Sequoia Threatens Over Voting Machine Evaluation 221
enodo writes "Voting machine manufacturer Sequoia has sent well-known Princeton professor Ed Felten and his colleague Andrew Appel a letter threatening to sue if New Jersey sends them a machine to evaluate. It's not clear from the letter Sequoia sent whether they intend to sue the professors or the state — presumably that ambiguity was deliberate on Sequoia's part. Put another clipping in your scrapbook of cases of companies invoking 'intellectual property rights' for bogus reasons." Sequoia seems to be claiming that no one can make a "report" regarding their "software" without their permission.
Speechless. (Score:2)
Re:Speechless. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's often the results with certain voting machines.
handy though (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ask me, Sequoia has been given some very bad legal advice. Didn't anyone stop to think about the public relations nightmare this would cause? Not to mention damage to their business.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that's why Sequoia's threatening to sue. They obviously don't want the machine inspected.
Here is Sequoia's response from their website... (Score:5, Funny)
Sequoia Voting Systems supports third party reviews and testing of its election equipment
In response to some recent media reports, Sequoia is has issued a statement found at . Through this statement, we hope to educate individuals on the third party review mechanisms already in place in the election industry as well as our company's business practices regarding third party reviews and testing of its election equipment.
An independent review of a voting system is a complex and interdisciplinary process involving a broad knowledge of election law, public administration and technical matters. Many independent reviews have been successfully conducted within the framework of Sequoia's license rights pursuant to appropriate and mutually agreeable arrangements between Sequoia and governmental agencies charged by law with the authority to conduct such reviews. Sequoia welcomes all such responsibly executed review activities.
Please see the Election Technology Council's "Guidelines for States conducting Top-to-Bottom Reviews" found on the organization's website at for additional information.
- Michelle Shafer, VP of Communications
Re:Here is Sequoia's response from their website.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously they don't. Anyone claiming that Ed Felten is unable to responsibly execute such a review should have her head examined. More to the point however, it is equally obvious that they are very much aware of Professor Felten's reputation, and would very much rather he didn't execute a responsible review of their equipment.
Hey
Re:handy though (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think a PR nightmare really applies. This kind of stuff rarely if ever hits mainstream media, and us geeks of Slashdot aren't really the type to buy into proprietary tools in general, let alone ones used for voting.
Re:handy though (Score:5, Informative)
In the past, less than one hundred years ago, it was extremely difficult to investigate dangerous products or workplaces. The government just didn't feel it was important enough to get involved in. There had to be major media effort to bring these problems to the public eye before there was enough pressure on the government to put pressure on companies. Such as hair products that could cause blindness and disfigurement, sometimes death (the reason that we have animal testing for cosmetics today). Companies didn't care if customer's were hurt, as long as they got their money first; but bad publicity made them at least pretend to care.
Or the use of radium on watch dials; a company where the chemists would use lead shields to deal with radium would suggest to the factory workers that they could lick the brushes used to pain the dials. That took a media campaign to publicize slow painful deaths of young women before the public demanded change. It's interesting here that US Radium threatened to sue to prevent publication of a damning report, since the author had signed a confidentiality agreement (deja vu).
But in this case, the danger is to elections, not someone's health. The question is whether this rises to the same level of concern. In the health cases, people had to die or become disfigured before the government and the public took any action. Do we have to wait for a stolen or hacked election before the people decide that the public's interests in this matter overrides intellection property? ("intellectual", hah, there's nothing so special about the technology here; shoddy hardware, shoddy software, slick marketting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
in france, where radium was discovered, they used 'cotton swabs' to apply the paint rather than horsehair brushes. cotton swabs had no need to be licked (the horsehair brushes had to be licked ever 2-3 strokes)
analysis of public voting machines will turn up ugly bugs like being able to report 1
Re:handy though (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true, however, that IP claims are getting out of hand when a government and/or institution doing some work for the government is threatened with a lawsuit over testing hardware. These events are only going to get more egregious and ludicrous until Washington and the courts start handing these abusers their proverbial balls on a platter.
Re:Speechless. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are speechless for the right reasons but the majority of the American public will be speechless for another and far more unfortunate reason
Re:Speechless. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Reasons: "The system was incapable of operating within the evaluation environment."
No permission should be needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No permission should be needed (Score:5, Interesting)
I am sure the state of New Jersey can tell Sequoia to accept this investigation or say good-bye to any certification. Sequoia is just making themselves look bad and like they have something to hide.
I agree however New Jersey probably has already paid for the machines. I can't see Sequoia telling the state they can't test them, have them tested scientifically, if they haven't already been paid for. This case can however be used to show other potential buyers just how the company operates.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Who knows?
It really depends on what the contract is between Sequoia and the State.
None of us know the details, so really, this whole thread is going to be just speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Aw now it's not going to be as fun to read. Thanks for ruining slashdot! :(
Re:No permission should be needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell them to accept the investigation? As far as I'm concerned, the fact that they are threatening to sue to avoid having their software examined for flaws automatically disqualifies them from consideration. Why bother with the investigation now? They are practically admitting that their software isn't good enough and that they will do anything possible to avoid fixing it.
I Agree with Sequoia on this (Score:5, Insightful)
If their contract declares as such then they are in the right.
However, it should be a requirement at the state level, if not federal, to require this sort of outside verification and study. If a manufacturer does not agree to it then they should be considered for the application. Fair is fair.
Don't want to be hold accountable then don't expect our money.
I am quite sure some other company will step forward if there is money to be made and their intellectual property rights are protected. I am all for testing and certification by outside groups but I also realize that there is investment here and that needs protected first. What must come first is OUR rights, our rights to know that outside experts have certified a solution and future implementations will protect our vote. Surely some company will step up to this for the money. Maybe it will be the kick in the pants for some group already in place to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If their contract declares as such then they are in the right.
Not necessarily. A contract is not the totality of the law. Contracts can be found to be null and void.
In this case, I'd say just basic consumer protection laws would apply. The consumer has the right to determine if the product they purchased does what it claims to do. No "contract" can forbid that. That'd be like an auto maker forbidding the customer in a signed sales agreement from looking under the hood to see if there's an engine present.
I suspect the contract doesn't forbid verifying that
Re:No permission should be needed (Score:5, Insightful)
If they do not have enough confidence in their system's security or accuracy to allow it to be tested, then it is not good enough to be used for e-voting. They have just demonstrated that their system can not be trusted.
Sweet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullet. Meet foot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sweet. (Score:4, Insightful)
But... New Jersey might file a countersuit against Sequoia claiming that they interfering with New Jersey's ability to verify that the machines are suitable for use in actual elections (before the elections are held and found to be invalid). Imagine GM suing a customer because they took their car to a non-GM mechanic to verify that some work had been done properly. I doubt the courts would look kindly on that.
If I were a New Jersey state elections employee, I'd be looking seriously at returning the equipment, informing Sequoia that it was unsuitable for use, and demanding my money back.
Finally, I'm guessing that Sequoia isn't all that interested in staying in the electronic voting machine business. This act will pretty much have everyone who's still considering even using electronic voting equipment making a mental note to cross Sequoia off their short list of vendors.
The ambiguity is a dead giveaway. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, this is a scare tactic with nothing to back it up, pure and simple. If Sequoia thought the would have had actual grounds to sue, you can bet that they would have been chillingly specific in their letter.
When people resort to these sort of tactics to attempt to dissuade you, you can be assured you're doing something right.
Re:The ambiguity is a dead giveaway. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm wondering "how thay can threaten their customer?" Who do they think they are, the RIAA and that New Jersey is a mom on food stamps?
But perhaps they can. This cynical old man thinks there's a lot more here than meets the eye - Sequoia may surreptuously funnel cash to the campaigns of some of the high ranking New Jersey goons, er, excuse me, lawmakers/bureaucrats.
But then I'm in Illinois where the last Democrat Governor [wikipedia.org] went to prison, and the last Republican Governor [wikipedia.org] then went to prison. I'm thinking if a Republican wins the next Governor election, Blago [wikipedia.org] will join Ryan in a cell.
Rich powerful people don't play nice. You don't get to be a rich, powerful man by giving a rat's ass about anyone or anything except your money and power.
-mcgrew
(background on Illinois Politics): [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that assumes that governments will choose their voting machines in a somewhat reasonable manner in the future, which is not a good assumption.
Check, Meet Balance (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do these shifty porkchops think they ought to be exempt? Because it may make their investors nervous?
This is definitely a situation where the bottom line should be drawn by logic, not by dollars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Check, Meet Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Check, Meet Balance (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixing elections is not something that has been enabled by new technology. The problem here is that the technology was supposed to reduce the fraud and inaccuracies, but it turns out it's just as hackable as the old pen & paper or punchcard systems despite the higher cost.
Re:Check, Meet Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as you can't guarantee the machine hasn't been tampered with, you can't verify the ballot box hasn't been tampered with. It is the exact same problem.
Re:Check, Meet Balance (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution for paper ballots is based on four principles: transparency, adversarial conditions, counting everything in a way that, if done right, makes double-entry accounting look like a random number generator, and decentralization.
Transparency means that every step of the process is done in the open, with multiple people watching. Adversarial conditions means that the people watching include representatives (i.e. campaign workers) of all candidates, who are highly motivated to ensure that the others don't cheat. In Scotland, for example, each candidate can even apply their own seal to the ballot boxes in addition to the electoral commission's seals, so they can verify for themselves that boxes haven't been swapped, opened, or lost. A fraudster would have to be able to duplicate the seals of every political party in addition to the electoral commission.
As for counting, every ballot paper must be accounted for. Polling stations start with a known number of blank ballots (verified by all candidates) and they must count the number of ballot papers issued, used, spoiled, and not used, as well as the number of ballots that end up in the ballot box, and if the numbers don't add up right then one can deduce that funny business is going on.
Finally, decentralization is important. With safeguards in place, it may still be possible to cheat in a few locations (although you'd have to get campaign workers from all sides to look the other way), but widespread fraud serious enough to steal a whole election becomes extremely difficult. It is difficult to compromise the process in many locations at once. And even though the central counting facility receives the counts from each polling station and adds them up, it can be made to echo the numbers back and discrepancies can be spotted. A centralized electronic system, though, can be compromised at the center, you don't have to take over every polling station.
Re:Check, Meet Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly.
Think of the issues in logistical terms. In a paper-ballot system, tampering with a ballot box in such a way as to make any appreciable difference in the vote result would require tools, materials, physical access and a certain amount of time and effort within a relatively small window of opportunity.
With an electronic system, if the state isn't allowed to run simulated elections or do detailed inspection of the voting machine and software, the window of opportunity for tampering is huge, the potential for altering the result is high, and the risk of detection is minimal.
Re: (Score:2)
The world's finances and markets are governed by computers. There are ways to ensure someone simply doesn't add or delete arbitrary amounts of money to accounts. Tell me how this problem can be solved, yet tallying votes ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me that not just accepting, but passing an independant audit should be a requirement for just bidding on the contract, let alone winning it.
But the supplier is saying an independant audit(due diligence on the part of the elected officials, IMHO) is against the terms of the contract? WTF?
I for one... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not so sure. Perhaps they would have known enough to tell Bush to try again when he grows up. I'm pretty sure they would have given Ficus a landslide victory.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's call a spade a spade: (Score:5, Insightful)
a. are afraid that there are gaping security holes in their machines
b. KNOW that there are gaping security holes in their machines
all the privacy zealots will no doubt say that my "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to be afraid of" mentality is misguided, but let's take a step back and see what is on the line here. this is NOT about personal data, this is about objectively evaluating the security of a device that is going to be used in a VERY public fashion. do lamp makers threaten Underwriters Laboratories for wanting to make sure their device works as intended?
Re:Let's call a spade a spade: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let's call a spade a spade: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let's call a spade a spade: (Score:4, Informative)
Also unconscionable is the notion that the underlaying software algorithm would essencially boil down to a very simple statement that looks something like the following:
You could argue that there is some finesse involved in getting that data from the machine it was cast at to the central tallying point where it is counted and tabulated, but NOTHING in that process is any more complicated than the Automated Teller Machines which function in a similar way to take data from client nodes and send it up to the hub... so "prior art" in the realm of basic concepts of networking makes those patents unattainable.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Though I admit that after Lessig gave up his fight for copyright reform and instead went after the more fundamental problem of corruption, I gave up hope for seeing this addressed in my life time.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Lessig's current crusade is trying to fix a different algorithm:
In theory, if uncorrupted legislatures were in Congress, they could actually make rules that are based on what is best for the population and NOT based on how much Industry XYZ's lobbyist gave to their re-election fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I agree.
If Sequoia have nothing to hide ... what are they afraid of ?
Re:Let's call a spade a spade: (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless, I don't see how the manufacturer could impose restrictions on the equipment if it has been sold. Leased? Yeah, that'd come with a use restriction because title never was transferred.
Yes. And why does UL do it? (Score:2)
Who is the equivalent agent in this case? Perhaps what is needed is a Federal Bureau of Electoral Fraud - which has the power to prosecute any supplier of voting machines which turn out to have backdoors, obvious security risks, or other means for
Re:Yes. And why does UL do it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hear they are pretty good a doing hardware/software system audits and design reviews.
Yes but... (Score:2)
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure there is, apathy.
Please sue! Please sue! (Score:2)
I also suggest that you try to get a judge to order ISPs to remove the DNS records for Princeton and the state of New Jersey, while you're at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. I see you want to invoke the obvious solution effect of common decency. However, I don't think it will be effective, and here's why: the decision makers are the ones who directly benefit from Sequoia being a bunch
Ok, I RTFA, but still... (Score:4, Interesting)
...have I got this straight?
Their voting machines are paid for by public dollars, used by the majority of the members of the public, to elect public officials, and they claim evaluation of their software cannot occur without their "permission"?
(Even my 9 year old nephew read this and thought it was "dumb")
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok, I RTFA, but still... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this stupid? Yes. Is this hostile to the interests of Americans? Yes. Was it voted for by a Congressman you have re-elected since? That I don't know, obviously, but it's something you may want to check on before this election. If you're not planning onvoting for whoever is currently elected, you might also want to find out the views of the opponents, particularly if the region is tech-savvy enough (or even tech-phobic enough) to be suspicious of voting machines. The candidate you're looking at might enjoy playing around with Sequoia's attitude problem as a (minor, to them) campaign issue.
Re:Ok, I RTFA, but still... (Score:4, Informative)
See the "Major Actions" section of this address
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02281:@@@L&summ2=m& [loc.gov]
So, if your congresscritter was in office in 1998, you really have to assume he/she voted for it. I suppose you could troll the attendence logs for the day in question and see if they were absent, but I don't know how much that washes their hands. And potentialy, House reps may have voice voted against it, but it's unlikley.
So, Pretty much any Senator/Rep who's been in office for more than 10 years is responsible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Currently UCITA has been enacted only in VA and MD.
Re:Ok, I RTFA, but still... (Score:4, Insightful)
Their voting machines are paid for by public dollars, used by the majority of the members of the public, to elect public officials, and they claim evaluation of their software cannot occur without their "permission"?
Their voting machines are SOLD (or maybe leased) to the government agencies that operate elections and have a contract specifying terms of use. They're claiming the contract forbids the sort of investigation that is proposed.
Now perhaps there are indeed such terms in the contract. In which case the New Jersey secretary of state (or a past one) made an unwise decision. Nevertheless, the state has a duty to insure that the system is not defective. Inspecting its operation, including that of the software if there is any question about its functionality (or even if there isn't, just to check), is obviously a part of that duty, and being inspected is obviously part of what it is to be a voting machine. So such contract terms, if present and interpreted as Sequoia claims, are clearly unconscionable. On that basis the state should be free to ignore the clause.
Alternatively, if the clause were to stand the resulting terms of use would make the machines "unsuitable for the intended use", violating the implied warranty of fitness. So the state could return them for a full refund. B-)
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Sequoia actually sued. If the contract specified interpretation under the laws of New Jersey (or didn't specify jurisdiction) the state might just refuse to be sued. B-) If it specifies another state (or they sue in their own) it would still be a funny show.
As for suing the professor, either he's acting as an agent of the state (in which case they're suing the state) or he's not (in which case he has no contract with them to enforce.) In the latter they'd have to go after him for something like DMCA violations or some part of contract law I'm unaware of.
Of course IANAL - and especially not a contract lawyer. So take the above with a suitable quantity of salt. B-)
Re: (Score:2)
History lesson (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone care to guess when the last armed revolt against government was here in the US and the reasons behind it?
Answer - Battle of Athens, Tenn. 1946. And it was over voting issues...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens [wikipedia.org]
Re:History lesson (Score:5, Informative)
See http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm [constitution.org]instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone care to guess when the last armed revolt against government was here in the US and the reasons behind it?
The Weatherman movement [wikipedia.org], being active in the late '60s and early '70s, is more recent. People know some about the militias that have cropped up however the Weathermen were more violent. Then there was the SLA, Symbionese Liberation Army [wikipedia.org], which operated between '73 and '75.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Only one answer (Score:2)
No sale without a purchaser's complete and thorough evaluation.
"Really"? (Score:5, Funny)
I "beg" to "differ".
"non compliant analysis"? (Score:4, Insightful)
thats like car salesperson attempting to sell you a car but only if you agree to take his word that it works and he'll sue anybody that you bring in to check the engine. if ever there was a warning bell not to buy their equipment that was it.
whats next? DMCA action against
Reverse engineering (Score:2)
IANAL, but, I think - regardless of the terms of the agreement, the voting machine was legally obtained - if they violated the agreement then that's a civil dispute, not a criminal one.
Re:Reverse engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about the future of democracy. These voting machine vendors are stripping transparency, security, and auditability out of our elections. None of us should give a damn what licensing agreement Sequoia wrote.
Update and more details on this (Score:5, Informative)
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Black (Ballot) Box Voting = Genius (Score:2)
Trivial Workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
ok, (Score:2)
threat of suit (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL but I am reasonably confident that Sequoia cannot successfully sue Felten. They may be able to sue New Jersey for breach of contract if in fact they have a contract with New Jersey that forbids such reviews. That may be the case - I believe that the license for MS Windows Server forbids reviews not approved by Microsoft. If there is such a contract, it would be interesting to see if it holds up in court. The "no review" provision is arguably void as being contrary to public policy.
Felten, however, has no contractual relationship with Sequoia and therefore cannot be in breach of contract. Sequoia therefore cannot sue him unless they can come up with another cause of action. Maybe, just maybe, they could sue him for disclosing trade secrets, if New Jersey has really nasty trade secret laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes indeed, and this behavior on the part of private corporations is hardly limited to the voting industry. It's happening all over the place. The Taser is another excellent example: medical examiners being threatened and sued by the manufacturer of that device if they put "death by Tasing" in their official reports. Doesn't matter one bit if the person who was killed did die from a tasing. The co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source Secure Voting Application (Score:2, Interesting)
So, has it been done yet?
Or is the problem one of it being rather impossible to create a completely secure voting application, however great the code is, however many security specialists have reviewed it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't trust one. Even if I had something that purported to be the source, how am I to know that that's exactly what was loaded into the machine? How am I to know that the combination of software and machine does something the software alone doesn't?
The only solution is a paper trail. The voting machines used around here have paper ballots that are scanned for counting. Quick returns, and actually verifiable.
Nice to see they are so confident... (Score:3, Funny)
Disappointing (Score:3, Informative)
This just doesn't fit with their actions back then. Has there been a change in management?
Re: (Score:2)
Parsing this out (Score:3)
IMHO the clause is void. (Score:2)
And such a clause should be void on its face, because being inspected for proper function is a necessary part of being a voting machine. See the Doctrine of Unconscionability [wikipedia.org]
Deeper background (Score:2)
Intellectual property more valuable than physical? (Score:2)
This whole thing stinks. Our democracy is a joke.
Re:Intellectual property more valuable than physic (Score:2)
They can't just TAKE it. They have to BUY it for a fair value. (Though they can force the sale.) See the Fifth Amendment.
In this case the fair value could be the discounted current value of all the potential future revenue for the product line - which the company could claim would be lost if their code was leaked to a competitor.
Re:Intellectual property more valuable than physic (Score:2)
Why not just breach the license agreement? (Score:2, Interesting)
I seem to remember that there is a breach of contract defense available when the contract violates public policy. Does NJ recognize this defense? Do the terms of this license agreement rise to the level of a public policy violation as recognized in the courts?
Good -It shows they NEED to do this. (Score:2)
I say they should re-double their efforts and try to get several machines, source code, whistleblower employees and everything else they can and really nail these fucks.
As every other impartial examination of 'black box voting' (especially in relation to Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia) has shown - these
Re:Voting versus Gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
And what's your opinion if it's helping a republican steal an election?
Whatever response you give me, the words "a democrat" did not need to be in your post. Stealing an election is WRONG, whether it's a democrat or a republican. You took a very good post and diminished it with a bit of partisanship. I notice that you said "democrat" where usually the party affiliation is capitalized, so maybe you're scooting by on a technicality. But at that point we're parsing to the degree that we criticize politicians for.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be sure that nobody can steal a dollar; but if they can help a democrat steal an election... so be it.
The sad thing is that very few people care.
I've actually had a friend tell me that he thought it was okay that people vote without knowing anything about any of the candidates because "its not THAT many votes, man"....
Voting seems like such an abstract, far-away thing to most people that it doesn't feel like it matters.
Slot machines, however, offer instant gratification (or loss of money). Its a more DIRECT, this-is-happening-to-me-right-now feeling.
Its a double-edged sword that it has become fashionable