Worst-case Scenario

by on July 31, 2007 · 2 comments

Voting machine vendors are their own worst enemies:

The study, conducted by the university under a contract with Bowen’s office, examined machines sold by Diebold Election Systems, Hart InterCivic and Sequoia Voting Systems.

It concluded that they were difficult to use for voters with disabilities and that hackers could break into the systems and change vote results.

Machines made by a fourth company, Elections Systems & Software, were not included because the company was late in providing information that the secretary of state needed for the review, Bowen said.

Sequoia, in a statement read by systems sales executive Steven Bennett, called the UC review “an unrealistic, worst-case-scenario evaluation.”

Right. Because the way to tell if a system is secure is to focus at the best-case scenario.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Voting machine vendors have a track record of releasing jaw-droppingly lame responses to criticisms of their products, so why not continue the pattern?

  • Brian Moore

    I seriously have no explanation for why they’re so bad. It’s just shocking when you compare voting machines to similar applications which all seem to work just fine. It seems like such a trivial thing to design, even with the massive security.

    My only guess is that companies who know what they’re doing are too smart to get into a business that is so potentially fraught with lawsuits/bad PR/political machinations.

  • Brian Moore

    I seriously have no explanation for why they’re so bad. It’s just shocking when you compare voting machines to similar applications which all seem to work just fine. It seems like such a trivial thing to design, even with the massive security.

    My only guess is that companies who know what they’re doing are too smart to get into a business that is so potentially fraught with lawsuits/bad PR/political machinations.

Previous post:

Next post: