Friday, April 02, 2004
Diebold, electronic voting and the vast right-wing conspiracy. Via Google Web Alerts.
E-Vote Critics Demand Paper Trail. Via Google News Alerts.
An effort to erase doubts about new ATM-style voting machines by backing up digital votes with paper records is gaining ground nationwide, as state officials heed warnings about security and potentially messy recounts.
You know what would be easier than machines that produce paper that can be counted if a recount is needed?
Just use paper.
Will Electronic Voting Machines Steal the 2004 Election? Via Google Web Alerts.
Interview with Bev Harris that covers the major issues.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
No bogus votes, but next time round. Via Google Web Alerts.
I'm not sure exactly what this title means. Anyway.
Election Commission officials say this general election will be the last time that anyone will ever suffer the pangs of bogus voting. From the next round of elections — general or state — the Indian voter will gain protection from a national photo voter list. ...
To make more use of information technology to check fraudulent voting during elections, the Election Commission is exploring a proposal to use biometrics technology to identify the voter.
Biometrics uses the thumb or the pupil of the eye — both of which have unique characteristics — to identify the voter. “There can be no better method than this to identify the voter. It will need investments but will encourage more people to come to the polling stations,” said an Election Commission official.
The officials also said there would be special focus on harnessing information technology to ensure the compilation of quick and accurate results.
India will depend solely on electronic voting for the coming elections. Electronic voting machines are at present stand-alone devices and there is no plan to hook them up to a central server to speed up the process of counting.
Election Commission officials said there were problems associated with such a process but they were exploring options for future elections.
3:15 - 4:30 pm, Empire Ballroom
Plenary 12: Electronic Voting: The Great Paper Trail Debate
If your next vote is cast on a touch screen voting machine, how will you know that it was counted correctly? Many computer scientists and public interest groups argue that voter verified paper ballots are a necessary check for the integrity of our elections. Opponents of voter verified paper ballots counter that they unnecessarily complicate the voting process, add needless expenses, and make providing access for the disabled more difficult, without really improving the integrity of elections.
Voting for Better Voting.
In December, Maryland Del. Karen S. Montgomery (D-Montgomery) drafted legislation to require voter-verified paper records. Voters would be allowed to correct errors they find on printouts of the votes they are about to cast. If the printout matches the voter's touch-screen decisions, the voter then would cast the electronic ballot, and the paper version would be stored for use in any recounts. Ms. Montgomery's measure also would require random checks of the paper records in 2 percent of election precincts against the computer records, to search for evidence of possible tampering. The technology exists and ought to be included in the voting system. A number of states, including California, have voted for requirements that would create paper trails
Via Black Box Notes.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
I particularly liked
Fortune magazine - Losers of 2003 - Worst Technology: Paperless Voting
Monday, March 29, 2004
The thing is, there is an audit and correction process available for those transactions.
The bank knows how much money you have. If their information doesn't agree with yours, you use their complaint process.
Electronic voting is dramatically different from this. There are no second chances. It has to work perfectly, the one time in each election that you use it. As well, banking and taxes must be completely personally identifiable, while voting must be utterly anonymous.
John. L. Jarvis makes a similar point
Has anyone considered the possibility that the security and privacy requirements for financial transactions may differ from those for on-line and telephone voting? Limited liability plays a big role in the security of financial transactions (in North America, anyway; I understand the U.K. is a bit different). Would it play any role in on-line voting? It isn't like a voter can point to an unbalanced cheque book at the end of the month when something goes wrong.