Glad McDermott is taking this seriously. I have gotten the local Kucinich campaign people interested in the issue. The WA Secretary of State's web page has a very creepy feel-good trust in electronic voting. I wrote him the following letter (Haven't heard back yet.)
Do you have a local WA state organization backing the suit? Put me on your list. eridani@scn.org
September 3, 2003
Office of the Secretary of State
Elections Division
PO Box 40229
Olympia, WA 98504-0299
Dear Messrs. Reed and Logan:
I have downloaded your online publication The Electronic Vote from your website, and am seriously disturbed by your unwarranted faith in the security of electronic voting. "Electronic voting improves security, reduces the number of voter mistakes, and helps insure every citizen the right to a secret ballot," says Mr. Reed. I suppose two out of three isn't bad, but many computer experts have been calling for a paper trail as validation of the voting process for some time now.
The California report you cite (which dismissed the need for a paper trail) has had substantial objections raised to its conclusions by a number of computer security experts. And if you don't set store by the opinions of the following people, I'd like to ask you if you'd continue to shop at a store which would not give you a paper tape listing your purchases, but asked you to trust their computer alone to arrive at the correct total. I certainly wouldn't, and I don't think my vote should be treated that cavalierly either.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/6344554.htmI believe Bruce Schneier, founder and chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security in San Jose, who says he's ``terrified'' about the prospect of voting with the current lineup of paperless DRE machines. ``Building technology that allows people to untraceably rig the vote seems like a bad idea,'' he says in the understatement of the year.
I believe Ed Felten, computer science professor at Princeton University, who calls these machines ``black boxes'' -- opaque to scrutiny and potentially subject, as Schneier notes, to tampering.
I believe David Dill, a Stanford University computer science professor who has worked hard to bring this issue to public attention. Visit his Verified Voting Web site (www.verifiedvoting.org) for much more information.
I am particularly concerned by software companies which are privately owned by political partisans, which also refuse to make their code public. The worst offender by far is Diebold. You claim that it would be difficult for outsiders to tamper with the vote. Difficult, but not impossible. And you completely overlook the possibility that tampering capacity can be built into the software in the first place.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htmWhen asked to comment on allegations by Bev Harris that the Diebold software may have been designed to facilitate fraud, Rubin described the claim as "ludicrous. "Rubin could dismiss the allegation of deliberately fraudulent design in Diebold software, because his team never examined the Diebold software in question. Incredibly, this software keeps not one, but two Microsoft Access data tables of voting results. It's like a business keeping two sets of account books. The two tables are notionally identical copies of the votes collated from all polling stations. The software uses the first table for on-demand reports which might uncover alteration of the data --such as spot checks of results from individual polling stations. The second of the two tables is the one used to determine the election result. But the second table can be hacked and altered to produce fake election totals without affecting spot check reports derived from the first table."
(over)
Electronic voting, page 2
What might those two sets of Enron-style tables be used for? The head of a voting machine company has stated that he will deliver Ohio's votes to his preferred candidate, and his machines have the capacity to do just that.
http://www.cleveland.com/election/index.ssf?/base/news/106207171078040.xmlColumbus - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.
Diebold has already been caught at electoral hanky-panky in 2002, with no attempt by anyone to set matters right.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/08_25_03/Concerns_Over/concerns_over.htmlGeorgia is perhaps "hardest hit by the growing Diebold scandal," said Bev Harris, author of Black Box Voting: Ballot-Tampering in the 21st Century. On election night 2002, 67 memory cards with thousands of votes went missing in Fulton County, Harris reports. The loss of memory cards is comparable to lost ballot boxes.
Right before the election in Georgia, an unexamined program 'patch' was hastily installed on the 22,000 Diebold voting machines across the state. A patch inserts a 'program fix' into the existing code.
One of the folders found on the Diebold ftp site was one named 'rob-georgia.' This folder contained patch files that instructed the computer to replace the existing GEMS program with another. AFP has confirmed that the Diebold code used in Georgia was not inspected prior to the 2002 election.
As a voter, I demand the following safeguards for any electronic system that my tax dollars buy:
* random inspection of computer voting machines after the election,
* publication of the software code, and
* paper 'receipts' given to each voter to inspect upon completion of his voting, to be then deposited in a 'backup' ballot box.
This is not impossible or too expensive. If necessary, we can just import the Australian system.
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/EVACS.htmlHere's Australia's system. The project was run by the government, with a contractor writing the actual open-source code for the system in less than six months for under $150,000. They have printers, audit trails, publicly inspected software and hardware, and the system is thoroughly tested.
Sincerely,