CA State Sen. Bowen Proposes to END Proprietary Voting Software!!!

[nicknameless]

Just received from CA State Senator Debra Bowen's office

BOWEN ANNOUNCES HEARINGS ON “OPEN SOURCE”

VOTING SOFTWARE ISSUE FOR FEBRUARY OR MARCH

SACRAMENTO –The issue of whether California should be using electronic voting machine systems that rely on “open source software,” instead of the traditional proprietary software being used today, will be addressed in a pair of public hearings by Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee.

“If we want people to have confidence that their votes are being counted accurately, the systems counties use to tally ballots need to be open, accessible, and completely transparent,” said Bowen, a long-time open government advocate and the author of the 1993 measure that put all of the Legislature’s bills, analyses, and voting records on the Internet. “Nationwide, only 48% of the people are confident their votes are actually being counted correctly or being counted at all and you don’t build confidence in our electoral system by leaving people in the dark. To restore people’s faith in the system and ensure ballots are tallied accurately, we need to turn on the lights and let people see how their votes are being counted and protected.”

The hearings will be held by March of this year, most likely in Sacramento and Silicon Valley. Members of the open source software community, county elections officials, voting machine vendors, and others will be invited to participate. “Open source software” has been around for several decades but it’s become more popular in recent years. Some of the more well-known names in the open source software world are Firefox (an Internet browser), Linux (an operating system), and Red Hat (which sells and supports a version of Linux for businesses).

“We’ve worked hard to make elections more transparent over the years by, for example, making it easier for voters to track campaign contributions, but when it comes to the fundamental issue of how the accuracy of the election results are ensured, voters are left completely in the dark,” continued Bowen. “Open source software has the potential to make a critical – arguably the most critical – part of the electoral process open and transparent. We’re in the middle of an intense discussion over whether Diebold’s voting machines should or shouldn’t be re-certified for use here in California for the 2006 elections. I want to look further ahead and study what alternatives there are to relying on proprietary software that can’t be examined and has turned out to be fatally flawed.”

Under California law, an exact copy of the source code for all ballot tally software must be placed in an escrow facility designated by the Secretary of State before a voting system can be certified for use in California. However, that source code is never revealed to the public. Using open source software will make the process more transparent because open source software, by definition, is open to public examination.

“We need to do away with the secrecy and the ‘Trust us, we know what we’re doing’ approach the voting machine vendors and the Secretary of State are taking with this issue,” continued Bowen. “Nearly two months ago, the Secretary of State discovered a problem with some Election Systems & Software (ES&S) voting machines and threatened to decertify them. Days later he announced the problem was fixed and ES&S was in the clear, but he still hasn’t released any information on what the problems were with the machines, how ES&S proposed to fix those problems, or why voters should have any confidence in their solution. That’s unacceptable and California voters deserve better.”

It's not paper ballots and hand counts, but this is a HUGE step in a good direction.

[texpatriot2004]

1. No more secret vote counting! nm

[driver8]

11. How this was allowed to happen at all is beyond me.

What good is a democracy if the voters cannot tell who they voted for?? WTF?? How did this go on for so long?

Now we are stuck with dumbshit.

[texpatriot2004]

15. No open source code = NO transparency = NO democracy nm

[merwin]

2. If we were voting on open source voting machines, I would gladly support

it and cast my vote without worry.

Why? Because it's open source. The reason that open source works better is because ALL security flaws will be found within days, because there will be thousands of people looking at every line of code making sure there's no security holes. There will also be hundreds of websites pushing any security flaws to the masses immediately, leaving no choice but to close the security holes.

Even better, have it run on Linux. Linux fanatics are like rabid dogs when it comes to security.

[nicknameless]

7. Here is the only system I trust:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=406688&mesg_id=406688

No system is perfect, but this one makes election fraud much harder and smaller scale.

[merwin]

9. That works too, but an open source model would work just as well.

There's a reason that Linux is a thousand times more secure than Windows. Proprietary code vs open source.

Paper and pencil and human eyes are definately the safest bet, but an open source model would be just as trustworthy.

I'll put it another way... Secure programming will eliminate the ability to hack the system. Think ATM's. When was the last time you ever heard of a virus attacking ATM's, or someone hacking into an ATM, or anything like that. I trust an ATM to give me $50 when I ask it to, because it is secure and bulletproof. If an ATM were made like a voting machine, NOBODY would use them. It's all a matter of how well it is programmed.

[nicknameless]

10. It cannot be publicly observed at every step, so I must disagree.

[merwin]

13. Ah, but it can. That's whe wonders of open source.

A computer does exactly what it is programmed to do. Nothing more, nothing less. If it is programmed with proper security, humans can't intervene in the middle. Basically, it's the difference between a straw house and a brick house.

For example, a realtime secure link from each polling station over the internet to a central location that can be monitored by the public, with an interface that the public can see the tally as the votes are cast, as well as a security log that cannot be erased and fingerprint access to any machines at the polling stations. That way, if there is a sudden jump in votes, it can be easily traced to the person who did it. You could also place volunteers at each polling station who can watch any terminals during the voting process to make sure nobody is doing anything to the servers.

There are plenty of ways that computers and the lines linking them can be secured, and allow for honest, trustworthy elections.

[kster]

14. Some day another time but never with Diebold, ES&S and Sequioa

vote counting machines. They give a whole new meaning to the slogan "The quality goes in before the name goes on". I hate seeing the Diebold name when I have to make a deposit into their little suction tube at the bank, I'm just glad it is a clear tube so I can watch my deposit all the way to the teller.

[merwin]

17. I agree with you there. I still wouldn't trust Diebold, ES&S, or the other

major players, because they have a history of insanity.

I'm not too terrified by the Diebold name on the ATM's, since I know banks paid BIG money to get those secure. On the flipside, Republicans paid BIG money to get voting machines insecure.

[kster]

21. Yes, but the ATMs have observers watching them

each and every account holder is observing them. It just is not the same with voting.

[merwin]

23. Even without the observation, there are checks in the system to make sure

that reconciles all of the data and makes sure everything adds up. Banks don't lose track of a single penny without finding out where it went.

In any case, I'm off to bed :-) Good talking to you!

[kster]

26. Good talking to you to ...nt

[nicknameless]

24. Exactly. Account holders. Like hand counting + citizens' eyes & cameras.

These guys must be watched at every step.
... Or preferably, eliminated.

[kster]

25. Right it isn't like ATM's ,by no stretch of the imagination

5 million votes were stolen in 2004 (give or take a few).

Lets say one night 1 million people go to withdraw 20 bucks out of ATM's across the country, the ATM only gives them 15 bucks back,So the ATM company just made 5 million bucks right, WRONG. Because those customers are going to call the bank the next day and get their money back and or credited to their account, In full with an apology.

Its not at all the same with electronic vote counting machines.

Hand counting is the only way to secure our elections.

[eridani]

27. Here, in detail, is why voting machines can NEVER be like ATMs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=401865

[kster]

30. Right you are and Well worth the read, Thank you........nt

[nicknameless]

28. That's very true.

Thank you for the great bank example.

In reply #22, I included a link to the story about the 2004 audit on the voting machines -- all of which were supposed to have state-certified software. Not even ONE machine they examined had it.

And after the election, it's too late. (Or so we've been told.)

We're in total agreement about hand counting.

[nicknameless]

18. Who is going to check all of the computers for "faulty" firmware?

Who is going to check all of the software? If someone just gets private access to a machine, it would have to be rechecked. How can you be sure that anyone would know about it? Or that the ones checking (think Triad) aren't part of the problem?

You cannot be that certain of computers' hardwiring and software or who had access to them. Computer scientists are often the most outspoken against e-voting for a reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407531

Even an allegedly secure system isn't open to public viewing at EVERY step, so it can't be as safe as paper ballots and hand counting.

[merwin]

19. Have firmware stored in EEPROM on a card that is digitally signed,

and will not work if it has been tampered with.

It's all in how you go about securing the machines. If left to the professionals in the open source community, it could be done with every step of the way properly secured, for a fraction of the price.

ATM's prove that a system can work with 99.9% accuracy. You don't see bank employees funneling money out of ATM's by hacking into them from the inside.

If they really want to secure it, they can secure it. That's the main issue... getting the public outraged enough.

[nicknameless]

22. Those who are running the show can control machines. But they cannot

control thousands of civic-minded citizen counters -- with cameras and the public watching.

A classic example in CA 2004: All of the voting machines were supposed to have state-certified software on them.
But in an audit that followed, NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE example of certified software could be found on the machines.
These were among the ones used in the election that stuck us with Ahhnold. Once the election is over, it is pretty much too late to do anything about it. ... Or more accurately, it's too late for DEMOCRATS to do anything about it.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5021

I see absolutely no reason to trust voting machines. Open software is a positive move, but ultimately, it isn't the answer IMO.

[diva77]

29. Also, the machines are only under warranty for 1-5 yrs. and there is no

more HAVA money to replace them, open source or proprietary.Plus, there still has to be a maintenance contract with every county, which means putting a vendor in every precinct...

precincts are discreet numbers of 1200 voters or less in CA; it's not like we need some over the top technology to count the ballots all of a sudden...I'd say there are other things that need fixing instead (eg media pressure to deliver results immediately, etc.)

[nicknameless]

31. Who thought this was a good idea? ... and why?

I like GuvWurld's proposal to hold those, who are responsible for these machine purchases, personally accountable.

The entire country of Canada hand counted all of their paper ballots in four hours.
Australia took five hours to hand count all of theirs.

I feel like we've been experiencing media pressure to deliver republican "winners" immediately.

[Trillo]

3. I really like this statement:

"I want to look further ahead and study what alternatives there are to relying on proprietary software that can’t be examined and has turned out to be fatally flawed."

[Wilms]

5. I think that statement is code for this...

Open Voting Consortium Mission Statement

The Open Voting Consortium (OVC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of open voting systems for use in public elections.

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org

[nicknameless]

8. I think that statement is code for "The e-voting vendors are lying,

cheating sacks of shit." ... Not an obscure one, either.

;)

[Wilms]

12. Actually, AccuPoll met the VR requirements.

Last February, VR launched a Divestiture Campaign demanding that nine companies that make vote counting machines meet a list of conditions to ensure that our votes are counted properly. These include a voter verified paper ballot, open source code, no staff involvement in partisan elections, and independent analysis of machines.

Well, only one company rose to the challenge and put it all in writing -- "Accupoll is proud to say that we meet all of your demands and that our philosophy and actions demonstrate that we are different than our competitors."

See full letter here.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#092705

[nicknameless]

16. That doesn't change my take on Bowen's statement.

I want to look further ahead and study what alternatives there are to relying on proprietary software that can’t be examined and has turned out to be fatally flawed.”

She obviously isn't referring to AccuPoll. (I've never heard of them.) Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia are among the big offenders.
Regardless, it is nice to see at least one company appear to try and comply with VR conditions.

[Wilms]

20. Gotcha. Here was how I had read it.

"I want to look further ahead and study what alternatives there are to relying on proprietary software that can’t be examined and has turned out to be fatally flawed.”

:)

[Tiggeroshii]

4. Finally

Somebody willing to stand up for us. We need to start making some cals to others ASAP, IMHO

:-)

[msongs]

6. Great to hear the dems in the legislature are awake at last!!!

with a majority in both houses, vote reform should be a slam dunk and arnold will not DARE to veto it.

now to get paper ballots as the ballot of record, and then we will have victory in this matter.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/clark2008.htm

[stickdog]

32. Democracy is not Proprietary! (nt)

[OnionPatch]

33. Did anyone notice

that “Nationwide, only 48% of the people are confident their votes are actually being counted correctly or being counted at all.."

48%....exactly the percentage of the vote Bush *really* received.

[nicknameless]

34. Ha! Good catch.

Um, must just be a coincidence? ;)

[kster]

35. kick.nt