E-voting: Democratic or dangerous?

[Kelvin Mace]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3169706.stm

California has selected its governor in an election where many cast their votes not by putting a cross on a ballot paper, or by punching holes in a piece of card, but on computerised electronic voting machines.

In the wake of the fiasco in Florida during the last presidential election in 2000, these machines are seen by many in the US as a way of ensuring a fair vote. They are slowly being introduced across the nation.

*snip*

Diebold has responded publicly to the Johns Hopkins report, though the company declined to be interviewed by the BBC.

Cowards!

Diebold AccuVote Ingredients

Taxpayer money.................$5000
Security Flaws....................328
Critical Security Flaws.........26
CEO commitments to
deliver election to GOP........1
Tamper-proof Paper ballots...0
Tamper-friendly digital
ballots................................At least 32MB
Your actual vote..................None of your business.

[Kitsune]

1. Any non-isolated computer can be hacked.

This is a basic rule of computer security. Even if you're isolated from outside connections, you still have to worry about inside jobs.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. each machine costs ONLY $5000 dollars???

If that is correct then the cost of each voter served by each machine would be a couple of bucks per. It's nice to know democracy is so cheap.
Anyway, I like the conclusion here that my own vote is "None of my business". Too true. But I'm afraid no one understands that part.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Well, look at the money they are saving

In the old days your vote went for $5-$20 when bought. Thanks to new technology, the middleman (you), is cut out and the saving is passed on to the needy Fortune 100.

David Allen
Plan Nine Publishing
www.plan9.org
www.blackboxvoting.com

Diebold, Inc.
Makers of voting stations with an unprecedented level of crappy security!

[dusty64]

5. It would be funny if it

wasn't so deadly serious. Last night Democratic diebold counties were among the last to be counted, kinda made me wonder if they were waiting to see if a little "help" was needed to get the desired outcome.

[Eloriel]

6. Oh! That would be a good scheme

Build in a little "do not run (or display) final tally" routine so that a last minute patch or just final go ahead could be sent, giving certain someones plenty of time to check the totals and see if they need any last minute adjustments. Wonder if they thought of that?

Any word out of Alameda and other Diebold counties as to what they hell went on there?

Any reporters curious enough to make a call or two?

Eloriel

[dusty64]

7. Yikes, I certainly

don't want to give those bastards any ideas if they haven't thought of it already. The results were the last to arrive in those areas and it really seemed suspicious considering speed of tabulation was one of their "selling points".

[Spazito]

8. I just heard the "response" to why the returns were so late re Diebold...

and it was because they had instituted "tamper-proof" procedures. Geez, you would think they could come up with something a little better than that given that they had ALREADY said that their machines were tamper-proof BEFORE the election!

[lovedems]

3. Floridians votes were none of their business in 2000.

I am sensing a disturbing trend.