How vandals destroy a touch-screen.

[benburch]

Almost all modern touch-screens are of two types, capacitive glass and resistive glass/plastic sandwiches.

In the capacitive glass touch-screens, the capacitive layer is a film laid over the glass of a CRT or LCD panel, and which is glued directly to that panel to form a hard surface. It is divided into a series of rectangular regions that constrain the placement of on-screen buttons. In addition, capacitive touch-screens cannot be used with a gloved hand, and will also not work in very dry, cold weather where there is little sweat on the fingertip to provide a capacitive coupling to the active layer.

In the resistive touch-screen, the touch-screen mechanism is a glass plate and plastic film layer that us usually just laid over the display screen. The plastic layer is above the glass plate. and requires only pressure at a particular point to complete the circuit which is read out as pair of voltage drops that give an X-Y coordinate. Both the glass layer and the plastic layer are coated with a vapor-deposited layer of Indium-tin-oxide (ITO). This type is much more flexible in its ability to put an active touch region anywhere on the screen and is what most designers prefer. It has its problems though, as it is used, the ITO can get scrubbed off the film layer by people using too much stylus pressure, and also if you exert pressure on two parts of the screen, for example if you lay the side of your hand on the screen while using the stylus, the readout will be moved to a different position than you intended. Also, this sort of touch-screen needs to be calibrated before use, and if the calibration is incorrect will sometimes move touches into places you never intended, and could even cause you to poke one button and have the result be activation of a totally different button on the screen. If you knew what you were doing, you could mis-calibrate such a machine to systematically read out in the wrong spots.

In either sort, the film layer is the achilles heel, and vandals often destroy such machines by scoring the very edge of the screen right at or under the bezel with a sharp object such as a ring or key, destroying the conductivity of the film layer and rendering the machine useless.

Were this done to voting machines by an organized vandalism campaign, the results would be terrible; If the vandals were early voters, nobody could vote on that machine for the remainder of that election day, Were this to be done in districts that favor a particular party, then it is likely that party would lose the election.

So, next primary election, those of you in Democratic districts ought to watch carefully for this sort of organized vandalism.

You've been warned!

[EST]

1. So we have.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Thank you for the warning! n/t

PB

[jody]

3. Thanks. n/t

[Fridays Child]

4. Oh, no!

(bookmarking)

[mojowork_n]

5. Have you forwarded this info?

If you haven't already, BradBlog (I'm not sure of the exact addresses), BlackBoxVoting, and congressman John Conyers have been following these issues very closely.

Also, given the number of volunteers they can mobilize every election day, MoveOn.org would be another good place.

Good research!

[benburch]

6. Zero research involved...

That was all from memory!

Feel free to forward and cross-post this.

[napi21]

7. Do you know....

Also, this sort of touch-screen needs to be calibrated before use, and if the calibration is incorrect will sometimes move touches into places you never intended, and could even cause you to poke one button and have the result be activation of a totally different button on the screen. If you knew what you were doing, you could mis-calibrate such a machine to systematically read out in the wrong spots.

The "places you never intended", are they random, or can that be a way to missdirect one vote for another?

[benburch]

9. Not random.

Systematic. You can predict where.

[napi21]

12. So how can a voter tell?

Is there anything at all that would indicate a problem?

[benburch]

14. Maybe.

If the system confirms for you who you voted for, and gives you the chance to cancel that vote. I've not voted on any of the current machines, so my information is second hand about their human interface.

[karlrschneider]

8. Heh. Heh.

Heh heh heh heh


:evilgrin:

[MelissaB]

10. Have you been playing with a new toy?

I'm wondering if you have these toys yourself?

[benburch]

13. I helped design the world's first wireless PDA.

The Motorola Envoy.

I learned more about touch-screen failures than I ever wanted to know.

[electropop]

16. Hello from a fellow engineer!

I'm an EE, with a fair helping of software development too. Knowing what I know about technology, i would never trust my vote to it, especially not if it's manufactured by Republicans. Thank goodness my precinct uses paper (optical) ballots. Still a question about all layers above that, but at least there is a paper record to go back to.

[benburch]

19. But in most places...

the law does NOT allow recounting those paper records! And they are destroyed.

[electropop]

25. Gee, wonder why that is?

Could it be... THEY WANT TO HIDE THE CHEATING?

:grr:

[benburch]

27. I think you see to the heart of this issue. nt

[BrotherBuzz]

11. So tell me again, how do you corrupt an indelible marking device?

That's just the Luddite in me saying all this techno gizmo electronic voting crap is for the birds. You know what I mean, Vern?

[eppur_se_muova]

15. That's nothing compared to what a Tesla coil would do to the chips inside.

Or a Taser...I'm just sayin'.

[benburch]

17. True!

And a EMP or HERF weapon could destroy them from outside of the polling place.

[SmokingJacket]

18. If vandals did this, they might have to resort to paper ballots

or something.

Sheesh!

[benburch]

20. Yep. But that election would be trashed.

You see, you cannot produce paper ballots the day of the election and just use them! They have to be approved, and the law has to allow paper ballots, and you have to have people in place to count them.

So the best that could happen is that paper ballots would be in place by the NEXT election.

But the situation we have put ourselves in allows a few hundred committed activists to destroy enough machines nationwide to steal a presidential election.

[FogerRox]

22. Older DRe designs like the Sequoia Advantage use push buttons

-----------The Sequoia Advantage DRE uses an interesting blend or technology. Its Central processor is the famed Zilog Z-80 chip, that was introduced around 1975. Originally a (IIRC)2 mghz 64k processor, later versions were upgraded to -IIRC- 6 or 8 mghz. Remember the Commodore 64k computer? Now Jump 10 years to 1985, when the Advantage was designed based on the Z-80 chip.

It is my understanding the the Z-80 chip cant handle a regular operating system like Windows, Firmware must be installed. This is maybe the one good thing about using the Z-80 chip. Anyway- The Advantage DRE uses a large printed paper ballot face, with a sheet of clear plastic over the paper. Underneath these layers are pushbuttons. SO the Advantage uses an older chip and even older technology-- the pushbutton.

What happens is the top row of buttons gets the most use, so the top row needs to be replaced more often. Lacking dilegent maintainance, a failed push button would just not register a vote, and to my knowledge, there is no warning system in the user interface to tell the voter this has happened.

Now this is how, when voting on the Advantage DRE, you can ask for a reboot--- LOL.

Start using the write in ballot feature, its a hand held 12 inch or so keypad w/diplay, attached to a cable/tether. If you make a mistake, and you dont know how to change the entry on the write in ballot device. The only way to change your selection, is for a poll worker to shut the Advantage down-- reboot it.

Oh yeah the Unilect DRE is very similar, pushbuttons too.

[benburch]

23. Good. Those cannot be vandalized in the manner I described.

We have to make sure that the most important feature of a representative democracy is preserved; The Vote. Otherwise we just have a feudal system.

[SmokingJacket]

24. interesting info. thanks! nt

[Touchdown]

39. I vote on those in Denver.

Very easy to vote on, but there's no paper trail, which bothers me. On the buttons. A red light registers your choice and it stays on until the "cast vote" button at the bottom of the machine is pressed. It's a very large green button...the same kind as a video poker choice button, about 1"x3". Once the "cast vote" button is pressed, then all choices on the panel will go off.

The problems with this system is no paper trail, and the paper insert. Like the butterfly ballots, if your choice doesn't line up right, you could be voting for the wrong candidate. They'd chalk it up to a "printing glitch".:eyes:

Voting machines only do counting. That's not real processor intensive. The Motorola Z-80 is perfect for this. What's wrong with using the tech of an old Atari 2600, on some wooden console, with a joystick, tape printer and vote button? All it needs to do is count. Who needs a 64bit processor and a touch screen for that? pubs have small arcade machines on the bars, for $200-400, and they never break. Why should we have a $10,000 machine that's less reliable?

[benburch]

40. Indeed, why use a computer at all?

I voted for the first time on a Mechanical voting machine. On a mechanical machine any fool can look at the machine and determine which register each lever connects to, judges can easily determine that the registers have been zeroed at the start of the process, and tallying a precinct is a matter of having one judge from each party record each register on each machine and then tally them with an adding machine. If the two counts match, the precinct is counted, and the results phoned in to the county.

The mechanical machine had no paper trail, but I didn't feel that it needed one!!!

[Little Star]

21. I am in a very blue district in MA

and we do not have touch screens. I sure hope we never do even in a blue district. However, I feel very concerned for the rest of the citizens who have to worry about such things as vandalism on those screens. Towns and states could end up spending big bucks trying to fix or replace such vandalized machines.

It was very good of you to warn us Ben. Thanks

[FogerRox]

26. Most of the voting machines sold in the last few years will be replaced by

2008, Touchscreens dont last all that long, and the 2002 Voting system Standards will be mandatory by maybe late 2007. I doubt this new equipment will pass muster with the 2002 VSS. You see......... this is how they get jurisdictions to buy twice. Pass HAVA, that says: heres some money, use it by the deadline or lose it. Then make new regs that essentially outlaw the 2-5 year old equipment.

NEAt ehhh-- all the vendors get to sell twice the number of systems.

>wink<

[long_green]

38. a threat to democracy AND a waste of money

what a deal!

[greiner3]

28. Thanks! Another gotcha we have to be on the lookout for;

In Ohio!

[FogerRox]

29. about a 6 billion dollar gotcha, in 2008

[benburch]

30. All that money down the drain.

How many meals would that have bought for the poor?

[FogerRox]

31. yeah I know,

HAVA gave 4 billion out, the locals augmented that with proly 2 billionn more. And then spend another 6-7 billion in 2008.

DOnt get me wrong, wheelchair ramps @ polling locations is great.

[dsc]

32. so why do banks use these?

More than a few banks use touch screen atms. I find it more than a little difficult to believe that they would use something so easily destroyed.

[benburch]

33. Many banks have switched away from touchscreens.

The modern machines are mostly rows of buttons on either side of the screen.

But what is the point in vandalizing a teller machine? What is to be gained other than whatever joy vandalism gives you? Especially since there is almost always a security camera filming you?

In the case of touchscreen machines, what is to be gained is control of a whole country.

[mcscajun]

36. I only became aware of the "gloved hand" issue last month.

When it was bitterly cold and I tried depositing a check at my local ATM. No dice until I removed the glove. I'd never even thought about how the screen worked before that.

[rucky]

34. Poll Watchers: Get there early to keep an eye out for vandals.

Democracy is at stake, here. We can't have any funny business at our polls.

[mcscajun]

35. Horrifying...and very, very difficult to detect.

Hypothetical: The vandal is registered to vote in his/her district, has three minutes allowable in the voting booth to "vote" if he/she wishes, about 30 seconds of which gets used to score the edge of the screen in the fashion benburch describes.

Two or three other voters follow our vandal into the same machine and complain it's not working before anything is done about looking for the problem. By that time, no one remembers which "voter" cast the last working vote.

Plus, the damage is subtle and not easy to see, even if the effects are obvious. So, no vandal gets the blame until it's too late.

UGH. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: UGH.

So, as we can't follow voters into the booth, and no one is going to carefully inspect the touchscreen after each and every voter on a busy Election Day, what should (or CAN) poll watchers do?

[benburch]

37. I can see very little other than trying to remember faces.

All you could do is try to remember the last few people that use each machine so that at least you will have a description when the vandalism is detected and the police are summoned. Unlike a bank ATM where the machine is watched by a camera, the polling place is the only place where Americans have an uncontested right of privacy.