Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Report on the use of uncertified software in California voting machines
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:08:29 -0500
Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:17:26 -0600 From: gep2 () terabites com Subject: [IP] Report on the use of uncertified software in California voting machines To: dave () farber net, dallasdemocrats () egroups com, USDemocrat () yahoogroups com The worst part of this is that, I understand and contend, even the"certification" of this software that HAS BEEN being done isn't nearly adequate to protect against cleverly designed software that can either skew the election
results, or else provide backdoors and other loopholes by which such manipulation of the election results can be done (by other software) and with basically no recourse.I've heard frightening stories about unsophisticated observers being brought in,
watching "test voters" using the computerized systems, then going off to lunch (!) and coming back to see the final counts. !!!! Software (ALL the software!) used both in the voting machines, and in the collection/tallying process, needs to be open to public inspection... so that any competent open-source programmers who are interested can go over thesoftware with a fine-toothed comb and look for bugs, worms, and other nasties in
it.The ONLY viable approach I've seen so far to allow a viable recount and audit of
election results is to have the computerized systems produce a permanent, voter-verified paper copy of their ballot, that the voter can inspect and approve before leaving the polling place. The OTHER key issue regarding vote integrity involves the planned use of Internet/online voting in at least several crucial states during the 2004election. I believe that the TECHNICAL problems CAN be solved (although I'm not
confident, given the record, that they WILL be) but one TERRIBLE problem thatCAN NOT be solved by ANY technical means is that there is no way to ensure that the online voter is not voting with a gun held to their head... figuratively or
even literally. It's reasonable to expect that at least a nontrivial number of online voterswill be voting with a parent, guardian, professor, landlord, spouse, union shop steward, welfare case worker, parole officer, employer, mortgage holder, pastor,
drug dealer, thug, or someone else with strong "persuasive" power over the voter, watching how they are voting. While this has always been true of "mail-in" absentee ballots already, the number of voters using those is always pretty much inconsequential. Theopportunity for abuse will be FAR, FAR higher given the large percentage of the
vote (and the vulnerability to "influencing") that one would expect would someday be voted online, and away from the watchful protection of responsible and ethical election judges and poll officials. <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:56:24 -0500 To: ip () v2 listbox com From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net> Subject: [IP] Report on the use of uncertified software in California voting machines Reply-To: dave () farber net author iunknown Report on the use of uncertified software in California voting machines Hi everyone, This afternoon I attended a meeting of the California Secretary of State's Voting Systems Panel, which is in charge of certifying and decertifying voting systems for California elections. At this meeting the initial results from the Secretary of State's audit of counties using Diebold equipment were released. The Secretary of State's auditors discovered that of the 17 counties using Diebold equipment (both optical scan and touchscreen), all 17 had some software or firmware version in use that was not certified by the Secretary of State. It was an astonishing piece of information -- no one knew how widespread the problem was of Diebold installing uncertified software in voting systems as was discovered in Alameda County. It turns out all of Diebold's California clients are using some version of Diebold software or firmware that is not certified by the state. The latest version of Diebold's GEMS software that was certified in California is 117.17; the audit revealed that counties were using other versions, such as 117.20, 117.22, 117.23, 118.18, and 118.18.02. The audit also revealed that three counties -- Los Angeles, Trinity and Lassen -- were using software versions that had not been approved for use at the federal level. It was a real bombshell. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley came into the meeting to address the panel and spoke very firmly and passionately about the need for voters to have confidence in elections. He also suggested that it is possible Diebold could be decertified in California altogether. Not all the information the Secretary of State's auditors collected has been analyzed. I understand there is a 66 page report that may be available. The next meeting of the VSP will be held in mid-January, around the 14th, to take up the Diebold audit matter again as well as the development of voter verified paper audit trail standards for California's computerized voting systems. The Secretary of State also will conduct an audit over the next three months of the 41 other California counties' voting systems to determine whether their software and equipment is in compliance with California law. -- Kim Alexander ------------------------------------- Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ <---- End Forwarded Message ----> Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Report on the use of uncertified software in California voting machines Dave Farber (Dec 19)