Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

U.S. Bars Lab From Testing E-Voting Machines 123

Posted by kdawson from the watching-the-watchers dept.
joshdick writes to point out a NYTimes story on the decertification of Ciber Inc. from testing electronic voting systems. It will come as a surprise to no-one here on Slashdot that experts say the deficiencies of the laboratory suggest that crucial features like the vote-counting software and security against hacking may not have been thoroughly tested on many machines now in use. From the article: "A laboratory that has tested most of the nation's electronic voting systems has been temporarily barred from approving new machines after federal officials found that it was not following its quality-control procedures and could not document that it was conducting all the required tests... The federal Election Assistance Commission made this decision last summer, but the problem was not disclosed then... Ciber... says it is fixing its problems and expects to gain certification soon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Bars Lab From Testing E-Voting Machines More

U.S. Bars Lab From Testing E-Voting Machines

Comments Filter:

  • Hacking Democracy anyone? (Score:3, Funny)

    by spammeister ( 586331 ) <fantasmoofrccNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:15AM (#17457434)
    Never in a million years did I expect this to happen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by setirw ( 854029 )
      Not "hacking democracy," per se, merely concealing the fact that democracy can be hacked...

      • But why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:53AM (#17457904) Journal
        It's never been explained, to my satisfaction, why the use of paper ballots (or at least paper TRAILS), had to be replaced with the computer-voting machines.

        And not just replaced, but REPLACED RIGHT NOW with very little public input and negligible testing. Whenever I see such a huge rush to change something that's worked remarkably well for generations I get suspicious. When I see such a huge rush to change something that's worked for generations without any meaningful dialogue about whether it really should be done, I get even more suspicious.

        When I see that same huge rush to change something upon which our Democracy depends, and that's been open to public scrutiny and has worked well for generations and replace it with some closed-source stuff that's not been sufficiently tested and the CEO of the company who provides said closed-source, easily hacked systems is also a major contributor to one of the political parties and who GUARANTEES DELIVERING A VICTORY TO THAT PARTY, I simply assume that the whole thing is pretty goddam crooked.

        • Re:But why? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by natoochtoniket ( 763630 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @10:17AM (#17458224)

          It's never been explained, to my satisfaction, why the use of paper ballots (or at least paper TRAILS), had to be replaced with the computer-voting machines.

          It's really very simple. Paper records (such as ballots) are the evidence that can be used to verify the results of an election, or to prove when election rigging has occurred. If you want to rig elections without getting caught, it is essential that there be no evidence. Hence, the paper had to be eliminated from the process.

          The only people who oppose paper ballots are the ones who want to rig elections.

          • "The only people who oppose paper ballots are the ones who want to rig elections."

            Oh yeah because paper ballots were used so well to confirm the Florida elections in 2000 and sparking a constitutional crisis.

            "Ooh lookee, it's half a punched chad... that's definitely a vote for my guy"
            "No it's not, it's obviously a mistake, he voted for my guy."
            "Look! This is a clearly punched ballot for Pat Buchanan! This is obviously an incorrect vote."

            Yeah... paper ballots solve ALL the problems...
            • I don't think that all paper ballots are punch card types. Paper ballots are still used where I live. They are pretty large and cover both sides. You use a marker, it's pretty obvious if you meant to vote for someone or something, it's then read by an optical scanner. It's quick and I could expect cost effective and you have a paper trail. You only need some private tables and marker to mark your votes. The optical scanner scans the ballot quickly and will reject the ballot if it's not correct, or so I unde

            • Re:But why? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @11:28AM (#17459250)
              "Oh yeah because paper ballots were used so well to confirm the Florida elections in 2000 and sparking a constitutional crisis."

              I consider paper ballots as where the person actually makes a mark with ink on a piece of paper, not some weird misconceived contraption where you punch holes in the paper with a poker. By that way of thinking even if the computer makes the actual mark you would still be calling it a paper ballot. Pen and paper, is it that inefficient that we are scrambling to get away from it?

              Is it so hard to conceive of an imperfect world where people don't want to play by the rules, that election fraud is relegated to just another unfounded conspiracy theory in you mind?

              I do think the motivations of some are very suspicious, but I think the motivations are probably more based on the desire to make money on voting equipment. That voting machines make election fraud easier and nearly undetectable maybe just a side benefit.

              Oh and were those hanging chads really worse than a virtual electronic ballot? At least the malfunction in the system was detectable. In a computer, errors in programming or hardware, either intentional or not, would be somewhat abstracted from the final result. Personally, I would prefer that both I and the elected person know that there is some doubt as to the intentions of the electorate versus allowing a elected official to hold office without knowing that his or her election was the result of some funny business.

              But yes, some people would rather live in a society without integrity where the conflicts and corruption is ignored for as long as possible. Short term peace at the expense of longer term integrity.

              • "Is it so hard to conceive of an imperfect world where people don't want to play by the rules, that election fraud is relegated to just another unfounded conspiracy theory in you mind?."

                Is it so hard to realize that the paper ballots/trails are just as susceptible to election fraud as electronic ballots such that electronic voting is just another unfounded conspiracy theory in your mind?

                "I consider paper ballots as where the person actually makes a mark with ink on a piece of paper, not some weird misconcei

                • Re:But why? (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @03:49PM (#17464366)

                  Is it so hard to realize that the paper ballots/trails are just as susceptible to election fraud as electronic ballots such that electronic voting is just another unfounded conspiracy theory in your mind?

                  Yes, it is. Election fraud is much harder to pull off when it involves someone actually putting pen to paper. Logistics are important to election fraud because it has to involve as few people as possible and be very uncomplicated to assure success. Pressing a few buttons on a computer and having a voting history destroyed or writing a program that simulates vote casting is much easier and importantly could involve fewer people than physically creating individual frauds of paper ballots.

                  Oh well then, let me update my rant:

                  "This circle is half colored in. Obviously the voter intended to vote for my candidate."
                  "No, it's not completely filled in. Therefore this ballot is in error and doesn't count."
                  "This guy voted for Pat Buchanan, obviously his vote is incorrect."

                  Yes, the form of paper ballots matter. In my town we do well enough with having to connect an arrow with a magic marker. No it is not perfect and mistakes in "interpretation" could be made during a recount even asking people to make a clear mark. But the important thing is that there are clearly defined criteria for counting a vote that the average person can meet within a human margin of error.

                  My point to all this is that I voted in a county that had mechanical voting machines for nearly 50 years. They didn't have a paper trail. The only thing that was updated was a mechanical counter inside the machine that kept the tallies. These machines were opened during the day to check the counts (at which point they could also be tampered with) and at the end of the day these counts were read off and phoned to the central office then the counts were reset.

                  That would be just as bad as any other virtual ballot system, but I doubt you are describing the story in full. I too have voted on the machines with the little switches and the big lever, but I recall that there was also a roll of paper where a mark was made for each vote cast, which could be recounted if needed. I have nothing against this method, or for that matter computer ballots, as long as there is a physical record of the actual vote. What was lacking in the machine you describe, was a way for the voter to verify that the vote was recorded the way he or she voted.

                  What's the difference between the mechanical and the evoting ones? Ultimately nothing. Ultimately you have to trust the people running the system because otherwise Democracy means nothing because you don't trust your fellow man to properly vote or check your vote. I realize that's difficult when Bush is trying to orchestrate a coup to overthrow Democracy, especially after all those Diebold machines gave the vote to Republicans in this last mid-term election. But hey, that's how it goes.

                  The point is that you have to trust most people in a Democracy to do the right thing, but you can't trust everyone. The system must be designed so that individual corruption does not so easily corrupt the whole system. Computer balloting, especially without a voter verified paper trail, threatens this principal. In the past sure you could have a vast conspiracy involving hundreds of people strategically positioned at polling places to gum up the works in your opponents territory... so that what it took was a fairly elaborate dirty tricks outfit to steal an election. Now you have 5 or 10 people that know a thing or two about computers and find some vulnerability in the system and hack the election in a wholesale way.

                  Oh and it also becomes much more believable when the election machines stop working in a particularly busy district and the long lines reduce turnout and votes never even get cast. Much harder to justify those long turnout reducing lines when all someone needs is a pen and a surface to write on.

                  Though e

              • "I consider paper ballots as where the person actually makes a mark with ink on a piece of paper,"

                Who counts the votes anyway? I still think any election can be stolen given enough economic power, and the corporations have long since had enough money to put people in their pockets. I don't buy that paper (marking a paper with a pen) is more secure then digital elections, you could do digital elections provided there were some other secure digital method to verify votes... I always thought satellite data s

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by bigpat ( 158134 )

                  i.e. who you vote for should be public knowledge, it's insane that a person should have to hide their vote in a country with 300,000,000 people.

                  Well, if we did away with voter anonymity, then electronic voting would be the best thing to do since anyone could count up the votes and see who won. Though, I think coercion and vote buying are legitimate risks. Even peer pressure is a form of coercion because of the real risk of social ostracization. People will often go along with whatever faction or group they associate most with rather than making an informed choice about the individual based upon their own values. Something that allows people to a

            • Thus the emphasis on paper trails rather than the punch card paper ballots.

              The thing that most confuses me about the arguements I have heard for why paper trails can't be created is that it is too hard for a company (Diebold) to create machines that make a paper trail, even though this company's primary product (that I have seen) is ATM machines that users require to make a paper trail for.

              Yes, the punch cards were difficult to verify at times, but replacing them with something that can't be verified

            • That all depends on your definition of "paper". (thank you, Slick Willy!)

              Florida's election system (pronounced: floor-ih-duh) approved the use of punch-cards in the General Election, primarily for their robust and elegant tendency towards ambiguity.

              This tendency was turned into a benefit for the now-incumbent, for when the voting system contains ambiguity, who arbitrates the final vote? That's right, the Electoral Commission. (a.k.a. brother Jeb)

              For any self-respecting and honorable Electoral Commissi

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

                It's not so much the case where "that's all they had"... be real! That's what the Electoral Commission chose to use. There's a promising new system that implements a physical form of cryptography. Let's see if the Electoral Commission comes up with a good reason not to use it.

                Vote buying - "Attention all employees: If you can show that you voted Republican, you will receive a $100 bonus."

                Vote coercion - "Attention all employees: As an American company, we need to support American values. If you cannot sho

                • If you followed the link, you would find that the cryptography ballot does not necessarily show how one has voted. (unless you have both parts)

                  True, you would have a piece of paper with marks on it, however there would be no indication whatsoever of which votes counted for which ballot items/candidates. The on-line verification would only show the status of the individual ballot, (counted/not-counted/disqualified) with no indication of how the individual's ballot was cast.

                  The system truly mitigates the

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )
          I guess you don't remember 2000's election.. a large part of the push for electronic voting machines (and the Help America Vote Act, aka HAVA) was claims that older systems were inaccessible or misleading. Southern Florida's butterfly ballots, locales without Braille versions of the ballot, and others were seen as disenfranchising or miscounting votes. Those -- on both sides of the aisle -- who pushed for the change clearly did not think it through when setting deadlines.
        • While I fully agree with you...what can we the citizens do about it? I guess our only hope is that the Democrats take them to task. Unfortunately they're politicians too so who knows if THAT will ever happen. And lets say we found evidence of tampering, how do we handle that situation? The damage is already done.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by forkazoo ( 138186 )

          It's never been explained, to my satisfaction, why the use of paper ballots (or at least paper TRAILS), had to be replaced with the computer-voting machines.

          And not just replaced, but REPLACED RIGHT NOW with very little public input and negligible testing. Whenever I see such a huge rush to change something that's worked remarkably well for generations I get suspicious. When I see such a huge rush to change something that's worked for generations without any meaningful dialogue about whether it really shoul

        • Right on, Brother. Better machines for punching the paper to avoid Florida-style fiascos? Absolutely. Better machines to count the paper? Absolutely. Machines to tally the votes as we go and then cross-check the paper so they can flag up boxes of votes that go missing? Sure, provided we keep that data well under wraps until the polling stations are closed. But machines to replace the paper? No, sorry, not a good idea. I don't think the people pushing this stuff understand just how deeply many norma

        • Re:But why? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2NO@SPAMearthshod.co.uk> on Thursday January 04, 2007 @11:33AM (#17459336)
          Only in the USA could a corporation's secrets be valued more highly than the Democratic Process.

          Any voting system requires Universal Comprehensibility in order to be trustworthy. After all, how can you trust something that you cannot even understand? The use of Open Source Software is not enough: it restricts the set of people who can understand the system to competent programmers.

          Elections should not depend upon any technology that is beyond the understanding of a school leaver with passing grades. Pencil, paper, slotted boxes, wire seals and hand-counting have been used successfully since democracy was first invented. Everybody can understand how they work -- and, just as crucially, all the potential failure modes.

          What's more, using complex machinery doesn't change the failure modes, nor the need for vigilance. If the voting machines use a paper journal roll, someone still has to inspect each and every machine to make sure that the take-up spool is empty at the beginning of the election, and certify same by fitting a tamper-evident seal which prevents the machine from accepting votes. How is that any better than someone checking that each and every ballot box is empty, and sealing the slot with a tamper-evident seal?
        • Well... if the CEO had rigged the voting system, then he wouldnt have to contribute - would he? ;)

          seriously i think you're right, the systems used in such a monumetal event as elections should be transperant and not hidden away like somethings fishy

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by cbacba ( 944071 )
          If there is a legitimate reason, it's to get ballots counted as fast and accurately as possible. Remember, this is politicos, bureaucrats and government employees involved so THINKING is oftimes NOT even an option. Hence, there is no such thing as thinking outside of the box. Add in lots of attention and goodies from lobbyiests and in the case of some, a desire to make the public happy - and there were many unhappy people over the florida debacle that was so hyped in the media and you have the opportunit
    • ...early in '06. There were only three labs approved to test voting machines, Ciber, Wyle and Systest.

      Ciber and Wyle are in Huntsville AL, right next to the Redstone arsenal. They mostly do military gear testing, voting systems are a sideline.

      Systest is in Colorado and *might* be the most competent of the bunch. Wyle and Ciber were the two used most by Diebold.

      All three labs were invited to testify in California. Ciber was a no-show.

      The other two come across as complete loons, Wyle especially. There is

  • Personal experience with Ciber (Score:5, Interesting)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:16AM (#17457440)
    Having worked with Ciber before myself, I'm not surprised. They basically leech off government agencies foolish enough to hire them. They charge a lot of money to essentially tell government agencies what they want to hear (which, in this case was "The e-voting machines are fine"). Their actual research methodology is, shall we say, "suspect."

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by kfg ( 145172 )
      They charge a lot of money to essentially tell government agencies what they want to hear

      A girl's gotta make a living.

      Their actual research methodology is, shall we say, "suspect."

      All you need to succeed in research is a well documented methodology; and if you can forge that you've got it made.

      KFG

  • The real question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:18AM (#17457460) Homepage Journal
    The real question is whether or not Ciber were following their procedures, but why they were not. There should be a full-scale investigation into things like, oh, maybe how much money has passed between Diebold and Ciber, and how much stock ownership Diebold has in Ciber and vice-versa. If you want to know why things happen the way the do, one merely needs to follow the money.

  • so its a problem of documentation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bhalter80 ( 916317 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:23AM (#17457504)
    Basically they've been bared from approving new machines until they add a step to their test cycle called "fabricate documents". Unless officials are overseeing (actively watching) the testing process there is no way to determine which tests were run and passed and which tests simply were documented as passing.

  • WTF? (Score:3, Funny)

    by s31523 ( 926314 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:27AM (#17457568)
    All the news about voting machines being buggy, insecure, etc. is just ridiculous! Am I missing something terribly complicated in the requirements for how these machines should function? For shits sake they are glorified vending machines! Push A1 and you get a Hershey chocolate bar and H5 gets you a bag of BBQ chips. Now just replace Hershey chocolate bar with candidate A and BBQ chips with candidate B. Seriously, WTF is going on with these things!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by techpawn ( 969834 )
      B7... DAMNIT! I wanted Skittles not the Republican...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dorkmaster Flek ( 1013045 )
      WTF is going on is that when you push A1, you physically get a Hershey chocolate bar. With electronic voting machines, you get nada. Zilch. Nothing. Diddly squat. Oh, except for a little screen that says you voted for Candidate A, but how do you know? You didn't mark off a piece of paper that can be verified by hand. Your vote is now a series of bits somewhere in the magical land of cyberspace. Electronic voting only works with a verifiable trail, and that basically defeats the purpose of the electo

      • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by simm1701 ( 835424 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:39AM (#17457724)
        Paper print out for voter's records, paper print out on a roll visible behind safety glass screen that the voter can verify which is archived for verification - its not difficult - shop tills (checkouts) have been doing the same thing for years.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by OldeTimeGeek ( 725417 )
          The Sequoia electronic voting machines that some of the California precincts use can do this, but only after you've already cast your vote. Unfortunately, the ballots have so many items sometimes that you can't show all of the results in the same window without making type that so small that it's unreadable without a magnifying lens.
          • Here in Missouri we have a similar system as well (using ES&S systems). These are a bit better than the ones you describe since as soon as you make a selection it prints to the paper and displays it to the voter. As I didn't have any issues with my vote I didn't have to cancel on any, so I am not sure how it handles that. But this is the best way, IMO, of doing it.
        • >Paper print out for voter's records

          And the voter's abusive husband's scrutiny, and the records of the person trying to buy the vote, and any union, employer, or church that wants to coerce the voter. The need to keep the vote anonymous and secret seriously complicates the job of designing a voting system.

          • And the voter's abusive husband's scrutiny, and the records of the person trying to buy the vote, and any union, employer, or church that wants to coerce the voter. The need to keep the vote anonymous and secret seriously complicates the job of designing a voting system.

            Isn't this why the parent suggested displaying it behind a safety glass screen? I don't think the point was to allow a voter to take a receipt home with them. Rather, it's intended to let them confirm that a correct paper record has also

    • "Push A1 and you get a Hershey chocolate bar and H5 gets you a bag of BBQ chips. Now just replace Hershey chocolate bar with candidate A and BBQ chips with candidate B. Seriously, WTF is going on with these things!"

      The Elephant Bar is supposed to drop right down but the Donkey Chips are supposed to get hung up, and if they can't do that simple thing they'll find another no-bid contractor to do it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mpathetiq ( 726625 )
      I wanted a candy bar which was "HH" so I hit H twice, and fuckin' potato chips came out! They had an "HH" button! Christ - you gotta let me know! I didn't learn my AA BB CC's god god dammit dammit.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Viper Daimao ( 911947 )
        I like when you reach into the vending machine to grab your candy bar, that flap goes up to block you from reaching up. That's a good invention. Before that, it was hard times for the vending machine owners. "What candy bar are you getting?" "That one, and every one on the bottom row!"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Arivia ( 783328 )
      What happens if you press 5F like they always tell you not to? Does the machine name you as the landslide winner?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Thansal ( 999464 )
      Down the hall from my office is a vending machine. The screen is fubar, and it is mostly empty. However every so often it gets restocked. The fun part is that if you start punching in random numbers it will start running the coils. The only reason there is anytihng left in it is that you can't get some of the coild to run at all. Yet they keep on restocking it!

      Now, in this case all that happens is the idiot who ones the machine is out a nice chunk of cash (especialy as he keeps on restocking it). If t
    • The problem is that those BBQ chips don't get billions and Hershey's get zip when you choose H5 instead of A1. Worse, you can immediately check whether the machine is actually doing what you want. If they want to trick you because they have a surplus of Hersheys and give you Hersheys, no matter what you push, you'll notice. Immediately. And you will complain.

      With voting machines, on the other hand, you, the user, have no way at all to determine whether those machines actually do what you say. That is the di

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )
      All the news about voting machines being buggy, insecure, etc. is just ridiculous! Am I missing something terribly complicated in the requirements for how these machines should function? For shits sake they are glorified vending machines! Push A1 and you get a Hershey chocolate bar and H5 gets you a bag of BBQ chips. Now just replace Hershey chocolate bar with candidate A and BBQ chips with candidate B. Seriously, WTF is going on with these things!

      Good point, it's not hard to make these machines work right.
      • Tell me... HOW do you know the ATM machines are secure? Did Diebold let you personally examine one of their machines? Did a bank let you examine the method by which it communicates with said ATM? Just like with voting, the only reason you think the ATM machine is secure is that the ATM manufacturer and the bank (both of whom have a vested interest in having you think it's secure) tell you it is.

        The only way you can verify that YOUR ATM transactions are correct (not necessarily secure, just correct) is

    • Is it like when the buttons are messed up, I vote for a Hershey bar and end up with Dick Cheney stuck between the vending door? I've had that happen twice now in 8 years...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by sasdrtx ( 914842 )
      I think it has something to do with not letting the fat guy buy 50 chocolate bars, and leave you no choice...

  • Title misleading (Score:4, Informative)

    by sjf ( 3790 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:39AM (#17457726)
    I'm sure theres nothing stopping them from testing the machines, what they've been prevented from doing is approving them.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by KORfan ( 524397 )

      I'm sure theres nothing stopping them from testing the machines, what they've been prevented from doing is approving them.


      They can even approve them if they want, it's just that their approval doesn't count for anything.

  • And the net real-world effect will be...? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maidopolis ( 197345 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:39AM (#17457728)
    I wonder whether this decertification will cause anyone to wonder about the advisedness of using these very same voting machines in elections?

    After all, we would not want to use untested electronic equipment in other crucial areas of life, like medical equipment. Why allow them to run/determine elections?

  • You get what you ask for (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There is most likely more information to this article that is not included. My concerns are....

    1. Cyber has been known for a long time as a "body shop". They have never been known as a certified testing lab.
    2. What was to be provided in the Statement of work?
    3. Is the customer looking at Certification and Accreditation with light security testing for the purpose of having an agency signed ATO or ITO or Common Criteria (EAL)ISO standard 15408 certified product. This is a huge difference as the first may just

  • Bigger problem -- waterfall process (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GGardner ( 97375 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @09:47AM (#17457842)
    Even bigger than the immediate problems is the assumption that the waterfall method works for testing the correctness and security of software systems. Let's say that this testing organization finds a serious security problem with the already "finished" system, one that can't be quickly and easily fixed? What then? There will be huge pressure to force a quick fix in place. Instead, the security audit should happen in parallel with design and development, so security problems can be found and fixed closer to their commission.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aadvancedGIR ( 959466 )
      No, what you are saying can work for internal validation, but here, we are talking about official certification.
      1- it has a meaning only if it is performed on the exact system that will be delivered.
      2- it absolutelly needs to be performed by an independant structure (they don't work for the audited manufacturer and have no financial interest in either aproving or rejecting the audited item).

      Of course, it brings a less efficient process, but if those rules are not respected, the real reaction to the discover

  • Outsourcing certification makes no sense. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @10:02AM (#17458010) Homepage Journal
    OK, the government should not be in the business of designing and manufacturing equipment.

    But why outsource the certification of equipment? This is precisely the kind of task that a government bureaucracy is best suited for: you have a routine task that is done by established rules and procedures. It's hard to see how a private company could outperform a government agency at apply a set of standards with unforgiving rigidity. The problem with government processes is that even good people working in them (of which there are many) are hampered by the bureaucracy's rules and culture, which limit the scope of individual initiative and judgment. In this case it would be a good thing.

    The hard thing in the whole process is creating the certification standards. Here there is considerable use for consultants from academia and business.

    What this suggests to me is that there aren't really standards. It looks like they just took the whole mess and swept it under the rug, letting the vendors select a sham certification organization.

    This is an abdication of an important responsibility the government has. Not just to ensure free and fair elections, but to make sure it spends our money responsibly.

    • I have to disagree with this arguement. The government is best situated to audit the tests, rather than test and audit. Otherwise you are left with two options:
      1) One oversized agency that tests equipment X and then 'audits' those tests.
      2) Two government agencies, one that tests the equipment and another that audits those tests, both vying for the same appropriations.

      The way it is set up with one government agency set up to define tests and audit them and given the appropriations to hire companies to ru

    • I've said it before but we really ought to be looking at the Nevada Gaming comission Rules. These rules describe the level of security that we should demand from the process. They are almost as stringent as the standards for nuclear power plant safety and mining equipment. I'm not blowing smoke: I've got IEC 61508, NUREG CR-6463, and DO-178B on my shelf and I still say, "See Nevada Gaming Commission's Technical Standards For Gaming Devices and On-Line Slot Systems." http://www.gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/ [nv.gov]

  • Despite the fact that it is an unpopular word and will probably make me sound like a nut I say Conspiracy.

  • What's the point? (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by bmajik ( 96670 )
    People are up in arms about a company that does software QA work not following its own procedures when analyzing voting machines?

    Why?

    Irrespective of who gets elected, they're not going to act on your behalf anyway.

    Sorry to be a bit cynical about this, but voting machines are not how elections are being "stolen".
    • Actually, you're being the parametric opposite of cynical.

      Main Entry: cynical
      Pronunciation: 'si-ni-k&l
      Function: adjective
      1 : CAPTIOUS, PEEVISH
      2 : having or showing the attitude or temper of a cynic : as a : contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives b : based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest
      - cynically /-k(&-)lE/ adverb
      synonyms CYNICAL, MISANTHROPIC, PESSIMISTIC mean deeply distrustful. CYNICAL implies having a sneering disbelief in s

  • even if they did test, it would be of minimal use (Score:3, Informative)

    by rakerman ( 409507 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @10:13AM (#17458172) Homepage Journal
    Almost all the required testing is about machine performance and durability. Very little of the testing has anything to do with hardware or software security.

  • Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)

    by EQ ( 28372 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @10:16AM (#17458210) Homepage Journal
    RTFA! Ciber is not banned from TESTING, but from certifying the machines as properly tested. This is due to Ciber not properly performing the tests, including completing the proper paperwork and observing the safeguards that ensure the tests are accurate. A better headline would be "Government Halts E-Voting Machine Certification - Testing is inadequate"

    Sheesh. Come on /. Editors, you should at least *rad* the linked article you are posting and put a *proper* headline on it, rather than the misleading inflammatory crap that you used. KDawson proves yet again that he is an utter boob when it comes to editorial selection and headlines. Time to fire his ass.

    • "you should at least *rad* the linked "

      And I should READ rather than just spellcheck my posts. "rad" apparently is a properly spelled word; LOL!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 )
      Ciber is not banned from TESTING, but from certifying the machines as properly tested.

      That's like saying that if the government decided to quit allowing people to drive Fords, it wouldn't be banning Ford from making automobiles.

      Explain why anyone would have Ciber test their equipment if Ciber can't certify it?
    • It's been (sadly) established that /. cares more about getting as many clicks as possible rather than accuracy... The obfuscation, and outright lies the editors use makes this place the geek Fox 5 news, which is rather depressing.
    • I submitted this article, and I used the exact same headline that The New York Times used. If you've got a problem with that headline, you can take it up with the copy desk of The New York Times, not me, kdawson or anyone at Slashdot.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by EQ ( 28372 )
        Well, then the NYT put a misleading headline in there. Were I to submit it, I'd have a different title suggested.

        But I'm not surprised by that. They have been innacurate at best quite often over the past few years. Neither left nor right, but simply wrong. Sulzburg is destroying that paper, its a shame.

  • Smash them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by demo9orgon ( 156675 ) on Thursday January 04, 2007 @10:35AM (#17458458) Homepage
    If the machines and their code are still obfuscated by the next election then the machines should be destroyed.

    If the government and it's anointed tools aren't up to the job then it's the duty of the citizens to take care of the problem. It's why we have the right to bear arms. It's why Thomas Jefferson's memorial has such pithy inscriptions. We sadly, currently, live in exactly the situation the founding fathers foresaw.

    If the only effective protest is the destruction of the tools of misrepresentation, and if people are willing to die for their freedom and to protect their country and their constitution there shouldn't be any problem. We should fight the threats at home before exporting our expertise to damage others abroad at the behest of corrupt industries. Our politicians have been funded/emplaced by the very companies who seek to profit the most from a muddled vote. If voting is our one sure way of getting a message across then it needs the same kind of protection that the Constitution requires. It requires and demands the right of the citizenry to implement deadly force to secure it's own voice.

    With the long lines and the availability of floors and blunt objects in polling places it shouldn't take more than an hour after polling facilities open to accomplish the task nation-wide.

    And to all those citizens who think this isn't the solution, please reply with one that's rooted in reality, and not some "hugs and tea" fascimilie of reality.

    Cheers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chihowa ( 366380 )
      And what next? You have to have more to your plan, no? If this happens across the country, National Guard (those who are left in this country) and police with M16s will pour out into the streets and massive beatings and riots will ensue. So what is the goal and what are the consequences of this? If this happens early enough in the election day and few ballots are cast, will the government declare martial law? You're proposing what amounts to a violent uprising. I'm all for the removal of those stupid
      • What more does there need to be than for a group of patriotic citizens at every polling place to do what they must?

        We are supposed to have a proud history of resistance in this country to injustice and control.

        As always, the number of citizens greatly outnumbers the forces of control in government.

        The citizens are ultimately responsible for how much their country resembles a prison camp.

        Statistically, the United States is the largest prison camp in the world.

        If people can challenge other voters in the line

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by maxume ( 22995 )
      Good luck with that. The system is corrupt because people care a lot more about being distracted by shoes and sports and beer and drugs than they do about freedom.

      You can lead a horse to water(the founding of our nation), but you can't make him drink(it isn't working nearly as well as it could).

      There is a disturbing trend to ignore the fact that our nation was founded with liberty as its central ideal; liberty that included freedom from control by the majority. Democracy was never the best system, it was si
    • and not some "hugs and tea" fascimilie of reality.

      Actually, I think that something along the lines of "Boston Tea Party [wikipedia.org]" might be appropriate in this situation. It's time to stand up for what is right, people!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by davek ( 18465 )
      Wow. This may be the first time I've ever been convinced that the tech community does indeed have the right, even the DUTY, to commit an act of civil disobedience.

      I wasn't born by 1969, so I didn't get my rioting chance :)

      -dave
    • Hack them

      If enough people with sufficient tools and expertise agree to totally bork these machines on election day so bad that, when the votes are tallied, it's painfully obvious that they have been tampered with (say, negative votes, or clearly far more total votes than the total population), you'll have a genuine catastrophe on your hands.

      Although a few machines might get damaged by your approach, the police or even national guard will see to it that the majority of machines are not damaged. However, if
  • With all of the problems of e-voting, and the lesser problems of paper ballot voting, I think it has become obvious that what we need is secure tallying, not secure voting. We're pretty good at getting people to properly mark up a ballot, hanging chads notwithstanding. Counting them up seems to be the source of problems. Whether is poll workers stuffing boxes or throwing them in the river, or electronic machines silently changing scores, counting is the issue.

    Voting boils down to this: we want each legitim
  • I used to be ashamed of our technology on election day, but in light of news over the past several years, it really does seem to be effective. Paper, golf pencil, large 'X', thousands of volunteers to do the counting. Nothing to explain to voters, no fear of technology. Of course there's always the "people" element... corruption can only be reduced (hopefully) by technology, not prevented. Just my $.02.
  • This past election cycle I was very impressed by my states handling of elections. They have reaffirmed their commitment to paper ballots and optical scanners. They have even gone so far as to buy machines that would fill in the paper ballots for disabled persons using touch screen technology.

    I'm a geek. I loves my shiny bits of technology BUT when it comes to voting I just feel safer with something tried, true and an audit trail.
  • And that's quite like the problem some of the ... let's say less democratic states were and are in: If you can't trust the way your government came into power, you will not trust your government. If you don't trust your government, you will not support it. If you don't support your government, you'll work against it. If you work against your government, you work against your country.

    In other words, not allowing those machines to be tested is about as unpatriotic as you can get.

    Apologies, my irony tags are i

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      Try reading the article first. The gov't is stopping them from certifying the machines because they are not following protocol. If they ignored this problem, then you would have a reason to doubt them (on this issue).

  • I've heard the debate go both ways about the pros and cons of electronic voting systems vs traditional ballots. Of course, each has their vulnerabilities.

    If electronic voting machine developers are so bent on eliminating the paper trail, what about an electronic log that's designed with a physical limitation, such as one-time write memory? The machine would just burn a log entry after each voter finished voting. When you're done, you have a non-rewriteable memory storage device that reads something li

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close