[IP] Gaffe casts doubts on electronic voting
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:34:24 -0400
From: "ajs6f@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <ajs6f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I believe that there was a mention today on the IP-list of optical scan
tallying systems. Here's a rather interesting new item concerning a
different kind of reason to shun electronic systems, where the example
happens to use an optical scan:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/09/15/electronic.voting.ap/index.html
---
A. Soroka; ajs6f@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Robertson Media Center / Clemons Library / the University of Virginia
"Eisenhower! Your mimeograph machine upsets my stomach!" -Zippy the Pinhead
Gaffe casts doubts on electronic voting
SAN JOSE, California (AP) --The strange case of an election tally that
appears to have popped up on the Internet hours before polls closed is
casting new doubts about the trustworthiness of electronic voting machines.
During San Luis Obispo County's March 2002 primary, absentee vote tallies
were apparently sent to an Internet site operated by Diebold Election
Systems Inc., the maker of the voting machines used in the election.
At least that's what timestamps on digital records showed.
County election officials say the unexplained gaffe probably didn't
influence the vote, and Diebold executives -- who only recently
acknowledged the lapse -- say voters should have confidence in the election
process.
Further evidence of problems
But computer programmers say the incident is further evidence that
electronic voting technology could allow a politically connected computer
hacker to monitor balloting and, if the vote was going the wrong way,
mobilize voters to swing the election.
"If you're at the state party headquarters and you know how the vote is
going in a county, you can allocate scarce resources to the county where
you're losing by a close margin," said Jim March, a computer system
administrator from Milpitas who examined ballot results that ended up on a
Diebold site without password protection. "This data is incredibly valuable
to a campaign manager."
Silicon Valley computer experts have long criticized touch-screen voting
machines, which do not normally provide a paper receipt and which send
digital votes directly to a computer server. Programmers say software bugs,
power outages or clever hackers could easily delete or alter data -- and
recounts would prove impossible without paper backups.
Problems with optical scan
San Luis Obispo County relies on the more popular "optical scan" system
used in 34 of California's 58 counties.
Programmers say the March 2002 incident casts suspicion on any election
system that depends on computers -- even the relatively low-tech optical
scan, which relies on paper ballots and uses computers only to store and
send data.
Voters who cast optical scan ballots typically use a pencil to fill in a
bubble near their candidate's name on a sheet of paper, similar to
standardized tests. Poll workers feed the ballots into a scanner, which
records results on a precinct computer.
After polls close, results are sent to a central server via modem. Anytime
modems are involved, hackers get an opportunity to intercept data, computer
security experts say.
March said he found absentee ballot totals from 57 of 164 San Luis Obispo
County precincts in an easily accessible File Transfer Protocol site
operated by North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold. The votes were time-stamped
at 3:31 p.m. on March 5, 2002 -- more than four hours before polls closed.
By law, election officials cannot release tallies until voting is finished
-- typically 8 p.m. on election day. Activists discovered the data in January.
Investigation continues
Diebold, which won't say when the data showed up on the site, acknowledged
the incident and says it is investigating how the data ended up on a public
Internet site.
Deborah Seiler, Diebold's West Coast sales representative, said Diebold
engineers may have published the results as part of a test -- possibly
days, weeks or months after the county primary, regardless of the time
stamp. She said a system of checks and balances safeguards Diebold's 33,000
voting machines nationwide from fraud.
"These activists don't understand what they're looking at," Seiler said.
County election officials insist the primary was fair. No one has called
for a criminal investigation or recount. Most local supervisors were
running unopposed, and the winning candidates and proposals enjoyed large
margins.
County clerk-recorder Julie L. Rodewald said she was "concerned" about the
results winding up online, but she has no plans to get rid of Diebold
equipment.
Complicating poll jobs
March questioned why San Luis Obispo County's server connected to a Diebold
server at all -- particularly if it dialed out while polls were open. He
said the "phone home" incident could have been the work of an incompetent
or malicious Diebold insider, or an outside hacker. Any astute campaign
manager could have profited, he said.
Kim Alexander, president of the Davis, California-based nonprofit
California Voter Foundation, said computers have benefited the election
process by speeding vote counts. But technology has complicated poll
workers' jobs, and the San Luis Obispo County incident and other mysterious
errors have raised alarming security concerns.
"In our quest to deliver faster, more accurate election results, we've left
the voting process wide open to new forms of attack and mismanagement,"
Alexander said.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/