Comments on: A (Die)Bold Indictment of Computerized Voting http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Fri, 25 May 2012 18:27:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-55780 Steve R. Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:52:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-55780 <p>This is more about an incompetent company than technology. Brain Moore wrote<i>"What boggles my mind is: I'm a programmer -- this isn't hard stuff. The design of a secure, option selecting system is trivial stuff -- banks do far more complex things with billions of dollars every day. Why is it hard to do this? Why are there bugs? You present a hardcoded list of options and count the number of times each button is pressed. Then, allow ZERO physical data access to the machine until the election is over. That's it. Monkeys could program that. What's the problem here?"</i><br><br></br><br><br>The use of a hyperbolic example that chaos will descend on us if we try something new stretches credibility; based on the intractable logic to guarantee law and order to protect democracy I would suggest that everyone (with proper ID) report to a stadium on election date and we do a hand count (a proven form of technology). (This avoids little things such as ballot stuffing, dead people, and chads.) Since we can't fit everybody into a stadium at one time we could brand everyone who voted when they leave so they can't vote again. Just think 100% participation!<br><br></br></p> This is more about an incompetent company than technology. Brain Moore wrote“What boggles my mind is: I’m a programmer — this isn’t hard stuff. The design of a secure, option selecting system is trivial stuff — banks do far more complex things with billions of dollars every day. Why is it hard to do this? Why are there bugs? You present a hardcoded list of options and count the number of times each button is pressed. Then, allow ZERO physical data access to the machine until the election is over. That’s it. Monkeys could program that. What’s the problem here?”



The use of a hyperbolic example that chaos will descend on us if we try something new stretches credibility; based on the intractable logic to guarantee law and order to protect democracy I would suggest that everyone (with proper ID) report to a stadium on election date and we do a hand count (a proven form of technology). (This avoids little things such as ballot stuffing, dead people, and chads.) Since we can’t fit everybody into a stadium at one time we could brand everyone who voted when they leave so they can’t vote again. Just think 100% participation!

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-35018 Steve R. Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:52:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-35018 <p>This is more about an incompetent company than technology. Brain Moore wrote<i>"What boggles my mind is: I'm a programmer -- this isn't hard stuff. The design of a secure, option selecting system is trivial stuff -- banks do far more complex things with billions of dollars every day. Why is it hard to do this? Why are there bugs? You present a hardcoded list of options and count the number of times each button is pressed. Then, allow ZERO physical data access to the machine until the election is over. That's it. Monkeys could program that. What's the problem here?"</i> <br /><br /> The use of a hyperbolic example that chaos will descend on us if we try something new stretches credibility; based on the intractable logic to guarantee law and order to protect democracy I would suggest that everyone (with proper ID) report to a stadium on election date and we do a hand count (a proven form of technology). (This avoids little things such as ballot stuffing, dead people, and chads.) Since we can't fit everybody into a stadium at one time we could brand everyone who voted when they leave so they can't vote again. Just think 100% participation!</p> This is more about an incompetent company than technology. Brain Moore wrote“What boggles my mind is: I’m a programmer — this isn’t hard stuff. The design of a secure, option selecting system is trivial stuff — banks do far more complex things with billions of dollars every day. Why is it hard to do this? Why are there bugs? You present a hardcoded list of options and count the number of times each button is pressed. Then, allow ZERO physical data access to the machine until the election is over. That’s it. Monkeys could program that. What’s the problem here?”

The use of a hyperbolic example that chaos will descend on us if we try something new stretches credibility; based on the intractable logic to guarantee law and order to protect democracy I would suggest that everyone (with proper ID) report to a stadium on election date and we do a hand count (a proven form of technology). (This avoids little things such as ballot stuffing, dead people, and chads.) Since we can’t fit everybody into a stadium at one time we could brand everyone who voted when they leave so they can’t vote again. Just think 100% participation!

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-55779 eee_eff Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:12:00 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-55779 <p>Tim:<br><br>Excellent Post. Keep up the excllent work.<br><br>EF<br><br><i>Risk is everywhere. People die in automobile accidents everyday, but we still drive despite the risk.</i><br><br>Yes, but risks are taken foor reasons, usually some kind of reward, and the risk of the subversion of Democracy and the ensuing social, economic, cultural (and perhaps even military) chaos that can result from this fundamentally flawed effort to replace a system that has minor problems with one that has super-major problems that won't go away, make me say: JUST SAY NO TO EVOTING.<br></p> <p><br>My jurisdiction in the City of Saint Louis has evoting as an option-you can evote or you can use the paper ballot. I will use paper.<br></p> <p><br>Does anyone know how common having a choice about this is? I suspect it must be fairly rare.</p> Tim:

Excellent Post. Keep up the excllent work.

EF

Risk is everywhere. People die in automobile accidents everyday, but we still drive despite the risk.

Yes, but risks are taken foor reasons, usually some kind of reward, and the risk of the subversion of Democracy and the ensuing social, economic, cultural (and perhaps even military) chaos that can result from this fundamentally flawed effort to replace a system that has minor problems with one that has super-major problems that won’t go away, make me say: JUST SAY NO TO EVOTING.


My jurisdiction in the City of Saint Louis has evoting as an option-you can evote or you can use the paper ballot. I will use paper.


Does anyone know how common having a choice about this is? I suspect it must be fairly rare.

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-35017 enigma_foundry Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:12:00 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-35017 <p>Tim:</p> <p>Excellent Post. Keep up the excllent work.</p> <p>EF</p> <p><i>Risk is everywhere. People die in automobile accidents everyday, but we still drive despite the risk.</i></p> <p>Yes, but risks are taken foor reasons, usually some kind of reward, and the risk of the subversion of Democracy and the ensuing social, economic, cultural (and perhaps even military) chaos that can result from this fundamentally flawed effort to replace a system that has minor problems with one that has super-major problems that won't go away, make me say: JUST SAY NO TO EVOTING.</p> <p> My jurisdiction in the City of Saint Louis has evoting as an option-you can evote or you can use the paper ballot. I will use paper. <p> Does anyone know how common having a choice about this is? I suspect it must be fairly rare.</p></p> Tim:

Excellent Post. Keep up the excllent work.

EF

Risk is everywhere. People die in automobile accidents everyday, but we still drive despite the risk.

Yes, but risks are taken foor reasons, usually some kind of reward, and the risk of the subversion of Democracy and the ensuing social, economic, cultural (and perhaps even military) chaos that can result from this fundamentally flawed effort to replace a system that has minor problems with one that has super-major problems that won’t go away, make me say: JUST SAY NO TO EVOTING.

My jurisdiction in the City of Saint Louis has evoting as an option-you can evote or you can use the paper ballot. I will use paper.

Does anyone know how common having a choice about this is? I suspect it must be fairly rare.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-55778 Steve R. Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:52:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-55778 <p>Risk is everywhere. People die in automobile accidents everyday, but we still drive despite the risk. Technology/procedures could be implemented to make cars safer, but we all know that practical limits exist. We simply aren't going to reduce the speed limit to 10 MPH or require massive bumpers or require full occupant restraints to save lives.<br></br><br><br><br>You are correct that <i>"ultimately all general-purpose computers are vulnerable to this kind of attack."</i> Felten's research will help us understand how to make the electronic voting process better. But to simply imply that because a system is <i>"weak"</i> that it should be discarded is a false logic since every system has a weakness. I will acknowledge that a system can be so weak that it should never be implemented. I am not yet convinced that that is the case in terms of electronic voting.<br><br></br></p> Risk is everywhere. People die in automobile accidents everyday, but we still drive despite the risk. Technology/procedures could be implemented to make cars safer, but we all know that practical limits exist. We simply aren’t going to reduce the speed limit to 10 MPH or require massive bumpers or require full occupant restraints to save lives.



You are correct that “ultimately all general-purpose computers are vulnerable to this kind of attack.” Felten’s research will help us understand how to make the electronic voting process better. But to simply imply that because a system is “weak” that it should be discarded is a false logic since every system has a weakness. I will acknowledge that a system can be so weak that it should never be implemented. I am not yet convinced that that is the case in terms of electronic voting.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-55777 Tim Lee Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:01:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-55777 <p>I think the off-the-shelf components do make the hacker's job a little easier, since the learning curve isn't as steep and he's more likely to have tools on hand. But I agree that ultimately all general-purpose computers are vulnerable to this kind of attack.</p> I think the off-the-shelf components do make the hacker’s job a little easier, since the learning curve isn’t as steep and he’s more likely to have tools on hand. But I agree that ultimately all general-purpose computers are vulnerable to this kind of attack.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-35016 Steve R. Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:52:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-35016 <p>Risk is everywhere. People die in automobile accidents everyday, but we still drive despite the risk. Technology/procedures could be implemented to make cars safer, but we all know that practical limits exist. We simply aren't going to reduce the speed limit to 10 MPH or require massive bumpers or require full occupant restraints to save lives.<br /><br /></p> <p>You are correct that <i>"ultimately all general-purpose computers are vulnerable to this kind of attack."</i> Felten's research will help us understand how to make the electronic voting process better. But to simply imply that because a system is <i>"weak"</i> that it should be discarded is a false logic since every system has a weakness. I will acknowledge that a system can be so weak that it should never be implemented. I am not yet convinced that that is the case in terms of electronic voting.</p> Risk is everywhere. People die in automobile accidents everyday, but we still drive despite the risk. Technology/procedures could be implemented to make cars safer, but we all know that practical limits exist. We simply aren’t going to reduce the speed limit to 10 MPH or require massive bumpers or require full occupant restraints to save lives.

You are correct that “ultimately all general-purpose computers are vulnerable to this kind of attack.” Felten’s research will help us understand how to make the electronic voting process better. But to simply imply that because a system is “weak” that it should be discarded is a false logic since every system has a weakness. I will acknowledge that a system can be so weak that it should never be implemented. I am not yet convinced that that is the case in terms of electronic voting.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-35015 Tim Lee Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:01:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-35015 <p>I think the off-the-shelf components do make the hacker's job a little easier, since the learning curve isn't as steep and he's more likely to have tools on hand. But I agree that ultimately all general-purpose computers are vulnerable to this kind of attack.</p> I think the off-the-shelf components do make the hacker’s job a little easier, since the learning curve isn’t as steep and he’s more likely to have tools on hand. But I agree that ultimately all general-purpose computers are vulnerable to this kind of attack.

]]> By: James Governor http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-55776 James Governor Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:56:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-55776 <p>inefficient and screwing the government? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah a ha. who do you think pays them for election wins?</p> inefficient and screwing the government? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah a ha. who do you think pays them for election wins?

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-55775 Steve R. Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:39:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-55775 <p>The Diebold saga is straight out of Dilbert comic strip. In watching this saga unfold I am left with two thoughts. It is unfortunate that the government purchasing processes is inefficient, but we also need to recognize that Diebold management is screwing the government. From the perspective of maximizing corporate profit one could say that this is a good thing. However, if we live in an ethical society, screwing the customer is bad.<br></br><br><br><br>All voting systems (irrespective of technologies used) are subject to fraud and abuse. I am dismayed that much of the discussion simply throws out obvious flaws and is luddite in nature. (I will acknowledge that flaws of any device or operating process should be analyzed.) </br><br></br><br><br><br>I believe that there is a future in electronic voting. The current security fiasco is really a reflection of bad management not bad technology. Good management would have implemented good security. The first solution is to get rid of Diebold as the provider of voting machines. Next, I hope an innovative company develops a reasonable secure electronic voting system. (Not perfect, but reasonable.)<br><br></br></p> The Diebold saga is straight out of Dilbert comic strip. In watching this saga unfold I am left with two thoughts. It is unfortunate that the government purchasing processes is inefficient, but we also need to recognize that Diebold management is screwing the government. From the perspective of maximizing corporate profit one could say that this is a good thing. However, if we live in an ethical society, screwing the customer is bad.



All voting systems (irrespective of technologies used) are subject to fraud and abuse. I am dismayed that much of the discussion simply throws out obvious flaws and is luddite in nature. (I will acknowledge that flaws of any device or operating process should be analyzed.)



I believe that there is a future in electronic voting. The current security fiasco is really a reflection of bad management not bad technology. Good management would have implemented good security. The first solution is to get rid of Diebold as the provider of voting machines. Next, I hope an innovative company develops a reasonable secure electronic voting system. (Not perfect, but reasonable.)

]]> By: Lewis Baumstark http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-55774 Lewis Baumstark Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:02:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-55774 <p>To be clear, the use of off-the-shelf hardware and software is not, in itself, a flaw. Even if Diebold used custom hardware with fully made-from-scratch software (something that is, like it or not, cost-prohibitive in most cases), someone would figure it out. (Probably by obtaining a physical machine like Dr. Felton did.)<br></p> <p><br>The real flaws are the deeper issues you mention: clueless government, apathetic and unaccountable voting-machine vendors, and a mindset that electronic voting is "required" to make our electoral system the bees knees.</p> To be clear, the use of off-the-shelf hardware and software is not, in itself, a flaw. Even if Diebold used custom hardware with fully made-from-scratch software (something that is, like it or not, cost-prohibitive in most cases), someone would figure it out. (Probably by obtaining a physical machine like Dr. Felton did.)


The real flaws are the deeper issues you mention: clueless government, apathetic and unaccountable voting-machine vendors, and a mindset that electronic voting is “required” to make our electoral system the bees knees.

]]> By: James Governor http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-35014 James Governor Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:56:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-35014 <p>inefficient and screwing the government? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah a ha. who do you think pays them for election wins?</p> inefficient and screwing the government? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah a ha. who do you think pays them for election wins?

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-35013 Steve R. Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:39:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-35013 <p>The Diebold saga is straight out of Dilbert comic strip. In watching this saga unfold I am left with two thoughts. It is unfortunate that the government purchasing processes is inefficient, but we also need to recognize that Diebold management is screwing the government. From the perspective of maximizing corporate profit one could say that this is a good thing. However, if we live in an ethical society, screwing the customer is bad.<br /><br /></p> <p>All voting systems (irrespective of technologies used) are subject to fraud and abuse. I am dismayed that much of the discussion simply throws out obvious flaws and is luddite in nature. (I will acknowledge that flaws of any device or operating process should be analyzed.) <br /><br /></p> <p>I believe that there is a future in electronic voting. The current security fiasco is really a reflection of bad management not bad technology. Good management would have implemented good security. The first solution is to get rid of Diebold as the provider of voting machines. Next, I hope an innovative company develops a reasonable secure electronic voting system. (Not perfect, but reasonable.)</p> The Diebold saga is straight out of Dilbert comic strip. In watching this saga unfold I am left with two thoughts. It is unfortunate that the government purchasing processes is inefficient, but we also need to recognize that Diebold management is screwing the government. From the perspective of maximizing corporate profit one could say that this is a good thing. However, if we live in an ethical society, screwing the customer is bad.

All voting systems (irrespective of technologies used) are subject to fraud and abuse. I am dismayed that much of the discussion simply throws out obvious flaws and is luddite in nature. (I will acknowledge that flaws of any device or operating process should be analyzed.)

I believe that there is a future in electronic voting. The current security fiasco is really a reflection of bad management not bad technology. Good management would have implemented good security. The first solution is to get rid of Diebold as the provider of voting machines. Next, I hope an innovative company develops a reasonable secure electronic voting system. (Not perfect, but reasonable.)

]]> By: Lewis Baumstark http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/comment-page-1/#comment-35012 Lewis Baumstark Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:02:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/09/13/a-diebold-indictment-of-computerized-voting/#comment-35012 <p>To be clear, the use of off-the-shelf hardware and software is not, in itself, a flaw. Even if Diebold used custom hardware with fully made-from-scratch software (something that is, like it or not, cost-prohibitive in most cases), someone would figure it out. (Probably by obtaining a physical machine like Dr. Felton did.)</p> <p> The real flaws are the deeper issues you mention: clueless government, apathetic and unaccountable voting-machine vendors, and a mindset that electronic voting is "required" to make our electoral system the bees knees.</p> To be clear, the use of off-the-shelf hardware and software is not, in itself, a flaw. Even if Diebold used custom hardware with fully made-from-scratch software (something that is, like it or not, cost-prohibitive in most cases), someone would figure it out. (Probably by obtaining a physical machine like Dr. Felton did.)

The real flaws are the deeper issues you mention: clueless government, apathetic and unaccountable voting-machine vendors, and a mindset that electronic voting is “required” to make our electoral system the bees knees.

]]>