Secrecy shrouds US e-vote

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz () optonline net>
Date: August 23, 2004 7:16:59 AM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
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 () maximgrp com
(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 interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/