Reply #44: Professionals and Experts Don't Run the Systems

[RedEagle]

You can apply good computing standards and theorys all day to this and it won't make enough difference in the end. Help? Yeh, a little.

There is no way, currently, to insure that the code in the machine is the code that was approved.

There is no way, currently, to insure that code remains the same after it is compiled. Learned about a little term called, "Malicious Compiler," from Dr. Barbara Simons.

Code is never, ever, totally bug free.

Programs have back doors- it's common practice and they have them even when you don't think they do. Witness the Linux back door.

We don't have computer professionals using this equipment. Most of them, as Bev stated, think they are "programming" the computer when they create a ballot form.

Even the most marvelous code in the world is tainted once it leaves the hands of its originator.

Computer voting eliminates one of the basic tenents of democracy- that ALL can participate in every aspect of it. People control democracy, not machines. People have to be able to do more than vote, they must be able to particiapte in the process ALL the way through. Machines can assist but they can never take over those functions. We have to have manual, random audits. It's part of the check and balances system of our country. We have to have paper ballots, we must have a verified vote on paper that we can use as a check and balance on the systems that are only supposed to assist us- not become the totally self-contained election judge.

Yes, we should improve code any way possible. But we cannot eliminate the checks and balances in voting. We have to have an independent means of auditing the performance of these systems, a voter verified paper ballot and the laws that mandate the auditing.

There is a whole lot of could, should and would. The bottom line is, there is no money for that kind of research and development. Congress was too busy being lobbied by the defense industry to pass legislation that people think mandates them to buy machines before ANY OTHER PROVISIONS of the HAVA Act have been carried out, in effect, negating those provisions. Once the money is spent, the states have their hands tied, so the rest of the Act is a moot point. Sorry, no can do now.

HAVA should be repealed, but Congress probably won't go there when you have the Jim Dickson's of the world claiming they speak for the disabled.

Meanwhile, whatever happended to that lawsuit against Diebold and the National Federation of the Blind over the ATM's? Is NFB still getting a million (?) a year from Diebold?