Comments on: can this really be true: diabolic diebold https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733 2002-2015 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:03:45 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2 By: paper machines https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6696 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:03:45 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6696 I think there are numerous reasons why one might think it a good idea to make adjustments in the vote totals and keep them in a separate copy, keeping the unadjusted values at the same time. Not good reasons,

]]> By: Jim Lund https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6695 Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:59:45 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6695 There need not be any specific conspiracy. Election fraud has occured through every chink in election security. This new voting tech has especially weak security, and opens up plenty of new methods for voting fraud. Because these electronic voting companies are owned/run primarily by Republican companies, Republicans have the best access to these new routes of vote fraud, and are therefore most likely to benefit and to have benefited from it. There’s no need to for the ridiculously bad security to be planned–it’s a natural property of companies jumping to be first into a new market. Republican fraud is an emergent property of the situation.

]]> By: H Warnock-Graham https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6694 Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:41:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6694 At the start of things, Bev went into the Diebolt system and pointed out her concerns to a variety of people and groups, including Diebolt. Concern about Diebolt’s intentions grew in huge proportions when Diebolt, instead of behaving cooperatively, acted defensively by attempting to negate the criticism, then by attempting to stonewall further with the attempt to keep critics from finding futher problems. I don’t trust Diebolt, I don’t like using a company that won’t make its product transparent to neutral experts, and I’m voting with an absentee ballot.

]]> By: Keith Roberts https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6693 Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:55:53 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6693 The serious doubts raised about computerized voting systems, along with reports of FL’s attempts to modify the registered voter lists in favor of Republicans, raise the question of what can be done after the fact, when the vote totals in FL favor Mr. Bush–as now seems inevitable. Or can the Democrats seek a preliminary injunction now? I would think that the discovery possible through litigation would be the best possibility for uncovering programming fraud.

]]> By: john https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6692 Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:13:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6692 Even if the back door were not wide open, the cryptography used is not appropriately strong. If the two-digit code thing is true, then middle school lockers are hundreds of times more secure than our election system. Interestingly, the CA Attorney General dismissed possible criminal charges against Diebold.

]]> By: nichole https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6691 Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:20:18 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6691 “As a programmer, I refuse to believe their failures are due to the requirements of the task at hand.”
I agree absolutely. Case in point: the other kind of large-scale, government-run, anonymous, dual-redundant, fully auditable, real-time transaction systems – namely, state lotteries. The technology itself is not the problem.

]]> By: Kevin https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6690 Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:29:51 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6690 wait, 42 implies good programmers 🙂 oh well. hopefully 44.

]]> By: Kevin https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6689 Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:27:32 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6689 joe, did you mean 42?

]]> By: joe https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6688 Sat, 04 Sep 2004 19:27:33 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6688 How much you wanna bet that the two digit code is “43”?

]]> By: Shannon J Hager https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2733#comment-6687 Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:20:41 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/09/can_this_really_be_true_diabol.html#comment-6687 As David noted above, most of the most serious holes in the Diebold systems are, in fact, “features”. The ease with which a local worker was able to “perform some fancy footwork” on the Access database in a recent election here was touted as a good thing in the Diebold memos that the company was suing over. First off, if the system worked correctly, the “fancy footwork” would not have been needed. Second, in order for a voting system to work, a system MUST have a full trial, whether paper or electronic. Diebold’s systems do not and that is an extremely serious danger to the integrity of any election the machines are used in.

Regarding your ideas about the conspiracy, Mr. Lessig, please read the Diebold memos that started all of this and note that the lawsuits filed by Diebold were not defamation or libel or slander. They sued for copyright violation. To me (please correct me if I am wrong), that means the memos are, in fact, true. If that is the case, read the memos and decide for yourself if this company should be able to go anywhere near our votes.

As a programmer, I refuse to believe their failures are due to the requirements of the task at hand. As a voter, I refuse to believe their machines are safe. As a somewhat informed citizen, I doubt I will ever trust them after the stunts they have pulled in the past few years.

]]>