5 Responses

1. 

   1)

   Bob Bancroft said on 6/21/2007 @ 9:03pm PT: [Permalink]

   It’s very interesting, to me, to read the account of e-voting provided by our friends across the Atlantic. You see essentially the same themes there as here. I was particularly struck by this line, quoted from Sir Alistair Graham:

   Electoral fraud is not a trivial matter. It is an affront to the democratic principle of one-person one vote. Left unchecked it will eventually undermine trust and confidence in the democratic process and by implication the electorate’s consent to the outcome of elections.

   The report is critical of an “Over-Dependance on Suppliers”, which seems to ring true here in the States as well:

   Given the quantity of money being spent and the importance in maintaining confidence in the integrity of ORG’s electoral systems ORG finds it surprising that greater attention wasn’t given to providing technical support to authorities.

   Good practice requires that suppliers are held to account to prevent errors and […] also need to be closely monitored to ensure that their actions do not threaten the integrity of the elections they are contracted to run.

   About the paper trail, they had this to say:

   Hence ORG believes receipts only serve to provide voters and election administrators with a false sense of verification.

   Nor were they fond of trade-secret-e-counting:

   How and when electronic vote tallies were combined with other subtotals was, in all observed areas, a mysterious process not open to observation or verification. The phrase ‘black box’ is used to illustrate the opacity of the systems and procedures. Electors cast their votes and ROs declared results; whatever occurred in the time between those actions was hidden from view by the technologies and processes used.

   And finally, their conclusions:

   ORG’s position is that e-voting and e-counting provide considerable risks to the integrity of our democracy. The risks presented far outweigh any benefits the systems might potentially offer. In practice the systems have proved to be more expensive, less robust, and considerably slower than manual methods, so any potential benefits are not felt. ORG received some comments which suggest that e-voting and e-counting are inevitable and that to oppose these technologies would be a Luddite view. ORG disagrees, and it is telling that a significant proportion of those concerned about voting technologies are computer scientists and professionals, who are usually enthusiastic adopters of new technology.
   ORG very strongly recommends that no further e-voting or e-counting trials take place until a step change in reliability, integrity and transparency has taken place.

2. 

   2)

   Dredd said on 6/22/2007 @ 5:23am PT: [Permalink]

   I have no problem with MicroSoft’s code being kept out of the scrutiny SO LONG AS it is the standard code and operating system that is what everyone else is using.

   In other words COTS (commercial off the shelf) versions.

   What must be made available to public inspection is the application source code. The code that does the interaction with the voter, does the ballot printing, does the vote storage and counting, and all things related to the election at hand.

   The operating system, whether Windows, UNIX, or Linux, so long as they are COTS versions, is not at issue really.

   We have to begin somewhere.

3. 

   3)

   gtash said on 6/22/2007 @ 6:49am PT: [Permalink]

   Someday, I want one the clever computer programmers and source-code authors to tell me why it takes a patented/double-secret source code to tell a ballot counting machine to record a chec-mark or keypunch, and tally it up when everyone’s done voting. I seriously doubt using a pencil, paper and ordinary calculator is that hard to mimic. And whgile I am making fun of this, I have another question: suppose you had an ordinary numeric keypad as found on standard keyboards and each candidate, initiative or party appeared in a column beside a simple 3 digit number, and the voter keyed in his choices by digits–no worse than keying in an amount at an ATM—and got a check-your-work screen follows voting and a paper receipt/copy to file in the slotted box (night deposit) by the machine? I don’t care how computer illiterate you are in the US, I have yet to run across anyone who cannot manipulate inputs on an ATM.

4. 

   4)

   noname said on 6/22/2007 @ 7:06am PT: [Permalink]

   Dredd Said:

   I have no problem with MicroSoft’s code being kept out of the scrutiny SO LONG AS it is the standard code and operating system that is what everyone else is using.

   In other words COTS (commercial off the shelf) versions.

   If everyone else jumps off of a bridge, would you?

   I’d like to disabuse you of this bizarre notion that COTS is somehow safe. There’s really nothing that makes COTS software more secure or reliable than application specific software. Moreover, because Microsoft products are built with the intent to be everything to everybody while supporting legacy software, they’re bloated, full of creeping features, and not well documented.

   Security comes from careful reviews and oversight of machinery, software, and the election process. To facilitate this, the software involved should be a small and simple as possible – Microsoft’s usual offerings fail this test spectacularly.

   Stipulating, for the moment, that we decide to accept the notion that Microsoft Windows version 17.34.whatever is acceptable, how do you propose verifying that that’s really what’s running on the voting machine? It’s literally impossible to verify what software is running on a computer.

   It really comes down to this: Computers and software are large complicated machinery with many moving parts that can interact in subtle and unexpected ways. The only truly practical and reliable way to verify that they’re processing things correctly is to make the verification system independent of them. For secret ballot elections, that means that the election process must be completely functional without the computer element.

   There is no substitute for hard copy, human readable ballots.
   There is no substitute for meaningful mandatory random auditing.
   There is no substitute for strong oversight.

5. 

   5)

   phil said on 6/22/2007 @ 9:47am PT: [Permalink]

   It don’t matter what software, hardware, and human input you use.

   What matters is the WAY you use it!

   1.) you don’t count electronically, it’s unconstitutional, no human can see it (electrons are invisible) so there is no public oversight.

   2.) You don’t trust humans either. If they say some crap like national emergency, you have to leave the building. That’s crap. I swear to fucking god that’s crap.

   3.) ANY electronics, or software or humans, need to have PUBLIC OVERSIGHT, PUBLIC OVERSIGHT, PUBLIC OVERSIGHT, If the public can’t see then there is no oversight.

   electrons traveling at 3e8 can not be seen! But if they were used to PRINT a ballot for the disabled, and there was public oversight and perhaps some hand holding to validate that which the disabled actually voted for.

   Then you have oversight.

   The rest of the ideas that allow for abuse in ANY way is exactly what has us to this point we are at right now! If it was up to me I would straight up say that no disabled person should vote. If they can’t figure it out and how to do it where they validate their vote then by god goodbye!

   That would eliminate ALL these fucking electronics — STRAIGHT UP.

   Now look I ain’t saying STOP THE DISABLED, I just said IF IT WAS UP TO ME…..

   Because this shit has gone on LONG ENOUGH. The fucking Abusive Deadly Electronics Needs to fucking GO!!!!!

   I hope you understand what I am saying. And anyone that wants to take me out of context.

   A BIG FUCK YOU right now.

   Delete me
   Remove me
   Ban me
   Might as well SHOOT ME.

   I SERVED this country.
   I SWORE an OATH

   . .

   Fuck Random auditing. (No Offense to the poster above) You don’t need to AUDIT if you are counting PAPER. Unless some idiot lost his place.

   Fuck Oversight; if that means you watch a box, and inside the box all hell is breaking loose at 3e8!!! (Again No offense)

   Fuck Networks
   Fuck Digitized Data

   When are you people going to get it?

   Do we have to loose the USA for you to finally FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

   Some folks would say the USA is already lost.
   It’s LOST once I am dead! That is what I say.

   And these fucking god damn “Fake ass fucking NEWS MEDIA” that shit’s gotta stop.

   First I thought One thing was important, then I realized VOTING was important, and now it’s the fact the MEDIA has dropped the ball.

   We might not SAVE the USA unless we take COMPLETELY OVER the MEDIA.

   Cause only then can we get the word out and educate folks about ELECTRONICS.

   And the ABUSE of ELECTRONICS being used on us.