Log in

No account? Create an account
Diebold - brad's life — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Brad Fitzpatrick

[ website | bradfitz.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Diebold [Sep. 22nd, 2004|10:57 am]
Brad Fitzpatrick
All this Diebold crap depresses me so much.

Why don't the People In Charge understand that an open, peer-reviewed, understood voting system is the only safe bet? Even if Diebold isn't intentionally evil (a big if), they're definitely not smart. Do you want a corporation rushing out shoddy voting software to make a buck, or would you rather a group of smart people made it for free, motivated only by making the best system that's fair and tamper-proof?

The People in general don't much know or care ("but it's DIGITAL!"), which is a depression I've long since come to accept, but I'd expect better of our government.

Good reading: http://www.blackboxvoting.com/ (which would be better with RSS)

[User Picture]From: feignedapathy
2004-09-22 11:11 am (UTC)
Easy: Show me a good solution that OSS has developed.

I'm a strong supporter of open source. But, Diebold didn't require a grant from the government to start, they had a sorta-solution in place. Plus, they have a network of ATMs, which means they "know". (Don't get me started on the security issues of their ATMs!)

If a group of OSS developers:
a) Delivered a system that could provide secure voting kiosks
b) Delivered a vote tally system, secured from the internet, that gathered data from the kiosks.
c) Deployed a secure communication network to bind them.
d) Had one ring to rule them all
e) Had someone to lobby the government to look at the crap

Then, we'd see something. For now, we have the lowest bidder with present technology.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2004-09-22 11:30 am (UTC)
While not exactly what you described, this is better than Diebold:


Go Aussies!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: sceptic_008
2004-09-22 11:52 am (UTC)
What they delivered is
(a) a system running on Windows, a big no-no for a good secure solution
(b) using Access as its engine. A much bigger no-no, as it is a product for small groups (5-6) and is said to have issues when overloaded, i.e. starts making mistakes and crashes.
This is outright moronic and in itself testifies to the level of engineering.
(v) Even bigger no-no is the insecure programming (the use of 3 tables and flags, the "secret code" of the article)
(g) All and everything running on the central system runs as admin (!!), i.e. anyone with access to the central aggregator machine, whoever that may be (operators, admins, officials) can have TOTAL CONTROL of the system.

(wrote from memory. The full report by Harris is floating around on the Net. Suggest you read it)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: feignedapathy
2004-09-22 12:11 pm (UTC)
Now, I'm not saying Diebold's solution is good, or stable, or right. I'm saying that in the eyes of the government, it's all the same.

I'll try not to tie in the conspiracy theory involving the CEO's ties with the Republican Party.

But, it is what it is.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)