Experts tell Congress U.S. e-voting security is flawed

[kpete]

EE Times: Latest News
Experts tell Congress U.S. e-voting security is flawed
George Leopold
EE Times
(07/19/2006 2:07 PM EDT)

WASHINGTON — Security experts told Congress on Wednesday (July 19) that the federal qualification process for electronic voting machines is flawed.

"We have grave reservations about the safeguards in place with many of the computerized voting technologies being used," Eugene Spafford, chairman of the Association for Computing Machinery's Committee on Public Policy.

"New federal standards and a certification process hold promise for addressing some of these problems, but more must be done to ensure the integrity of our elections in the face of software and hardware errors as well as the possibility of undetectable tampering," Spafford told a joint House hearing.

David Wagner, an associate professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a specialist in information security and electronic voting, went further. "We've seen security defects that allow a single person with insider access and some technical knowledge could switch votes, perhaps undetected, and potentially swing an election," he testified. "These problems should be weeded out by the independent testing process, but it is clear that this system isn't working."

The House hearing considered whether voluntary U.S. standards for voting equipment issued in 2005 are sufficient to improve voting machine security. A recent Government Accounting Office report found inconsistent application of the federal specs.

more at:
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=190700026
and:
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/07/19/ap2891118.html

[HootieMcBoob]

1. Does anybody expect them to do anything about this?

Of course not. Our system of government is totally broken.

[BadGimp]

2. I hear crickets..

eom

[kpete]

3. but what are they saying?

[mkb]

4. Ballot Difficulties

     I don't claim to have immediate solutions for everything,
but I know generally where I stand concerning this topic.
     Trying to be perfect can cause problems, so I think that
the safest way to verify voting results is by hand counting. 
Everyone can benefit.

[kpete]

5. Thanks mkb

and a HUGE pat on the back -

YOU have taken a stand!

Hand Counting - Everyone can benefit!

[PATRICK]

6. Industry perspective

First they were late or didn't care about abuses leaving it up to those with special interests to sell fraudulent claims and scoff at dangers. Then they woke up to the rapidity that crummy software and terrible implementation brought to INEVITABLE software security issues they deal with in all aspects of IT. They woke up ONLY because of activists who managed to penetrate a few people involved with this technology. Most did not care, could not imagine why there should be fraud, then like scientists involved in climatology began to realize they could not complain no matter how many of them tried to talk to someone.

That latter is the stage they are stuck at. Why? They don't want to or can't imagine that their technology is a bad fit for this implementation. To do so would be to open the sore wound of IT security- a nightmare of battling wizards and supreme complexity- and bring the whole industry under suspicion of being a mortal danger to the services they perform. In short, vested interest, vested career, truncated or geekish social responsibility.

So it is with one hand clapping, lips grimacing in a sardonic smile that one reads how they get close to actually saying FRAUD! and never get there, never question why their machines were chosen and how they are used with the darkest most transparent consistency- which our vote tallies no longer have.

They will have as much success as climate scientists. There is no reason that sometime in the tyranny tossed future these guys will be able to really say "I told you so". Not quite for these people showing up at the party with too little too late and not much to offer.

Paper ballots. Computers as a separate balancing check as are exit polls. Separation and balance. Sound familiar? A long time ago.