The Science of Voting Machine Technology (July 20, 2004)

[kster]

Testimony of Michael I. Shamos
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the
Census of the U.S. House of Representatives Government Reform Committee
Oversight hearing on “The Science of Voting Machine Technology: Accuracy,
Reliability, and Security,” July 20, 2004


Mr. Chairman: My name is Michael Shamos. I have been a faculty member in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh since 1975. I am also an attorney admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. From 1980-2000 I was statutory examiner of electronic voting systems for both Pennsylvania and Texas and participated in every voting system examination held in those states during those 20 years. In all, I have examined over 100 different electronic voting systems, used to count over 11% of the popular vote of the
United States in the 2000 election.

This hearing is about the science of voting machine technology. There presently is no such field of science, if by science we mean an organized experimental discipline with authoritative principles and published journals. The reason is that until the year 2000 it was difficult to interest scientists in a problem so apparently trivial as counting ballots. As we saw in Florida in 2000, it is not a trivial problem and we desperately need a field of voting science.

However, there is no systematic science of voting machine technology, no engineering journal devoted to the subject, no academic department, nor even a comprehensive textbook. There are no adequate standards for voting machines, nor any effective testing protocols. It is only a set of minimum statutory requirements, public budgets and the law of the marketplace that have shaped the development of voting machines. When a flaw is detected in a voting machine, there is no compulsory procedure for reporting it, studying it, repairing it or even learning from the experience. the voting machine industry is unregulated and it has not chosen to regulate itself. I do
not believe the public will long tolerate such a situation.

While recent newspaper articles and statements by certain computer scientists have shed doubt on the ability of direct-recording electronic machines (DREs) to count votes securely and reliably, it should be noted that in the 25 years these machines have been used in the United States, there has not been a single verified incident of tampering or exploitation of a security weakness. The concerns that have been expressed, and unfortunately taken up with unjustified gusto by the popular press, represent a hypothetical rather than a real threat to the electoral process. Various design flaws and
potential avenues of attack have been identified, and it is important to analyze and repair them, rather than flee to methods of voting that are even less safe.

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Shamos1.pdf

[Wilms]

1. Do we have a DU Dossier on Shamos?

He's kinda dissing reformers concerns about e-voting and VVPAT, too. Though there is a kernal of logic that I can appreciate.

While it may be true that "there has not been a single verified incident of tampering or exploitation of a security weakness", there have been a lot of supicious cases. Further, it doesn't matter whether a mishap is the result of a malfunction, bad source code, malicious source code, error in Ballot Definition, malice during Ballot Definition creation, or an outside hack.


I agree, that there has been too much attention being paid to "a hypothetical rather than a real threat to the electoral process". Other than me and BillBored, I see little discussion around here about the vulnerabilities while Ballot Definition Files are being created. (Go on. Admit it. Some of you may have no idea what I just referred to.)


This snip I'm almost afraid to ask about.

"Because of a development by computer scientist David Chaum, for example, it is now possible to accord each voter the ability, after voting has taken place, to verify that her vote has not only been counted but counted correctly."

Sounds like more lines of code.

[kster]

3. I may have

read that wrong, I was thinking after reading it that "there has not been a single verified incident of tampering or exploitation of a security weakness" Because the problems have always been covered up by the media/government as we see now with the complete silence unless you have a book on the problems that have occurred you can not fix the problems.

For example they found that airbags after being deployed were injuring or killing kids that sat in the front seat of the car. If the media/Gov never mentioned it the kids would still be getting injured or killed, but because the facts were not covered up they where able with that information to study the problem and suggest that kids under twelve should not sit in the front seat and eventually an on off switch for the passenger airbag.

Thats the way I took it.

[Wilms]

5. And it gets worse.

How many times have people been warned about this?



You're actually more at risk in an SUV, solely because of rollover. So what does the public do???





And my favorite...



Not sure what it says, though.


I thought the menace * is was plain to see. But what does the public do??? 45% vote for him and he steals the remaining points.

Sure I'm mad about stolen elections. But I'm more upset about that 45%.

(Hope you liked the graphics, kster. I did it cause I know you dig them. :) )

[Junkdrawer]

6. Mike is a consultant. I worked with him in 1990 on an AI startup.

I left the company because the owner and sole investor was, I believed, engaged in illegal activities that threated to drag me in (and I won an unemployment insurance challenge on those grounds.) When the shady dealings started, Mike was pretty much out of the picture, but I always thought he was a big self-promoter. If the industry wanted a hired gun with credentials that would say just what they wanted for a price, Mike would be perfect.

[Junkdrawer]

7. PS: Check out his statements in this article...

...

Half the states already require VVPATs; 14 other states are considering legislation to use them. Pennsylvania has been one of the few holdouts. And that pleases the local expert employed by the state to test electronic voting machines: Michael I. Shamos, a professor in Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for Software Research International.

“I keep asking, what’s the problem that everyone is trying to solve?” says Shamos. “The problem is the perception, not the reality. How much money do you think the state ought to spend to prevent alien abductions? There is a lot more evidence for alien abductions, if you believe eyewitnesses,” than for fraud in electronic voting. And VVPATS give only a false sense of security, he maintains.

...



http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/archive.cfm?type=Main%20Feature&action=getComplete&ref=5003

[Junkdrawer]

9. On second thought...

Mike is probably positioning himself to be the guy who designs the next voting machine standards. And by showing a predisposition to thinking that vote rigging is highly unlikely, Mike becomes much more appealing to the Industry and Republicans than, say, Dr. Mercuri.

And for the record, while I find his statements comparing election fraud to UFO belief highly suspicious, I have never known Mike to take a bribe.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Shamos is a booster for paperless voting

though he has been critical of the very poor security and coding found on the systems.

He believes a secure, accurate paperless system is possible, making him kind of like a molecular biologist who believes in creationism.

[Peace Patriot]

2. "not been a single verified incident of tampering"--how does he know?

Verified how? The programming of these machines is a "trade secret" and proprietary. In 2004, one third of the country voted with no paper trail whatsoever; the other third had extremely inadequate audit/recount controls. This election system is non-transparent, egregiously so.

How can he make statements about it like this? It's just B.S. Spin.

------

"unfortunately taken up with unjustified gusto by the popular press..."

Where? When? In what publications or broadcasts? By whiich war profiteering corporate news monopoly journalists? I have seen no evidence of "gusto" and, indeed, hardly any coverage of this critically important black-holed story.

B.S. Spin. Talking points.

The guy's a paid shill. I can smell it.

[Wilms]

4. How can he make statements about it like this? Easily. He's right.

Give him his due.

Just as he said, there has "not been a single verified incident of tampering".

Why are you questioning that? :shrug: You should get behind it!


And THEN explain the reason for that is... (Insert your rant hear)


And note, Peace, he said the "POPULAR PRESS"! :evilgrin: Not the MSM! So he's right again! LOL

[kster]

10. Hey, I can go to any

exit poll or Bev Harris thread if I wanted this type of abuse :rofl: