Baltimore Sun Opinion: Touch-screen voting isn't the right answer

[Wilms]

The author has done a great job framing. Read it. Learn. :applause:

Touch-screen voting isn't the right answer

By John Schneider

John Schneider is a consultant on Internet and data security. His e-mail is [e-mail]

Originally published March 31, 2006

snip

The arguments tend to pit the reliability and safety of one machine against the other and compare the veracity and experience of expert vs. expert. They are earnestly written, articulately defended and, in many cases, factually accurate.

Unfortunately, they are also largely beside the point.

This isn't surprising: There are powerful commercial and political interests vying for the upper hand, with much prestige and profit at stake. Still, the debate has been incorrectly framed, and voters are the poorer for it.

snip

More simply, all computer systems can be rigged or manipulated. It is never a question of "if," only of time or money and the potential payoff. That's why computer science regards security as a process, not a feature. This process has several integral parts, which include multiple layers of intrusion detection and prevention, alerting and, most important, a means to recover from a security failure.

snip

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.voting31mar31,0,1505298.story

[wtmusic]

1. EXACTLY..."paper-verified" or not

Every expert says the same thing. Throw the machines away.

[yowzayowzayowza]

6. Disagree and...

dupe: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x420150

Machines are not the problem; the complete lack of auditing is.

[kster]

7. Decertified, recertified,decertified, recertified decertified, recertified

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/06/govt_voting/

I don't see any problems with these machine neither :sarcasm:

[yowzayowzayowza]

8. Certification is completely meaningless.

The problem is not the machines but rather the complete lack of effective election-time verification of the machines functionality, which is certainly impossible without an audit trail:

"This lack of an adequate audit trail is extremely worrying..."

The expectation of perfect operation of the machines is the issue, not the possibility of error of any sort. As in a hand-count system, trust is earned thru QC verification.

Plz see my comments on the other thread.

[wtmusic]

9. Machines are the problem

Ask Bruce Schneier, who has done security reviews for the NSA and Dept. of Defense, and who considers computerized voting a "horrendously dangerous idea":

http://www.schneier.com/

How many times do audits actually happen? Virtually never. So one little line of code in a machine can throw an election, and there is virtually no chance it will be discovered.

If one person makes a mistake in a manual handcount the effect is minimal.

[yowzayowzayowza]

10. Therein lies the problem:

How many times do audits actually happen? Virtually never.

We certainly would not trust any one person to count the votes. That we implicitly trust machines to count the votes alone unaudited is the issue.

...computerized voting a "horrendously dangerous idea"

Yea, DREs are garbage. Excessive automation introduces too many loop holes. I agree completely. Opscans are not "computerized voting."

If one person makes a mistake in a manual hand count the effect is minimal.

DUers who actually run elections in major cities have shot down the hand count panacea: too many races, too many disparate ballot layouts, etc.

Quite blaming the machines for problems borne of poor automation methods and complete lack of process QC. Machines don't steal elections; PEOPLE DO.

[wtmusic]

11. we agree

OP was referring to touchscreens, or DREs. Throw *those* machines away. The small risk of someone being able to rig an optical scanner is far outweighed by their accuracy.

[yowzayowzayowza]

12. Cool. My problem with the OP is that it suggests...

Opscan due to "recovery plan" rather than implementing reasonable QC audits; yet another step in the right direction that doesn't really solve the problem.

[kster]

2. My Mission read it and learn, I'M GOING IN!

[FogerRox]

3. obviously written by a like mind

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. this is a must read and must forward piece

This guy explains it better than anyone.

Any voting integrity advocates should include this in any
materials sent to skeptics.

[Kurovski]

5. K&R.(no text)