You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #30: How about this example (consider it a "hybrid case"): [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-10 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. How about this example (consider it a "hybrid case"):
Edited on Fri Oct-22-10 02:52 AM by Bill Bored
The NYC Board of Elections had a choice between ES&S and Sequoia/Dominion (now also Diebold))/Smartmatic/Hugo Chavez op scans.

ES&S offered the City a feature that would obviate the need to enter a password on their scanners. They also offered a feature that would DISPLAY the password on a screen on the scanner when it was entered. These features would have substantially reduced the security of the scanners by obviating the need to know the password and by allowing the password, if actually used, to be stolen by observers.

These features were part of a rating system used by the NYC Board of Elections, even though they would not be legal in the State of NY according State regulations. The higher rating as a result of their inclusion is one reason ES&S got the NYC contract.

So what we have here is an attempt by a vendor to sell their product by undermining its own security, such as it is.

Now imagine a group of corrupt election officials (perhaps not even affiliated with one another), and other insiders and outsiders, who would have access to such a voting system. Would they want a system that's relatively tamper-resistant, or a system that's as hackable as possible? Maybe they're not corrupt, but they're too lazy to manage the fucking passwords! But the point is, there are election officials out there who don't give a shit about I.T. security and they may encourage vendors to weaken security to make their jobs easier -- or to make it easier to rig some elections.

When a lack of security becomes a selling point for a voting system, we are in BIG trouble. And those who would be tempted by these unlocked doors would be waiting to exploit them, whether they're part of an organized cabal or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC