Computer voting viewed skeptically

[Junkdrawer]

Security specialists cite vulnerability to errors, tampering

Thursday, August 07, 2003

By Ann McFeatters, Post-Gazette National Bureau

WASHINGTON --- A national conference of computer security specialists here yesterday concluded with almost universal agreement that new touch-screen voting technology the federal government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on since the 2000 election debacle may be readily vulnerable to errors and tampering.

"I believe democracy is actually at risk because of ... electronic voting," said David Dill of Stanford University. He told the audience, "Democracy rests on your shoulders. I mean ... it rests on the shoulders of the computer security community."

States are slated for as much as $150 million each in federal money through the Help America Vote Act for new voting technology known as direct recording electronic machines and training of election officials. But a number of states are in the midst of a major controversy and study on the whether the system can be up and running soon enough and whether the system will be open to fraud.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, has become one of those pressing for more study into the possibility of fraud in electronic voting and is charging that not enough money authorized under the new law is arriving in states fast enough to train local election workers for next year's presidential election.'

More...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03219/209386.stm

[muchacho]

1. Computer voting usability

I actually like the idea of computerized voting, but....

Just like you make a purchase at a computerized fuel pump or withdraw $ from an ATM, there needs to be a paper result printed and given to the user (no choice of no recept) to assure them and allow them recourse in case of discrepencies.

There needs to be a paper trail to head off all the other problems that technology can bring (aside from actual malicious tampering).

[Junkdrawer]

3. Voter-verified audit trail...

a ballot is printed, verified by the voter, and then put in a lock box. Spot checks of the preliminary election results would then be done against these ballots. "Take home" receipts would be illegal as they could be used for vote buying.

[GAspnes]

2. the SAIC report will lay all these concerns to rest

"nothing to see here, move along, move along."

And you can bet that their conclusions are already being written, prior to any actual testing. Keep writing your secretaries of state, state reps and state senators to raise this issue.

[hang a left]

11. makes me sick that

saic is the one conducting testing. what a joke!

[Junkdrawer]

4. BTW: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette has been pretty conservative...

for that last few years (Pro-Bush headlines are more common than not). If they're covering the story (beyond pro-machine puff pieces), I'd say it has gone mainstream.

[The Night Owl]

9. Are you sure you are not thinking of...

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review, which is owned by Richard Mellon Scaife?

[Junkdrawer]

12. The Tribune Review helped force the Post-Gazette to the right...

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review will publish an article critical of voting machines when pigs fly and not before.

[jamesinca]

5. Did you catch the last part of the original post

Not enough funds arriving to have the election people trained in time for the election. In addition to haveing a flawed system. this is the ultimate in vote fraud, no wonder Bush is not worried about getting elected. He is not worried about getting elected based on the way that he acts and conducts his business.

[DrBB]

6. To head off the SAIC whitewash

...we need these guys to get out ahead of that report. It's Avi Rubin's study, in particular, that has precipitated this new response to try to head off criticism. If there were any way to get him, Dill and some of the others to lay out exactly what questions the SAIC "study" will have to address BEFORE it comes out, then there would be a position from which to carry on the debate. "Any study that does not address x, y, and z will not have satisfied the concerns of the computer security community," is the message that we need to get out now, so that the criteria for judging the SAIC are in place before the fact, rather than lamely carping about it after it comes out. The idea is to get out ahead of the story and corner SAIC in advance, so that their whitewash won't settle the matter.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Great minds...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=128&topic_id=8487&mesg_id=8719&page=

:evilgrin:

[scipan]

8. misstatements

"Diebold, however, has counter-charged that Rubin used the wrong software, hardware and environment to conduct his test and failed to take into account the use of poll watchers who could prevent so-called smart cards from being used by more than one voter. Rubin said Diebold's charges about his research were not true."

Diebold since admitted that the software was the same as that used in Georgia 2002 election--same version number. Saw it right here on DU. Also, she got the part about "cards being used by more than one voter" bass ackwards, IIRC from reading the report. Oh well, at least people who read this will get the general idea about electronic voting being open to fraud...

[Zan_of_Texas]

10. from the same article as at the top of the thread

(Avi Rubin, one of the authors of the Diebold study) He said that at least one vendor of the machines and one high-ranking state election official who has bought the equipment tried in vain to get him fired after his research findings became public, even writing to the president of Johns Hopkins. "(Vendors) have a lot at stake," he said.

[alaine]

13. I love that first paragraph...

I bet most folks only read the first three or four in most newspaper articles anyway. At least they placed the most important imformation at the head of the article, and used a good headline.

It's better than the one posted in LBN earlier today that used a pro-touch screen headline and didn't express reservations 'til the very end of the article.