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."

Re:ATM's are also more secure

[skeletor935]

I don't think they need to be as physically secure, there's always a voting official in the room in plain sight and several other people working there. It doesn't need to be built like an ATM that will be randomly placed in dark alleys.

So?

[moosesocks]

I hate to play devil's advocate, but an ATM is an extremely complicated mechanical device. It doesn't shock me in the slightest that they're more expensive to produce than an electronic voting booth.

Of course, their voting products do suck, although I don't think that cost has terribly much to do with it.

Re:ATM's are also more secure

[cryptodan]

But the voting officials cannot enter the booth, so any attacker could do something to the machine without it being noticed until after the elections.

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[sm62704]

Polotics and money, what a great parallel.

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.

Yeah, right.

[Fieryphoenix]

'Cause election jurisdictions can afford to buy entire systems they have to throw away once they're discovered to be inadequate.

Re:In other words

[nomadic]

Politicians love to say one thing and then pay for another.

And voters want more expensive services but refuse to pay higher taxes to pay for them. Bad combo.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Cost isn't the issue

[Shambly]

The problem isn't that an average person can understand what they're voting for, it's that you have to be clear to a really dumb person, because they can vote too. If your machine is too complicated for half the people you don't have a fair election.

Re:Cost isn't the issue

[jimicus]

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.

I disagree.

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.

Re:ATM's are also more secure

[JaredOfEuropa]

I don't think they need to be as physically secure, there's always a voting official in the room in plain sight and several other people working there. It doesn't need to be built like an ATM that will be randomly placed in dark alleys.

Not just that; they also do not have to be completely tamper-proof (though the more secure the better, obviously). The point is that we shouldn't labour under the illusion that these machines can be made completely tamper-proof, which is what the manufacturers and politicians are driving at. Rather, we need a reliably way to detect tampering and verify the voting results in case we suspect some tampering has occurred. More importantly, verification must be possible by non-experts, which means that voters can see for themselves that votes are tallied correctly rather than take some experts word for it.

A voting machine that prints off a paper ballot which the voter deposits in a lockbox still seems the best option to achieve this.

Not the same people

[Nerdposeur]

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

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."

Re:Not the same people

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Then why don't they do this for credit card fraud ? Europe has had chips with private/public key exchange for a good 20 years while the US still relies on the megnetic strip + signature leading to widespread faud.

Right, one way or another the money comes out of somebody's pocket (yours or the store's) and the CC company benefits along the way. Crooks.

Re:So?

[DrLang21]

their voting products do suck, although I don't think that cost has terribly much to do with it.

Actually cost is a fair complaint by Diebold. Security is not cheap, but the direct customer (the government, not the citizens) demands a cheap product. And so it is only natural that they would select their voting machines with price being a primary concern equal to or greater than security. These electronic voting machines suck across the board and we can complain all we want about the manufacturers (certainly they have been shady with their tactics of preventing third party evaluation), but ultimately the blame rests on the government's shoulders for passing HAVA without realistic cost estimates and for not purchasing voting machines with quality and security the highest primary concern.

Re:So?

[moosesocks]

It's not that simple.

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.

Re:ATM's are also more secure

[TapeCutter]

The comparison between security in voting machines and ATM's is a strawman designed to get government officials to throw more money at 'secure as an ATM' voting machines. ATM's are secure because a somebody owns them, runs them, and controls access to them, with voting machines the opposite is true. The slimebags at Diebold cannot be so stupid as to not understand this, they are simply hoping to milk 'upgrade' money out of the taxpayer.

BTW: By voting machine I mean one that counts your ballot, not one that prints your ballot.

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[tha_mink]

It should be abundantly clear at this point to all concerned that unchecked capitalism (whether libertarian or conservative) is harmful to life on Earth. I mean, we've privatized prisons in this country, providing still more incentive to incarcerate people (as if we didn't already have various financial incentives along those lines.)

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not but I'll assume you're not. Are you trying to say that because there are privitized prisons, that a jury will be more likely to send a person to jail? Or that a prosecuter will think "Hrm...If I can get this guy to plead guilty, I'll be able to give "company X" another inmate and they might give me their Knicks tickets again."

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.

Re:Voting machine - ATM combo

[QuoteMstr]

The ballot must be anonymous. "Show me your voting receipt or you're fired."

Re:ATM's are also more secure

[lbgator]

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 be tallied and what protections there are from tampering (and hiding the source code isn't a protection IMHO).

Re:ATM's are also more secure

[Tisha_AH]

Here in Alabama (yankees joke all you want) we use a paper ballot that you fill in with a black marker. They are tallied by machines but there is still that piece of paper to go back to. Hanging chads, that was stupid, using IBM punchcards for ballots. The last time I used one of those was in Chicago (where the dead could vote). Electronic 1's and 0's. Making it all virtual, making it all into a SQL database, eck... There is something fundamental about using a marker to fill in a inch square box next to a name. So much of this is driven by the media's desire to have an instant tally. Elections should take hours to count. Election judges should sit in the basement of the county courthouse and each look at a ballot to certify the election. We have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. We willingly forfeit our right to a representative government when we make it so easy for any single person or group of people to pervert elections.

Re:Cost isn't the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Secure, reliable, easy to use... everybody forgets anonymous. That is the hard part. You can't (shouldn't) get to anonymously get cash from the atm. They must know something about you (or the person you're trying to impersonate, etc)

Keys purchased over the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

"...could be opened with a standard key... available for purchase over the Internet."

Over the Internet - will it never end?
  Wtf does the Internet have to do with it?! Stick to what is relevant, in this case, that the item in question is "freely available for sale".

Yes, the wording was probably meant to convey convenience/low level of effort required. Yes, Slashdotters know it means nothing. But, to many, it implicates the the Internet for making scary keys so easily available when, in fact, the problem is the poor locks were used, open to anybody willing to spend 3 dollars.

What if it had said ".... available at many a DIY/hardware store", or "available through mail-order" or even "could be made at home" (which to the right-thinking, fear-ridden, populace basically means 'by any terrorist').

Scantron Sheets in NH

[dfenstrate]

New Hampshire and several other states use black markers, a scan tron sheet, and just a few scanners at each polling location.

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 necessary either.

In defense of Diebold

[PPH]

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:Not the same people

[Amouth]

oh i know what you mean about it being an issue.. i can't tell you how many times (to screw with them) a local store here who asks to see id.. i show them the back of my license.. they glance at it and move right on..

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!

[homer_ca]

It works like this: voting against any knee-jerk "tough on crime" law earns you nothing but attack ads from prison contracters and prison guard unions, or more likely their lobbyist proxies. Hey, I'm all for getting dangerous criminals off the streets, but prison sentencing has far surpassed any semblance of reasoned public policy to knee-jerk stage. Three strikes for non-violent felonies is stupid.

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[sm62704]

The taxes you already pay are already allocated to all the other government services you can't do without

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!"