WaPo: Debating the Bugs of High-Tech Voting

[Wilms]

Debating the Bugs of High-Tech Voting

Test of Software in Machines Renews Security Concerns

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Special to The Washington Post

Tuesday, May 30, 2006; Page A15

snip

A coalition of voting rights activists and prominent computer scientists argues that some of the machines are not sufficiently secure against tampering and could result in disputed elections, while voting machine vendors and many election officials say that view is exaggerated.

snip

But the vastly differing assessments of the severity of the problem offered by computer scientists, Diebold and election officials made clear that four years after Congress passed a law to improve the reliability of elections, Americans still lack definitive word on whether the nation's voting machines are secure.

snip

State officials tried to strike a middle ground. "There certainly are potential security vulnerabilities that have arisen," said Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for California's secretary of state. "But you have to be realistic about it: When you're administrating elections, there's a very low risk of any" tampering. :eyes:

snip

Many of the criticisms of voting technology were originally dismissed as exaggerations promulgated by partisans displeased with election results. But the criticisms have been viewed with increasing gravity as prominent computer scientists have rallied behind them. Although it has not been shown that an election was compromised by a security flaw, several elections since 2000, including in this year's primaries, have experienced problems with the technology that have delayed results.

snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900816.html

[wtmusic]

1. They make it sound as though computer scientists are divided

They're not. There is a solid consensus that they are dangerous as hell.

The only people who support the damn things are those who make them, or those who already own them.

[EFerrari]

2. Or those, like Jennifer, whose job it is to promote them.

Being a liar is hard work. I wonder how much she gets for that. :eyes:

[wtmusic]

3. Right-o. nt

[Patsy Stone]

4. I didn't get that

"A coalition of voting rights activists and prominent computer scientists argues that some of the machines are not sufficiently secure against tampering and could result in disputed elections, while voting machine vendors and many election officials say that view is exaggerated."

Voting rights activists and scientists vs. Diebold and election officials. Not scientists vs. scientists.

In fact, the only scientist they mention as having said that with some "fixes" it could be okay, is second-guessing the motives of Diebold.

Also, the point of the article is:

Americans still lack definitive word on whether the nation's voting machines are secure.

ed: more

[Wilms]

5. Thank You, Patsy.

Heck. Even Shamos is raising an eyebrow.

:hi:

[Patsy Stone]

6. You know it's bad when...

:hi: and recommended.

[kpete]

7. just saw that

exaggerations???!!!???
excuse me...

[Patsy Stone]

8. We're just a bunch of screamers

and partisan hacks. :hi:

[EFerrari]

9. The truth is always in the projections with these guys.

It's remarkable.

:)

[glitch]

14. Yes. It really is remarkable. nt

[Kurovski]

10. K&R(nt)

[slay]

11. Everyone should want fair elections - that should be the point

And we will NEVER know if our elections are fair unless the ballots are hand counted or a certain percent are chosen at RANDOM to be counted by hand to see if the totals match that of the machines. The history of Diebold, ES&S and other voting machine makers should make ANYONE worried that our last two elections have been indeed been rigged. :(

[ariellyn]

12. .

[Kip Humphrey]

13. W-H-I-T-E-W-A-S-H!

"A coalition of voting rights activists and prominent
computer scientists argues that some of the machines

SOME of the machines??? SOME of the machines???

How about ALL of them!

Thank You, Washington "Serve Our Nazi Masters" Post!

[MelissaB]

15. I'm joining the waive.

I didn't see this thread before I posted a dupe. Sorry! :hi:

[rman]

16. It's not bugs, it's back doors and manipulation of the machines.

In short: election fraud.

Whitewash indeed.

[Amaryllis]

17. So who you gonna believe? Computer scientists or vendors and election

officials with ties to vendors?