Slashdot Log In
Sequoia Threatens Over Voting Machine Evaluation
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Mar 18, 2008 03:31 PM
from the don't-look-in-there dept.
from the don't-look-in-there dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Sequoia Vote Machine Can't Do Simple Arithmetic? 254 comments
whoever57 writes "Ed Felten is showing a scan of the summary from a Sequoia voting machine used in New Jersey. According to the paper record, the vote tallies don't add up — the total number of Republican ballots does not match the number of votes cast in the Republican primary and the total number of Democratic ballots does not match the number of votes cast in the Democratic primary. Felten has a number of discussions about the problems facing evoting, up to and including a semi-threatening email from Sequoia itself."
Update: 03/20 23:30 GMT by J : Later today, Felten added an update in which he analyzes Sequoia's explanation. He has questions, comments, and a demand.
[+]
New Jersey E-Voting Problems Worse Than Originally Suspected 118 comments
TechDirt is reporting that the New Jersey e-voting troubles are even worse than originally thought. Apparently the "minor bug" which was supposed to be fixed is still not corrected, suggesting that Sequoia still doesn't know what is going on. "Ed Felten has received a bunch of 'summary tapes' from the last election in New Jersey, and while many of them do have the vote totals matching up correctly at the end at least two of the summary tapes simply don't add up, meaning that Sequoia's explanation of what went wrong is incorrect. Given how often the company has denied or hidden errors in its machines, despite a ton of evidence, we shouldn't be surprised that it was inaccurate in explaining away this latest problem as well. However, we should be outraged that the company refuses to allow third party researchers to investigate these machines. It's a travesty that any government would use them when they've been shown to have so many problems and the company is unwilling to allow an independent investigation."
[+]
IT: Hard Evidence of Voting Machine Addition Errors 275 comments
goombah99 writes "Princeton Professor, Ed Felton, has posted a series of blog entries in which he shows the printed tapes he obtained from the NJ voting machines don't report the ballots correctly. In response to the first one, Sequoia admitted that the machines had a known software design error that did not correctly record which kind of ballots were cast (republican or democratic primary ballots) but insisted the vote totals were correct. Then, further tapes showed this explanation to be insufficient. In response, State officials insisted that the (poorly printed) tapes were misread by Felton. Again further tapes showed this not to be a sufficient explanation. However all those did not foreclose the optimistic assessment that the errors were benign — that is, the possibility that vote totals might really be correct even though the ballot totals were wrong and the origin of the errors had not been explained. Now he has found (well-printed) tapes that show what appears to be hard proof that it's the vote totals that are wrong, since two different readout methods don't agree. Sequoia has made trade-secret legal threats against those wishing to mount an independent examination of the equipment. One small hat-tip to Sequoia: at least they are reporting enough raw data in different formats that these kinds of errors can come to light — that lesson should be kept in mind when writing future requirements for voting machines."
[+]
News: Damning Report On Sequoia E-Voting Machine Security 48 comments
TechDirt notes the publication of the New Jersey voting machine study, the attempted suppression of which we have been discussing for a while now. The paper that the Princeton and Lehigh University researchers are releasing, as permitted by the Court, is "the same as the Court's redacted version, but with a few introductory paragraphs about the court case, Gusciora v. Corzine." What's new is the release of a 90-minute evidentiary video — the researchers have asked the court for permission to release a shorter version that hits the high points, as the high-res video is about 1 GB in size. See TechDirt's article for the report's executive summary listing eight ways the AVC Advantage 9.00 voting machine can be subverted.
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.
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.
FalconParent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Sweet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullet. Meet foot.
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.
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:Check, Meet Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Check, Meet Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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)
Parent
Re:Let's call a spade a spade: (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
"Really"? (Score:5, Funny)
I "beg" to "differ".
Update and more details on this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Speechless. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's often the results with certain voting machines.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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
Parent
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
Parent
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)
Parent
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure there is, apathy.
Parent
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.
Parent