![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
![Security Security](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/security_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
![Technology Technology](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/technology_64.png)
E-Voting Companies Answer Critics With ... Spin 295
Whammy666 writes "Wired has a follow-up article which tells of how Diebold and other E-Voting machine manufacturers have enlisted the Information Technology Association of America (a trade public relations and lobbying group) to 'generate positive public perception' of the companies and to 'reduce substantially the level and amount of criticism from computer scientists and other security experts about the fallibility of electronic voting systems.' It seems the concerns about the lack of an audit trail are finally being heard as the industry is reconsidering its opposition to giving the voter a paper receipt of his vote. Of course, a paper receipt given to the voter still doesn't allow for a manual recount should an election dispute arise unless the receipts are collected and secured by election officials." Reassuring PR is Stage Two; remember that Stage One is silence your critics.
This isn't michael... (Score:2)
what does this have to do with political bias? (Score:2)
You're saying as a free-enterprise Republican that this is a good thing and shows how the marketplace decides things?
The power to rewrite the decision of the votors at the will or whim of an individual, company, or conspiracy is something that nobody ought to have.
say what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure... whatever... blah blah blah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, trivial. Done. Completed. In use nationwide in Brazil [national.com].
Re:Sure... whatever... blah blah blah. (Score:2)
Not to say this whole Diebold clusterfsck isn't a big problem, but giving people "recipts" of their votes isn't a perfect solution either.
From a purely political standpoint, I think the best way to insure these machines aren't used nefariously is to do rigorous exit polling and make sure your candidate (whoever he/she may be) suceeds
Re:Sure... whatever... blah blah blah. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, let me see if I got this right: to curb cheating in the existing poll, we add another poll? Oh, and make sure there are no close races.
How does the first help at all, and how do we do the second, exactly?
Re:Sure... whatever... blah blah blah. (Score:2)
I agree with you that people shouldn't be given receipts for their vote, but there needs to be a voter verified paper trail.
Re:Sure... whatever... blah blah blah. (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution is not a paper printout for the voter. The solution is a paper printout stored in the machine after each vote, visible by the voter to confirm it recorded his or her vote correctly, and usable in recounts or audits.
How hard is this?
Re:Sure... whatever... blah blah blah. (Score:4, Insightful)
{sigh}
It's almost enough to make you want to throw up. I mean, this is the U.S. of A, the world's greatest Republic, the nation that built the first aircraft, the first atom bomb, the first nuclear reactor, invented television, the laser, the computer, the transistor, the integrated circuit, the spaceship, put Man on the Moon (repeatedly!), created the Internet itself
If the public had a clue (Score:2)
Bitter i guess
Re:If the public had a clue (Score:2)
No Receipts to Voters! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that _we_ want paper receipts!
It's that we want the voting infrastructure to maintain an audit trail.
Voters getting receipts directly allows for vote selling, which as another poster pointed out [slashdot.org], is not limited to monetary compensation but includes anything people are willing to sell a vote for (health, job security, etc.)
The purpose of an election is not to determine a winner but to make everyone agree on who lost. If the losing side can say, "Sure, people voted for Bob, but it was under duress and thus didn't count", people fail to agree and fealty does not transfer.
Since we have elections precisely to avoid the violence that normally accompanies a transfer of power, this is not a small matter.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:No Receipts to Voters! (Score:2)
the votes are needed on paper as added security.. for the system. not for the individual doing the vote(receipts you would get to take home with you wouldn't even assure _anything_ of the system, and would be pretty impossible to do a total recount on).
why is it so hard to have the voter write a number on a paper, put the paper in a box, once the box is full few volunteers(from all parties&political groups) go through them and enter them to a machine(basically this is how most western nations
Re:No Receipts to Voters! (Score:2)
The USA is very strongly NIA about plenty of things.
(yeah yeah, usa may have more people than most western countries
Hardly relevent since manual vote counting systems scale very well. AFAIK the USA has never held a national election anyway.
b
Re:No Receipts to Voters! (Score:2)
how do people who can't read know who they're voting for anyways? i'm sorry but everyone should be able to read and write in a civilised country(ok, the people who are retarded enough to not be able to read ever can count as exception). the votes that are empty or drawn with dirty pictures do get thrown away yeah, but what did you ex
Re:No Receipts to Voters! (Score:2)
If they did, they could be intimidated or bribed into voting for a particular candidate.
Mocracy! (Score:3, Insightful)
If it only shows that you voted, and not who you voted for, then what's the added safeguard, again?
And how does that work for voters who exercise their rights to show up and not vote or vote blank? Do they still get a
Re:Mocracy! (Score:2)
Need a re-count? No problem, get the paper out. Simple, thrustworthy.
Re:No Receipts to Voters! (Score:2)
If their actual vote is secret, the person is still free to vote for whoever they want -- and then to lie about it to the briber.
Not enforceable, not reliable.
--Dan
Sigh... (Score:2, Troll)
> remember that Stage One is silence your critics.
Look at the guy who made fools of the DoHS by waltzing through airport security and hiding box cutters on several airplanes... where they remained for five months, despite "daily" inspections, and were only finally found because someone finally read his e-mail a month after he sent it.
Now he's being described as a dangerous criminal...
Then there's the "free speech zones" where people carrying protest signs are marched away to when the presidential mo
Re:Sigh... (Score:3, Informative)
The student who made a fool out of the airport security system was conducting an act of civil disobedience, but the part of civil disobedience everyone seems to keep forgetting is it involves a public crime done to get attention, of course he's gonna get arrested and charged for it. He should be, he didn't just say "Somebody could.." he went out and did it.
Let's just hope the Feds are smart enough to sentance him to a community service project... telling th
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, before September 11th you could bring a box-cutter on an airplane. Hell, I accidently brought a 5" butterfly knife through airport security in 99 or so.
The kid who did that was proving a point, and to prove that point he had to act. Merely telling them wouldn't do anything, and the facts are supportive of this.
Now, to bring this on-topic and on-base, because I believe it was a valid point.
Civil disobedience is the best way of proving a point when the masses won't listen to you. What will it take for people to realize these voting systems are flawed and dangerous? Bruce Campbell being elected President of the United States of America?
That is civil disobedience I can appreciate, just like the student, because it shows that things aren't as good as they should be and that jeopardizes my safety.
Re: Sigh... (Score:2)
> The thing is, before September 11th you could bring a box-cutter on an airplane.
And the saddest part of all is that boxcutters are just about the least likely tool for the next terrorist act. Anyone who whipped out a boxcutter on an airplane today would probably be torn limb from limb before they got ten steps down the aisle.
Barn door, horse; bullet, messenger... you know the drill.
Similarly with ABC's repeat performance at smuggling radioactive material into the country a couple of months back. L
more on quelling protest (Score:5, Informative)
Note: you'll have to watch the brief commercial to get access to Salon, but once you do, you'll have full access to the premium content.
Additionally, the ACLU [aclu.org] has filed motions (I believe that's the right term) on behalf of several protestors affected in this way, but I can't find a reference to the press release.
Good read, no commercials (Score:2)
BTW, wonder if these actions are there for the presidents benefit. Maybe if he could really see the protests, he might think better of some of his actions? Hmmm..
I know that sounds shallow, but I never really thought about that angle. My perception has been basically: "Bush knows these things will anger people, but business needs to get done and freedom reduced for the good of the nation" or some other such thing.
These le
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Re:Sigh... (Score:3, Informative)
Amazing, isn't it? So far as I'm concerned (the illegality of his actions aside) he performed a public service. This whole idea that Amercans need to be made to feel safer regardless of whether they actually are safer I find to be patronizing and offensive.
But more to the point, the government won't allow him to be punished in accordance with his crimes. They will put him away for as long as they can, which is a long time in post-9/11 America. Tha
Re: Sigh... (Score:2)
> Amazing, isn't it? So far as I'm concerned (the illegality of his actions aside) he performed a public service. This whole idea that Amercans need to be made to feel safer regardless of whether they actually are safer I find to be patronizing and offensive.
Shoot the messenger, or anyone else who fails to see the emperor's new clothes...
This is, BTW, a major embarrassment for the DoHS, after all the draconian laws and major airport conveniences that are supposed to make this kind of thing impossible
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Well, I for one am quite mad at the guy, here's why:
The problem for me is not terrorists, the chances of getting killed by a terrorist are ridiculously low. The problem is the screening process.
It is absolutely impossible to make passengers safe from each other on a commercial airplane. A piece of broken glass (from a picture frame) wrapped halfway in cloth is a very effective weapon. It is possible to make deadly
Re: Sigh... (Score:2)
> > Now he's being described as a dangerous criminal...
> He is?
Sounds like you didn't hear the federal agent's newconference.
> He'll reach a plea deal, serve no time, and spend a couple years on probation. I'd bet money on it.
Hope you're right. The media is talking about a decade of hard time.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Except for the fact that a box of crackers is unlikely to be picked up by a metal detector wand.
If you want to test something important, you should do it with real test data. If you want to prove conclusively that your dog is going to chase rabbits, you need to use your dog and some rabbits, not a dog shaped bale of hay and some slippers with cotton balls on the heel.
YLFINothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideal ballot is one that results in a piece of paper that is both human-readable and machine readable. There hasn't been many problems with the "fill in the bubble" system of balloting, even though that system is open to a risk of users who don't understand that an X or checkmark in the bubble doesn't work.
The place for touchscreens is to help the user create a perfect ballot that is machine readable for speed counting, with the votes also in human readable terms for manual spot checks and recounting, and the most important spot check: The one the voter does before walking over to the ballot box. If the printout doesn't say what they thought it did, they hand the spoiled ballot to the officials and go try again.
The idea of having any form of electronic memory conduct counting within the in-booth devices is crazy. It opens the system into too much risk of data loss or data manipulation. There needs to be an audit trail, and that trail belongs in the ballot box.
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in Australia, we have a pretty complex electoral system (preferential voting, as opposed to first-past-the-post) and we count all votes by hand. All political parties have scrutineers present to observe the count take place. I can't recall any significant reports of problems with this system in the 25 years I've been voting.
And before people whine loudly about how the US is much bigger than Aus
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:2)
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:2)
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:2)
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:2)
Any discrepancy between the electronic and paper numbers should be resolved. (I.E. The computer has three more votes for Smith, and there were three unreadable paper ballots... we can safely assume the smudged ballots most likely read "Smith" before being ruined.)
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:2)
That, or Californians are far more competent voters than Floridians.
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:2)
Translation: Everybody should be using the optical scanner San Francisco is using...
Why do we need ANY kind of mechanical counters? (Score:3, Insightful)
Machines can be rigged. I don't trust a optical scanner, nor a lever voting booth, nor a punch card reader, nor an ATM machine to count my votes.
Our biggest problem is that we don't count the votes at the voting place in most areas. Most areas lock up the ballot box and haul them to the court house. The first chance to rig the vote is at the poll, the second when the ballots are in transit, and
Re:Why do we need ANY kind of mechanical counters? (Score:2)
It's only a common viewpoint in the US.
Our biggest problem is that we don't count the votes at the voting place in most areas. Most areas lock up the ballot box and haul them to the court house. The first chance to rig the vote is at the poll, the second when the ballots are in transit, and the third when they are counted out of public view in some upstairs court house room.
The solution to thi
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:3, Informative)
The entire transfer of data should be human readable, or at the very least, human understandable with some effort.
Moving the bits electronically is where the problem is. Too many ways to corrupt the process and no audit no matter how hard we try. This is the nature of electronic information. --I agree with you here.
What about a system where the ballots are encoded with the election? Ballots are mailed, or picked up at the voting stations. They are rrinted on t
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:2)
That's a problem with machine design. It's perfectly possible to have an OMR which can recognise the difference between an unmarked area and a marked area.
Re:Nothing is wrong with the paper ballot! (Score:2)
Peer Review (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that merely "providing the source" isn't particularly helpful. The elections standards arm of the government is going to have to contract out the review and assure that it is done by a diverse group of peers other than the implementor -- and most likely including their competitors -- and not just rely on interested citizens to happen to take a peek (welcome as that might be).
In this case, you can make your money by selling the hardware. There need be no trade secrets involved in building an voting machine.
Re:Peer Review (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, you can make your money by selling the hardware. There need be no trade secrets involved in building an(sic) votin
Re:Peer Review (Score:2)
As has been made clear by their actions on numerous occasions, this administration favors conservative business concerns, period. Universities are typically bastions of liberal thought. So, uh, there's your answer.
Hey, I have to vote on these things! (Score:3, Insightful)
I almost wish for the old greek system, drop a stone into a bucket. Count the white ones and black ones.
Paper receipts might not matter (Score:2)
Re:Paper receipts might not matter (Score:2)
Those recepts don't belong in the voter's hands, they belong in a ballot box. That way, they're nice and easy to watch and secure so that nobody can tamper with them in case a recount needs to be done. If the numbers from that recount don't match the numbers the computers are giving you... throw out those computers!
Next press release from Diebold (Score:2)
+_BEGIN_PRESS_RELEASE
As with all things so important to the basis of democracy, we must make sure that the decisions we make are wise and in the interests of the people.
Therefore, we call upon you, the people, to go to your local voting places* next tuesday. There, a voting location will be set up with Genuine Diebold Vote-tech (TM) booths, for you to vote if Diebold units should be used in na
Where are all of the OSS voting systems? (Score:2)
I'd even say to go one step beyond and provide a continuously polling system that would enable a more direct "digital democracy". You wouldn't need to
Re:Where are all of the OSS voting systems? (Score:5, Informative)
Open source voting system? (Score:2)
Paper Receipts (Score:2)
I am actually even opposed to massive vote by mail. What I don't understand is why the issue of electronic voting even exists. Most countries' elections just with little papers with names in a box. And none of them has recently ha
Re:Paper Receipts (Score:2)
Such schemes become impossible when there's no way to prove to someone else who you voted for even if you tried...
Re:Paper Receipts (Score:2)
Symptom of a larger problem (Score:3, Insightful)
What needs to be done is to make lying less desirable from a corporate point of view. This should not be done by punishing the companies, but rather the individuals that make these ridiculous claims and often loot their own organizations.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a fat chick, why shouldn't these people get in trouble for lying about the foundations of democracy?
I know, deep in my heart that John Ashcroft will do the right thing, and speak out against these companies, just as he will about the drug users [capitolhillblue.com] ruining this great country.
Live by the sword... (Score:2, Interesting)
In reality it is statistically no more or no less accurate than traditional means, still has no audit trail, and
Re:Live by the sword... (Score:2)
The problems come up when the numbers in the recount don't exactly confirm that the numbers that came from the first count. If there's a mismatch that can't easily be explained, we've got a real problem. What Florida 2000 exposed were many voters who thought the
And you call yourself a /. editor!?!? (Score:2)
No, stage one is "collect underpants!" Everybody knows that! Sheesh!
OK, Let's try again... (Mod this up) (Score:2)
Concept: Touch-screen/braile voting booth with card-stock printer, and scanner.
Steps:
Features:
Re:OK, Let's try again... (Mod this up) (Score:2)
- Why bother to transmit the "secret" totals? If they're so secret, nobody needs to know them until the election's done.
- Who needs servers? Your system would in fact be more secure if the in-booth units never spoke to the ballot box units in their election day configuration. There's no need for them to be networked, physical access controls (the cop standing next to the ballot box unit...) should be more than enough to insure anything inserted was an actual ballot. Oh, and
Diebold makes *another* Accu-Vote... (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway. What's wrong with this? Paper ballots, machine & humanly readable, electronically counted. And very similar to those used throughout history, where the voter made a mark next to the name of the candidate of his or her choice. Disabled voters are allowed p
Silver Lining (Score:2)
yet...
Support HR 2239! (Score:5, Informative)
The only way to make sure that your vote counts is a voter-verified paper trail for use in recounts and mandatory recount in a small percentage of districts chosen at random (to verify that the equipment is working). This is the only way to have meaningful recounts.
HR 2239 does just this (and was written by a physicist, no less)!
Sign the petition supporting HR 2239, there's a link to it at the bottom of VerifiedVoting.org [verifiedvoting.org]!
Re:Support HR 2239! (Score:2)
Re:Support HR 2239! (Score:2)
Slashdoters need to do more than throw up your hands in dispair - time to take action. This site seems to be the focal point for electronic voting issues.
A transition period? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it would be useful to have a transition period of 10 years or so, that would be used for the software to become more stable, and to help instill the trust in the system. People would cast their e-vote, get the receipt, verify it is correct and put the receipt in an old fashion ballot box. After the polls close, the e-votes are shown and the receipts are tallied. Then the discrepancies are examined and if there are any problems, the receipts are used for the final count instead.
Re:A transition period? (Score:2)
Why no transition period (Score:2)
It was always obvious that receipts would be the best way to verify vote.
People would cast their e-vote, get the receipt, verify it is correct and put the receipt in a new type ballot box.
Vote is not cast or recorded until receipt is put into ballot box (incorporating reader).
There are very reliable readers already on market for cheque validation.
Recount is always possible when close.
At all votes though, use spot checks to see
My favorite quote... (Score:2, Insightful)
They aren't saying, "We want to make our software more secure." They're just saying, "We don't want to hear about how it isn't secure."
I don't think there is anything wrong with electronic voting. I just think there is something wrong with the current companies that do it.
Funny though, I don't know anything about any company except Diebold. D
ew diebold (Score:3, Interesting)
Diebold seems to have manufactured the craptastic swipe-card machines that allow us to pay electronically to use the washing machines in our dormitory. I can barely get 75 cents to turn into an activated dryer; there's no fucking way I'm voting with something those clowns made.
Wait, fuck, I live in Maryland.
trivial solution (Score:2)
2) print it out as a unique identifier on the vote receipt
3) [ someone help me out here ] - obfuscate the difference between the two so that the receipt can't be used to determine how you voted
4) "WE THE PEOPLE" PROFIT! From a clear, clean, auditable, [virtually] indisputable election process.
Ok, so it may be a pipe dream right now; but something HAS to make sure that accountability is accounted for (hah!) in higher politics [i
Clippy, the voting assistant (Score:3, Funny)
a paper receipt given to the voter (Score:2)
Your local gas station cares more about getting the right results than your local election officials.
Who the hell is the ITAA? (Score:2)
Marketoon speak (Score:2)
I'd have to get that a big "BINGO, BOZO."
Dill said, however, that the design of a voter-verified paper system is not a trivial undertaking and that the usability and security aspects of such a feature need to be thought through carefully so companies design systems under standards that meet both these criteria.
Huh? What's hard about printing the selected choice, and a b
This scares the shit out of me. (Score:5, Informative)
Lets see who they are [opensecrets.org]?
I did a search on google and found some scary stuff. [209.157.64.200]
All 3 vendors only contribute to the republican party! Did you know one of Dick Cheney's friends from Halliburton is actually in charge of the voting machine division!
Link here [onlinejournal.com] and here [indymedia.org].
What if lets say theoritically speaking of course the CEO of Diebold wanted a nice big pay check. He could go to Bush and give him 4 more years for a nice big paycheck from the RNC.
We need audits.
Paper Reciept == BAD NEWS! (Score:2)
It is ESSENTIAL to any fair voting system that the voter be given no means to prove how he/she voted...eg by a reciept.
If you can take away proof of how you voted - then unscrupulous people with piles of cash can subvert elections by bribing voters to vote they way they want. They simply do a deal where the voter brings along their paper reciept in order to claim their bribe money. (eg A supermarket might offer: "20% off groceries if you show us your vote for candidate X!" - the local Mob Boss m
Re:Perhaps if they focused on solid engineering... (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps if they focused on solid engineering... (Score:3, Funny)
Welcome to Microsoft OvalOffice[TM]. Please deposit $300, enter a 32-digit authorization code, and permit us to scan your hard drive to disable non-Microsoft products if you wish to begin voting.
The solution is so simple (Score:4, Insightful)
The votes are counted electronically but some machines at random should get audited and results compared to the paper votes.
A simple way to insure ourselves of no foul play or no computational errors.
What worries me is that the E-Vote machine vendors are pushing for PR so they do not have to change the system BEFORE the next election...
Me paranoid? hmmmmmm
Re:The solution is so simple (Score:2, Informative)
Additionally, the software MUST be open source. (Score:2)
While many eyes sometimes fail to see a few holes, the track record is better.
Re:For a site of geeks, we sure are luddites (Score:2)
And your point would be
Re:For a site of geeks, we sure are luddites (Score:2)
It isn't enough just to use technology. You also have to understand it. And you also have to understand when it is and is not appropriate. If you understand the technology here you also understand that there are a number of things that have to be done to make this technology something you can trust. And you can see Diebold is not doing these things. Anyone
Re:For a site of geeks, we sure are luddites (Score:2)
It is not our job to design workable e-voting ( which is a waste of time imho ) systems. It is Diebolds job. I get paid to do something different.
All we'd like is for Diebold to actually do their job properly. I don't see that as an unreasonable request.
YLFIRe:Electronic Voting Is A Step Forward (Score:2)
With Diebold's system in place, it would have been whatever W's henchmen pre-programmed.
Re:ITAA? (Score:2)
Re:ITAA? (Score:2)
Unfortunately Elections and PR do mix. (Score:2)
Other factor that are a big influence on who people vote for (which often correlate with campaign funds) are incumbancy and name recognition. Also note that the TV stations will usually ignore a canidate if they don't have a
Re:Unfortunately Elections and PR do mix. (Score:2)
So are you saying that the "liberals" do not have money and are not using it to control the system so to speak? This reminds me of how "conservatives" complain that the "liberals" control the media. But then the "conservatives" also are very "pro-capatilism" and thus if the liberals own the media, why shouldn't they c
Re:Unfortunately Elections and PR do mix. (Score:2)
Well, would it really be much different than what we have today? Ha Ha, only serious. With the two parties that act as one, at least it would be more honest with one party. But then most people would not accept it. Better to have the illusion of choice to keep the rabble in line.
No, I don't think that is what Fishbowl was advocating, and neither am I, even if I joke about it.
Re:whole issue is stupid (Score:2)
>selling
The problem with vote selling isn't that someone could sell their vote. It's that someone can be coerced. In small areas, that's enough to sway local politics. And often, local politics are what matters.
Don't think in terms of "getting paid for your vote." Consider that someone might be literally in fear for his or her life.
People seem to be in a mindset where they think the only election in the US is the presidential race every four years
Re:Forward to the Past! (Score:2)
This message was brought to you by The Computer. Have a nice daycycle!
Re:Receipts should be required, kept at polling pl (Score:2)
>person B a sum of money if person B will vote a
>certain way.
That's not actually as bad as the things that have really happened in the past to reinforce the need for a secret ballot. At least in your scenario, the person casting the vote benefits.
What's scary is when you get into something like a powerful labor party whose members have no compunction against making your life miserable or even killing you for your dissent. No, this isn't common in Ame
Re:Everyone keeps forgetting. (Score:2)
There are two key terms to define:
"Undervotes" - these were ballots that were machine-recorded as having no vote cast for any pres/vp candidate
"Overvotes" - these were ballots that were machine-recorded as having a vote cast for more than 1 pair of pres/vp candidates
Here are some of the outcomes if you just recount undervotes - completely ignoring overvotes.
4 county recount (I believe)
1
Re:Best answer they could've given (Score:2)
Would that get enough all-party support to alter the machines? I don't know. Could be fun trying though. And don't worry about the inherent dishonesty of saying you'll vote for someone you have no intention of voting for. That's th