New voting technology questioned as tamper-prone (drip, drip)

[spotbird]

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/nation/6832155.htm
(skip)
"This could be something that compromises democracy," said David Dill, a Stanford University professor of computer science who researches security issues.

On the other side of the debate are election officials who see the worry as a natural, if exaggerated, reaction to change. They say tampering would require a huge, sophisticated plan and that there are plenty of safeguards to detect and protect against intrusions.

"Elections are stuck in the 19th century all across the country," said Johnson County (Mo.) Election Commissioner Connie Schmidt, who has testified before Congress on election reform. "Now we're skipping several generations from punch cards to touch-screen voting machines. And change causes stress in people."

(skip)
-----------------------
Will computers fix the vote?
(skip)
"Counting a vote just doesn't sound that hard. But ever since the 2000 Florida recount with its disputes over hanging chads, voting technology has been the focus of fierce debate. It resurged last week when a federal court panel delayed the California recall election, fearing that punch-card ballots could disenfranchise as many as 40,000 voters. The panel, whose decision is being appealed, wants to wait until computerized voting machines are in place statewide."

"Hold on, say some computer security and election technology experts. That solution may be an easy target for election fraud. "Worst-case scenario: Someone tries to hack an election," says Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group. Because most of these machines don't produce any physical record of the votes, "we wouldn't have any way to figure out the damage short of having another election." But the alternative that E-voting critics prefer, machines that electronically scan paper ballots, is often dismissed as impractical."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030929/misc/29voting.htm

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Definetely a BBV article

:evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

2. No, technology will SAVE US!

Give your trust over to the machines and the people who run them: System administrators like me. We'll take good care of your data. You can count on us.

:evilgrin:

[papau]

3. A GD thread via Dr Dill newsletter on BBV current status

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=382859

:-)

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

4. Copper wine...

... is seeping into rhetoric.
" But the alternative that E-voting critics prefer, machines that electronically scan paper ballots, is often dismissed as impractical." Why are they so worried about squeezing the last red cent out of voting systems, to the point of "accepting" a shoddy product (unverified voting results)?

[sendero]

5. exactly....

This is the reason my initial skepticism becomes full blown mistrust.

"Impractical" - bullsh*t. It is not only practical, it is the *only* way that this process can be made *potentially* bulletproof.

And the fact that these folks are so dead-set against it speaks volumes....