Re: [MLUG] Diebold demands that HBO cancel documentary on votingmachines

[Dave McBride <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Too late for tomorrow, but I guess a grassroots solution would be to get 
out the absentee vote. Those are all scanned bubble-sheets, I think, and 
a sharp rise in absentee voting would surely send a message to local 
election boards, although not without its own accountability issues. 
Probably there already is such a movement; I'm only up on the problems, 
not the solutions <sigh>.
  Dave

Fallert, Adam Christian wrote:
> I say let software of this nature be open source.  No better way to
> ensure top security than by letting the geeks of the world hammer on it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL:PROTECTED
> [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:11 PM
> To: MLUG Members
> Subject: Re: [MLUG] Diebold demands that HBO cancel documentary on
> votingmachines
>
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Dave McBride wrote:
>
> > I couldn't agree more with your concerns. It's odd (sad?), though,
> that 
> > for all I've heard about this problem, I haven't heard it proposed
> that 
> > we look at open source as part of the solution, until now.
>
> It has been proposed before.  But you know how open source works -- they
>
> have a limited marketing/advertising budget!
>
>
> > Last week I heard an interview that included the Marketing Dir. of 
> > Diebold. His main proof that the machines were good seemed to be that 
> > they are used in a lot of jurisdictions.  He also pointed out that the
>
> > computer scientists had got hold of a machine that they had no
> business 
> > having (he wanted to know the name of the person who got it for them),
>
> > and used it to conduct some very dubious hacks that were not at all 
> > relevant for a Real-World polling place full of observant election 
> > officials and security personnel.
> >
> > To quote Dave Barry, I'm not making this up. 
> > http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/10/30.php#11767
>
> I saw that guy on some news show recently, maybe PBS Newshour.  The 
> researcher was a comp sci professor at Princeton.  Oh - here it is:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/electronic_11-02.html
>
> Check that out.  They have streaming video so that you can watch (er, 
> supposedly, but it didn't work correctly for me, but they have a full 
> transcript).
>
> They don't really explain it in the program, but the major problem with 
> the Diebold approach to security (let the local jurisdiction deal with
> it) 
> is that we as voters don't know that the machine is really being handled
>
> correctly and carefully.  It would be expensive to hire round-the-clock 
> guards and to put the machines into safes, etc., so you know they are 
> never going to be all that secure.
>
> I think we need to scrap this machine-based approach altogether and
> stick 
> with paper.  Machines could be used as aids to voters who have problems 
> with normal paper ballots, but those machines would then print out 
> something for the voter to use.  In the end, paper should be scanned and
>
> the paper should be retained for future use, in case the result is 
> questionable.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> members mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members
>
> _______________________________________________
> members mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members