Congressman Conyers: NY Times on Diebold

[cal04]

Two very good stories on electonic voting appeared in the New York Times this weekend. In case you missed them, here are some highlights.

Officials Wary of Electronic Voting Machines


“I think there is good reason for concern headed into the midterm elections,” said Richard F. Celeste, a Democrat and former Ohio governor who was co-chairman of a study of new machines for the National Research Council with Richard L. Thornburgh, a Republican and former governor of Pennsylvania.

“You have to train the poll workers,” Mr. Celeste said, “especially since many of them are of a generation for whom this technology is a particular challenge. You need to have plans in place to relocate voters to another precinct if machines don’t work, and I just don’t know whether these steps have been taken.”


The above article has a lot of good reference links. In an article tucked away in the Sunday Business Section, the Times has an article by San Jose State professor Randall Stross, who contacted Diebold seeking reaction to the Princeton Study demonstrating that vulnerabilities on one machine could allow a whole election to be compromised.


I called Diebold to see if it would lend Princeton a machine.

Mark G. Radke, director for marketing at Diebold, said that the AccuVote machines were certified by state election officials and that no academic researcher would be permitted to test an AccuVote supplied by the company. “This is analogous to launching a nuclear missile,” he said enigmatically, adding that Diebold had to restrict “access to the buttons.”

I persisted. Suppose, I asked, that a test machine were placed in the custodial care of the United States Election Assistance Commission, a government agency. Mr. Radke demurred again, saying the company’s critics were so focused on software that they “have no appreciation of physical security” that protects the machines from intrusion.


Well, of course, the Princeton study immediately disproves Radke's assertions of physical security. But the real insult here is that Diebold won't even allow the Election Assistance Commission to examine the security of these machines. Isn't that something? I think there is little doubt why.

links
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000555.htm#comments

Officials Wary of Electronic Voting Machines
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/us/politics/24voting.html?ei=5094&en=298fa45bfb12e669&hp=&ex=1159070400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

The Big Gamble on Electronic Voting
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/business/yourmoney/24digi.html

http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/ts-paper.pdf

[glitch]

1. Conyers is excellent, as usual. K & R nt

[texpatriot2004]

2. Thank you Congressman Conyers nm

[Amaryllis]

3. kick

[RedHaze]

4. Aritcle

Why can't the government step in and make Diebold hand over
the machines.  It doesn't make any sense.  How can Diebold
keep something secret even from the governing power that is
employing them.  

[Vidar]

5. Conyers is the best.