EFF Announces 2004 Pioneer Award Winners 73
Christopher Soghoian writes "In an announcement earlier this week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has revealed the winners of the Thirteenth Annual Pioneer Awards.
Focusing on the area of electronic voting security and accountability, they have highlighted the work of Kim Alexander, the president of the California Voter Foundation, David Dill, a Stanford Professor and founder of VerifiedVoting.org, and Avi Rubin, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who co-authored the highly publicized Diebold report of 2003."
Historians note (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Historians note (Score:1, Funny)
Don't hold your breath (Score:2, Funny)
Re:BENEDICT ARNOLDS OF THE OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT (Score:2, Offtopic)
What do you have to look forward to?
Following in their footsteps: creating a wildly successful capitalist business that uses others' open-source to reduce costs, in the process possibly contributing back in minor amounts. It worked for Apple, it worked for Google, it worked for countless others I won't bother to name, it'll work for me.
Re:BENEDICT ARNOLDS OF THE OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT (Score:2)
Marc Andressen a 'Benedict Arnold' of open source? Err when exactly did Marc do anything in the open source movement. The NCSA Mosaic program was always license restricted to educational use only. Netscape was set up to exploit the web as a commercial enterprise.
Same with the rest
Dichotomy of Voting (Score:5, Interesting)
We need to utilize the honesty from these wonderful proctors, and harness that in whatever system of voting is brought forward. We need an auditing system that is open to the public, so that the votes can be quickly check-sum'd and factored by poll. Our votes should be accessible online so that we can check to make sure our vote has not been changed by wrong-doers.
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:4, Interesting)
It really is a sad fact (highlighted by the Diebold debacle) that there is little honesty left in the world of electronic voting. And, for that matter, even if a company is "honest" how can we be sure they aren't just doctoring their checksums or other statistics? *sigh*
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's how you do it: first off, electronic voting software must be open source, and furthermore it must be inspected by qualified computer security experts. The software developers and security inspectors would be paid for their work, of course, but they would need to either assign their copyright to the state or at least assign unlimited distribution rights to the state.
Then, when the voter votes, a printout of that vote is produced, and the voter is asked by the machine to confirm that he or she has inspected the paper record and agrees that it matches the voter's intent. In the security inspection, particular attention is paid to ensuring that the printout will match the submitted vote. Nevertheless, the paper record is then deposited in a locked box, watched over by experienced little old ladies, one per political party per polling station the way things are done today. For a randomly selected sample of polling stations, all the paper ballots are counted and compared to the electronically reported figure. In very close races, all of the paper records can be counted. To make recounts more efficient, the paper printouts can be designed to be optically readable and machine counted if need be.
"But that will be expensive", some will whine. Big deal: assuring that the voters' will is respected is the #1 priority in a democratic society.
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:4, Insightful)
People will almost invariably respond to this with "But this opens the potential for people to abuse those with different votes than theirs". However, I've been in agreement with you for quite a while anyway. Those that are afraid to stand up for their vote simply wouldn't get one. Unfortunate, but I think it has a chance at making people appreciate their vote MORE rather than less.
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:3, Insightful)
Have the voting machine print you a receipt with a unique ID on it.If you are so inclined, you can look up the UID on the net and ensure your vote was tallied correctly.
If you are concerned about your privacy, simply leave your receipt in the polling station and your vote is untraceable.
And there you have it - a simple, user auditable system for e-voting that preserves privacy.
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:4, Insightful)
1) You didn't get a receipt or
2) Your voting didn't please them
By allowing people the opportunity to check on themselves, you are also allowing others to check on them.
The only way to provide this kind of check and balance is to allow people to observe their paper ballot inside the voting place, but not allow them to leave with it.
This requires that the voting machines and operators are secure.
But then, this has always been the case. We've always relied on the operators and the machines we've used. This isn't as new a problem as you might think. The only reason people are up in arms is that the machine hides so much of the process that it's difficult, if not impossible, to verify. This is why so many people are pushing for voter receipts that the voter does not leave with. The receipts are collected, and if an audit is needed then the receipts are what gets counted since the voter ostensibly checked the receipt after voting.
The problem with this is that you get very large receipts since they have to be human readable.
But these are not insurmountable problems, and I'm quite certian that after another 12 years we'll be happy with our machines and the process. As long as we can audit the machines, any and all offenses can be punished accordingly when caught, just as they are now.
Besides, voting was never meant to be fool-proof. It's simply the best way that is currently practical to run a republic. Eventually this will change.
-Adam
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:2, Informative)
The problem with this is that you get very large receipts since they have to be human readable.
The receipts are no larger than today's paper ballots, which have, for the most part, served the purpose in elections. I think we can handle generating paper receipts and storing them.
People don't have perspective on e-voting; they expect it to be perfectly secure and foolproof. The system will never be wholly secure. Just like an election of entirely paper ballots will never be wholly secure; there is alway
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:2)
Because you can count everyone's votes online.
Everyone's vote is online anonymously. So they can be independantly counted (by anyone with the inclination).
Individuals can check to ensure that their vote was recorded correctly.
Pretty foolproof I think.
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:2)
post hoc, ergo proctor hoc (Score:1, Funny)
However, if the Diebold system of voting is brought forward, we need to utilize the services of wonderful proctologists, and put their asses in a harness!
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:4, Insightful)
What's wrong with a paper ballot system that can be audited by the old ladies that you speak of? Place an "X" next to the candidates you wish to vote for. If we really must have e-voting then have it print a stinking paper ballot that is dropped into a drop-box. Don't even keep a running total on the PC -- count the damn paper ballots.
Failing that what's wrong with the old style mechanical voting machines (we still use them in my district -- I just got a huge training manual on them because I volunteered to be an elections inspector this year)? Pull a lever for your candidate and it increments a counter. Completely mechanical -- no electric or software needed. A fairly complex machine but it's certainly more resistant to tampering then software (and don't give me a lecture about OSS being the solution -- unless John Q. Public has root access to the e-Voting machine how do you know that OSS is really running on it?) -- and it's at least as reliable.
With the setup that my state has (again this is coming out of the handbooks that I got from my local Board of Elections after volunteering) you have two election inspectors from both major parties and observers from any interested candidate that can watch the voting and auditing process -- that's as tamper proof as it's going to get. And the old ladies can understand it! We don't need to be held hostage by a friggen company whose CEO has stated that "He will deliver Ohio's electoral votes to the President". Where's the damn outrage from the general public?
Our votes should be accessible online so that we can check to make sure our vote has not been changed by wrong-doers.
Doesn't that defeat the point of anonymous voting?
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:1)
Do you really believe this? Could you tell if the machine had been tampered with to skip a vote every 100 or 1000? Could you tell if the counter always incremented the correct way?
Not saying that eletronic voting is the answer, but it is no easier to fix an election with it then with mechanical or any other voting means.
And, remember, dead people still vote. And they can do it just as easy with any method.
Re:Dichotomy of Voting (Score:2)
Actually yes, for two reasons.
A) The election inspectors keep track of the total vote counter on the machine to make sure that it tallies up with the number of people who have voted. Of course this isn't the individual canaidate counters but this brings us to point B...
B) What's going to be easier for an election inspector to
The Future: bright, beautiful, and not here yet. (Score:5, Interesting)
The recent near-tie's and questionable results are more a matter of our own political divisiveness and extreme political stances.
That, and a publicly-audited voting system dashes all my hopes of winning the 2012 elections by underhanded means.
Which country are you referring to? (Score:4, Funny)
Two parties with the same agenda backed by the same people.
I guess if you see 'extreme political stances' then actually having a multi-party system would scare you to death.
Its almost as sad as Canada. Here we have one business owned party. Another slightly more to the right but regional so no chance of winning an election. Another party which is again regional and whose main goal is the end of the french- english farce and separation from Canada. And the lovable lefties who are around to remind us why we're the 'bestest' country in the world and to give the illusion that people have a choice.
This sham of a democracy gives us the moral authority to criticize Americorp Inc. down south and their twiddly dee and dummer options.
That's why we love the US; next to them we always seem like the good guys. They make us look good.
I personally love all the BS in US politics, hearing your president Georges Kerry Jr. speak is fascinating.
zack
recognition where it's due (Score:4, Insightful)
The question everyone askls (Score:1, Interesting)
Where's Seth Finkelstein and Michael Sims with the Censorware project?
Re:oh yeah? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:oh yeah? (Score:1)
Re:oh yeah? (Score:1)
In Soviet Russia, the buffet tries you.
thanks, EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you, EFF!
Johns Hopkins University (Score:4, Interesting)
Pioneers? Not really. (Score:5, Insightful)
<bart
Re:Pioneers? Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)
These people are actively working on changing things in society (primarily US). They are actually putting their reputation at risk, spending a lot of time and effort, and are trying hard to make things better! To spearhead change must not be confused with deconstructionism.
I have incidentally been fortunate enough to chat with Kim Alexander and her husband on an airplane trip (Hi guys, I know you are reading this), and it is clear to me that Kim is spending her career on trying to ensure that things like the Florida debacle does not happen again, that democracy will be guaranteed, and restore people's faith in elections. Kim and the others are definately good role models and creative people! Who would you like to reward if you want to highlight electronic voting? The creators of the Diebold machines perhaps?
balackboxvoting (Score:4, Informative)
blackboxvoting.com, [blackboxvoting.com] and blackboxvoting.org. [blackboxvoting.org]
One of the sites is alwys up, one is often down because Dibold has been doing everything that it can to shut down the sites.
The
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Funny)
Diebold denied having planned this event, while the EFF solemnly vowed to prohibit Diebold from hosting any future votes. Google indicated that this was the most replayed cache during the ceremony.
-Adam