[IP] Secrecy shrouds US e-vote
Begin forwarded message:
From: Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 23, 2004 7:16:59 AM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Secrecy shrouds US e-vote
Hey Dave,
Its interesting to see that this issue has made it around the world to
Australia . . .
Barry L. Ritholtz
Market Strategist
Maxim Group
britholtz@xxxxxxxxxxxx
(212) 895-3614
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Big Picture: A blog of capital markets, geopolitics, with a dash
of film!
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/
Secrecy shrouds US e-vote
Bill Poovey in Huntsville
The Associated Press AUGUST 23, 2004
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/
0,7204,10538518%5E15409%5E%5Enbv%5E15306-15322,00.html
THE three companies that certify the US' voting technologies operate in
secrecy, and refuse to discuss flaws in the ATM-like machines to be
used by nearly one in three voters in the presidential poll in
November.
Despite concerns over whether the touchscreen machines can be trusted,
the testing companies will not say publicly if they have encountered
shoddy workmanship. They companies said they are committed to secrecy
in their contracts with the voting machines' makers - even though tax
money ultimately buys or leases the machines.
"I find it grotesque that an organisation charged with such a heavy
responsibility feels no obligation to explain to anyone what it is
doing," Michael Shamos, a Carnegie Mellon computer scientist and
electronic voting expert, told lawmakers in Washington, D.C.
The system for "testing and certifying voting equipment in this country
is not only broken, but is virtually nonexistent," Mr Shamos said.
Although up to 50 million Americans are expected to vote on touchscreen
machines on November 2, US federal regulators have virtually no
oversight over testing of the technology. The certification process, in
part because the voting machine companies pay for it, is described as
obsolete by those charged with overseeing it.
The testing firms - CIBER and Wyle Laboratories in Huntsville and
SysTest Labs in Denver - are also inadequately equipped, critics
contend.
Federal regulations specify that every voting system used must be
validated by a tester. Yet it has taken more than a year to gain
approval for some election software and hardware, leading some states
to either do their own testing or order uncertified equipment.
That wouldn't be such an issue if not for troubles with touchscreens,
which were introduced broadly in a bid to modernise voting technology
after the 2000 presidential election ballot-counting fiasco in Florida.
Failures involving touchscreens during voting this year in Georgia,
Maryland and California and other states have prompted questions about
the machines' susceptibility to tampering and software bugs.
Also in question is their viability, given the lack of paper records,
if recounts are needed in what is shaping up to be a tightly contested
presidential race.
Paper records of each vote were considered a vital component of the
electronic machines used in last week's referendum in Venezuela on
whether to recall President Hugo Chavez.
-------------------------------------
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/