View Poll Results: Did an Anti-Virus tell you that non of your files were infected when there really was

17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    13 76.47%
  • No

    4 23.53%
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: E-voting developers on the defensive -- April 26, 2004

  1. #1
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Redondo Beach, CA

    E-voting developers on the defensive -- April 26, 2004

    So, especially those from the US, what do you think? It might get rid of the chad issue but seems to open new ones. I know that in the Toronto area it was used in a suburb area and some voters got 5 times to vote! Is it really safe or not?

    Source: CNN

    E-voting developers on the defensive: Computer scientists, lawmakers worried about glitches

    SAN JOSE, California (AP) -- A growing number of federal and state legislators are expressing doubts about the integrity of the ATM-like electronic voting machines that at least 50 million Americans will use to cast their ballots in November.

    Computer scientists have long criticized the so-called touchscreen machines as not being much more reliable than home computers, which can crash, malfunction and fall prey to hackers and viruses.

    Now, a series of failures in primaries across the nation has shaken confidence in the technology installed at thousands of precincts. Despite reassurances from the machines' makers, at least 20 states have introduced legislation requiring a paper record of every vote cast.

    On Thursday, a key California panel unanimously recommended banning a popular Diebold Inc. paperless touchscreen model -- a move that could force North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold and other manufacturers to overhaul their business practices nationwide. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, who said Diebold glitches "jeopardized the outcome" of the March 2 primary, has until April 30 to decide whether to decertify Diebold and possibly other touchscreen terminals in California.

    The head of a newly created federal agency charged with overseeing electronic voting called Diebold's problems "deeply troubling." The bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission, formed in January to develop technical standards for electronic voting, will conduct a May 5 public hearing in Washington, D.C.

    "We wanted to jump into this issue in time to impact November's election," said agency director DeForest B. Soaries, Jr. "There are so many troubling issues that have emerged surrounding electronic voting and so much money has been spent since 2000 on converting to electronic voting systems that it requires our attention -- particularly because many states assume the computer is the solution."

    Even a top Diebold executive acknowledged this week that the systems are not foolproof, as he apologized for primary-day failures and the fact that his company installed uncertified software in counties across California.

    "We're not idiots, though we may act from time to time as not the smartest," Diebold President Robert J. Urosevich told California regulators investigating the company's performance.

    Paper trails

    Several California voting registrars expressed support this week for Diebold's questionable equipment, insisting they could not junk millions of dollars worth of touchscreen terminals, install a new system and train poll workers by the November 2 general election. But dozens of protesters demonstrated Thursday at the company's annual shareholder meeting, many sporting T-shirts that read, "The Computer Ate My Vote."

    Although Diebold is the most embattled voting equipment company, computer scientists say paperless systems made by Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. and other competitors also expose elections to malicious attack, software glitches and mechanical errors that could delete or alter millions of ballots.

    The scientists' concerns have moved from theoretical to real in recent months as hundreds of counties nationwide upgrade from punch card and lever systems to computers in hopes of avoiding a hanging chad debacle like the one that affected the outcome of the Florida 2000 presidential election.

    Indiana discovered problems this week with equipment made by Election Systems & Software Inc., which apparently installed uncertified software in five counties without notifying the state's election commission.
    Californians demonstrate against the touchscreen voting systems outside the Secretary of State's office in Sacramento.

    In presidential primaries last month, modem problems delayed vote counts in Maryland, and a power surge made the wrong screens appear on at least half of San Diego County's touchscreens, preventing an unknown number of voters from casting ballots.

    Because votes that only exist in electronic form can be altered or deleted, Oregon, New Hampshire and Illinois require paper ballots; and California, Missouri and Nevada will require paper backups on touchscreen terminals by 2006.

    Secretaries of state in Washington and West Virginia are calling for paper trails, while Ohio is reconsidering the switch to new machines, according to the Washington-based Election Reform Information Project.
    Worst-case scenario

    It's probably too late for anyone to switch from electronic voting systems before November. But many computing experts are trying to persuade counties to scrap the more than 100,000 touchscreens already installed -- and to overhaul how voting software is developed.

    "The worst-case scenario is that, come November, we're going to have nostalgia for what happened in Florida, which at least had an appearance of an attempt to do the right thing with people trying to recount ballots," said Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer expert. "We weren't certain of the voter's intention on a hanging chad ballot, but we're going to end up with a situation where we're not sure of any of the ballots if the system is paperless."

    The harshest e-voting critics say simply adding printers to touchscreens may not safeguard elections. They're urging companies to publish the voting software online, for all to see.

    They said the transparency of so-called open source code would help engineers make hacker-proof software, and thereby restore voter confidence.

    "Open source is the only way to build robust systems that people can believe in," said Ed Cherlin, a Silicon Valley engineer with the nonprofit Open Voting Consortium.

    The consortium's prototype relies on familiar desktop PCs and produces paper versions of every ballot cast, which can be reviewed by voters at the polls and then stored in county lock boxes. The operating system is Linux -- not Microsoft Windows, which most voting terminals rely on.

    "Electronic voting in its current form is like hiring a private company to count votes behind closed doors," said Stanford University professor David Dill, who publishes a Web site called Verified Voting.

    Big voting equipment companies share only pieces of their code with federal election workers and secretaries of state. The companies say citizens -- and the hundreds of county election officials who buy their equipment -- should trust that their voting systems are secure.

    "Not to take away from the security folks who have a wealth of knowledge of technology, but most of them will admit they don't have a wealth of understanding for election procedures," said Diebold spokesman David Bear. "Federal and state governments have an understanding of the software and the election policy and procedures."

    But few people believe that any voting system will ever be 100 percent accurate. Problems similar to San Diego's on March 2 -- where 573 of 1,038 polling places failed to open on time because of computer malfunctions -- are apt to recur.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  2. #2
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    It gets better.

    The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the head of Diebold is also a top fundraiser for President Bush's re-election. In a recent fund-raising letter Diebold's chief executive Walden O'Dell said he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

    Freudian slip maybe? ROFL
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    How do we know the results of this poll haven't been tampered with ?


  4. #4
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    I think it's the "chad issue" that presses the release of a system that is clearly not ready. However, for it to ever be ready and used then it has to be tested. People have a problem just using an e-mail client, you want them to run sophisticated voting machines? Lol.

    If there is serious doubt they should decertify them all and force a change. part of me would like to see a change, but the black hat side, knows full well that protecting a network of that size with physical public access at millions of terminals nationwide is, somewhat alarming.

    Seems the punch hole approach is here to stay for at least one more presidential election. Of course this is all a master plan by Bush, as if Diebold machines versus paper chads will decide the election, and not people.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  5. #5
    AO Guinness Monster MURACU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Ms Mittens
    I think the question should really not be if my vote is anonymous or not, while it is important , i think it should be more about if the systems are tamper proof. Should be fun though I can just see the results for the next presidential elections in the states.....
    number of possiable voters 50 549 347
    republican votes 29 065 874 (57 %)
    democrat votes 27 296 647 (53%)
    void ballots 3 278 968 (6%)
    % turnout 118 %
    Bush gets re-elected by 4% majority
    \"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.\"
    \"The reason we are so pleased to find other people\'s secrets is that it distracts public attention from our own.\"
    Oscar Wilde(1854-1900)

  6. #6
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Since MARUCU mentioned it, I didn't vote because at this time anonymity isn't on the map, it's accuracy in my opinion. Can the voting machines deliver accurate results that limit or reduce problems and ensure more people get their votes counted.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts