep going until they found a vendor that told them the
ATMs as voting machines (Score:5, Funny)
Crappy overly expensive underachieving design (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
We are getting stuck on the machines! (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is we're stuck on machines vs. voting procedures. New York and New Jersey had voting machines that did not produce a paper trail for almost 100 years, and this was by design. The voting fraud problem in the Northeast was ballot stuffing. Voting machines, by eliminating paper ballots were designed to eliminate this type of voter fraud. The voting machines were designed around voting procedures. A voter had to register before hand. They had to sign in. Their signature was compared to their signature on their original application. The voter was handed a ticket. They handed that to a poll worker who would place the ticket in the voting machine, and pull a big lever which unlocked the machine. The voter would enter the machine, pull another lever to close the curtains and vote. When they finished, they pulled the lever to open the curtains. This cast the ballot and locked the machine. Poll watchers oversaw the whole process.
This machine/procedure combination eliminated ballot stuffing. The voter could only vote a single time before the machine locked up. The poll worker couldn't unlock the machine without the poll watchers noticing. Voter counts were taken from the machine totals, the tickets on the machines, and the sign in list. Since the voting machines were purely mechanical, they were trusted by all parties. All parties could watch the machines being setup and make sure there were no problems. Poll watchers would run tests before the polls opened to verify the machines. This didn't kill the political machines which simply switched tactics, and it didn't entirely eliminate voting fraud, but it certainly helped.
What we need to do is set a procedure up to ensure that elections are fair. Ballots must be secured and watched over by all parties. In Zimbabwe, they counted the votes locally at the polls and posted the results at each poll. This prevents the ruling party from manipulating the ballots. You could go from poll to poll, and add up the election results yourself. We also must ensure that each voter votes only once, and that each voter's vote is totaled as they intended. That was the issue in Florida with the punch card system.
So, we need to think beyond the "technology" aspect of the voting. It isn't paper ballots are simply better. It's about ensuring that we have confidence in the tabulation of the votes and whether it truly reflects the view of the populous. So, think of how you'd secure the paper ballots, how they would be counted. Who would oversee the procedure? How would the ballot boxes be protected from additional votes being added? How do we ensure that voters only vote once and not sneak in additional ballots? How do we verify the ballots? How can we ensure the entire procedure is fair?
The problem with the current Diabold style voting machines is that they are mystery boxes and we cannot tell if they tabulate the vote fairly. We would have to ensure the firmware, the software, and hardware has not been tampered with. A paper trail can help since paper is easier to verify. But, paper is easy to duplicate, toss, and manipulate which is why the Northeast went to the mechanical paperless machines to begin with.
Unless you think of the entire voting process, and ensure the voting process is easy to verify, it doesn't matter how voters cast their ballots.
In defense of Diebold (Score:3, Insightful)
ATMs are the target of physical attacks far more often than voting machines are. ATMs are installed in unmonitored locations. Voting machines are not. The object of an attack on an ATM is to get the money out. Leaving evidence of damage behind isn't an issue with an ATM. OTOH, voting machines can be secured with simple tamper seals.
When was the last time you saw a surveillance video of a couple of yahoos chaining a voting machine to the back bumper of a pickup truck and dragging it away?
Re:ATM's are also more secure (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:ATM's are also more secure (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 b
Re:ATM's are also more secure (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:ATM's are also more secure (Score:5, Insightful)
A voting machine that prints off a paper ballot which the voter deposits in a lockbox still seems the best option to achieve this.
Parent
Scantron Sheets in NH (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite frankly I don't see the need, under any circumstance, to get more complicated than this.
Simple voting procedure, quick electronic counting, and a clear & easily verifiable paper trail.
If you wanted multiple voting reciepts, then it would be a (relatively) simple matter to hook up a printer to spit out a copy/reciept of each ballot inserted- but I don't really think that's n
Re:ATM's are also more secure (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW: By voting machine I mean one that counts your ballot, not one that prints your ballot.
Parent
Re:Voting machine - ATM combo (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent