Say no to electronic voting

[CTho9305]

article

The plan calls for a media campaign to "generate positive public perception" of the companies and to "reduce substantially the level and amount of criticism from computer scientists and other security experts about the fallibility of electronic voting systems."

Think there's a reason that computer scientists and security experts have a problem with the idea? They understand security!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
article

The plan calls for a media campaign to "generate positive public perception" of the companies and to "reduce substantially the level and amount of criticism from computer scientists and other security experts about the fallibility of electronic voting systems."

Think there's a reason that computer scientists and security experts have a problem with the idea? They understand security!

Any voting system is going to have problems. Work the kinks out and it will become a reliable system.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Or maybe instead of criticizing it they should help to fix it? I've been over this before, there needs to be a paper trail, yet there needs to be an easy way for voters to vote. Multiple language touchscreens that spit out a paper ballot that can be reviewed before it gets placed in the "ballot box"(scanner). The scanner would only be a secondary electronic mechanism incase there is corruption on the main system of touch screens. The third level of "security" would be the paper ballot which people(the voter) will be charged with reviewing before they leave the booth.

It's not that hard of a concept to grasp and I don't know why the "software" engineers have to make things so dificult. Heck the company I work for does this sort of "batch" security type thing alot with HMIs(touch screens and operator stations). Give me a few(hundred?) million and I'll have things ready for rollout by next Fall

CkG

 

[CTho9305]

They're a for-profit company. They don't care about the system working. They've apparently threatened to sue people who disclose weaknesses. That doesn't strike me as the way a company that could one day control elections should act.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
They're a for-profit company. They don't care about the system working. They've apparently threatened to sue people who disclose weaknesses. That doesn't strike me as the way a company that could one day control elections should act.

Then we shouldn't buy from them. Buy from me

anyone got a few million lying around?

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
They're a for-profit company. They don't care about the system working. They've apparently threatened to sue people who disclose weaknesses. That doesn't strike me as the way a company that could one day control elections should act.

They already have machines in place. By your standards they already control the outcomes of elections.

Releasing the exploits publically does not help voting.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CTho9305
They're a for-profit company. They don't care about the system working. They've apparently threatened to sue people who disclose weaknesses. That doesn't strike me as the way a company that could one day control elections should act.

Then we shouldn't buy from them. Buy from me

anyone got a few million lying around?

CkG

I actually attended the meeting on this. The State Governments that purchased the systems and the Company have completely shut the "experts" out of the loop. Thus putting a totally flawed product into the public mainstream. It's nuts.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CTho9305
They're a for-profit company. They don't care about the system working. They've apparently threatened to sue people who disclose weaknesses. That doesn't strike me as the way a company that could one day control elections should act.

Then we shouldn't buy from them. Buy from me

anyone got a few million lying around?

CkG

I actually attended the meeting on this. The State Governments that purchased the systems and the Company have completely shut the "experts" out of the loop. Thus putting a totally flawed product into the public mainstream. It's nuts.

Well hopefully they got a support package and will have the systems fixed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CTho9305
They're a for-profit company. They don't care about the system working. They've apparently threatened to sue people who disclose weaknesses. That doesn't strike me as the way a company that could one day control elections should act.

Then we shouldn't buy from them. Buy from me

anyone got a few million lying around?

CkG

I actually attended the meeting on this. The State Governments that purchased the systems and the Company have completely shut the "experts" out of the loop. Thus putting a totally flawed product into the public mainstream. It's nuts.

Well hopefully they got a support package and will have the systems fixed.

There is no way to "test" that they have it fixed because they have shut all of the experts out of the loop, that is the point.

 

[dmcowen674]

Also now there is two simulataneous threads going on this same subject, the other is called "Election Fraud on a massive Scale".
That dilutes the debate.

There does need to be a way to combine the threads and to stop people from doing this.

Yes, a thread Policeman.

Different from a Moderator because not judging content only directing traffic.