Barbara Simons on left [Photo by Peg Skorpinski]
A Diebold Touchscreen Voting Machine.
I recently went to a talk on voting machines by Barbara Simons, a computer security expert from Stanford who is spearheading an investigation of the problems of these machines. I also had a one-on-one talk with her on this upcoming election. She has been involved since at least the 2004 election.
Here are my thoughts resulting from our discussion and her talk: This is an important issue and it is of-course not a partisan problem as it affects both sides and our freedom to vote and impact the election. There are several problems:
- Monopoly: Only one company is in control of these machines – no competition to drive up the quality of the hardware of the machines or the software that drives the machines.
- Unverifiable Results: The software used is proprietary to the company that supply the machines: less control, less opportunities to verify the results or that the software works correctly. Worse the company refuses to have their software evaluated and verified by computer experts. The machines are also paperless which magnifies the problem, i.e., recounts are difficult if not impossible as there are no verifiable paper records. There are numerous examples of the problems caused with these unverifiable machines.
- Security Holes: The software is plagued with errors and security holes. The company inadvertently released a beta version of their software in 2004 (I believe by an employee / software developer) on a bulletin board. Computer scientists found serious problems of this version and demonstrated that the software is easily hacked due to poor software practices.
I believe that a solution is to publically release the software; releasing it allows it to be scrutinized by experts and consequently improves security and reliability. Promote competition in developing the technology of the machines: Allowing competition in both producing the machines (hardware) and software improves the quality of the software and machines. And I echo David Dill’s of Stanford sentiment when he said, “Our democracy depends on our having secure, reliable, and accurate elections.”
Leave a Comment