The fundamental conflict with Sequoia Edge touch screens and optical scanning equipment is that the vote counting is rendered completely secret and the public does not have any idea of the true count, nor do elections officials (for that matter) and yet the magic numbers are simply certified as accurate anyway. This certification-without-knowing is significant because there's no court in our country where one can testify on something even as insignificant as a speeding ticket without personal knowledge of relevant facts, yet elections officials have no personal knowledge of the secret vote counts, but still certify the results anyway.
Because America is the world's richest country and sole military superpower, we have every reason to believe that the lessons of history teach us that every manner of device, artifice, trick or conquest would be used to obtain the handsome prize of political control of America. To believe otherwise is not only historically naïve, but it is also evidences a certain lack of love for America, or at least a belief that controlling America is not an attractive proposition.
Now, with electronic voting, the danger of fraud that has always been present has been amplified enormously, such that even one person with access to one results disk for a few minutes can change many thousands of votes while erasing its own evidence after waiting months for the election to occur, while with paper ballots such a task would be very laborious, and would create evidence.
Moreover, it is a simple matter to avoid state "testing" by providing via computer code that the virus would not trigger except on election day, and only when the computer has more than 50 votes on it, and is en "election" mode and not test mode. This avoids all known tests which are either not on election day, not under election conditions, or not featuring large numbers of votes like on real Election Days.
Ultimately, all such tests of voting computers are irrelevant and deceptive in that computers simply do as they are told to do, and nobody truly doubts they know HOW to count. Passing a test the day prior to the election is as irrelevant as the Tuesday bank robber proving he did not rob any bank on Monday. Rather, the question is "What were the computers TOLD to do on Election Day?" We the People are not allowed an answer to that question. And indeed, for reasons Harri Hursti can explain, we can never know for sure whether or not there was a double Trojan Horse in place, for example. See "Reflections on Trusting Trust." http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/
THE COUNTER-CHALLENGE
In light of the above important context, a very realistic security test would be to allow any citizen to hire the computer expert of their choice, and give that expert days or perhaps weeks to hack the system, BEFORE any seals and so forth are placed on them.
This is just like the real world in which top elections officials have virtually unlimited access to the machines.
To be even more realistic, the citizen and his computer expert will also be allowed to select, purchase, "certify" and "audit" their own computerized voting machines, prior to the hacking test, and further we must all with a straight face refer to this citizen and his computer hacking expert with their purchasing/choosing powers as the election "authorities." Finally, if there is even a hint that anyone is on to this huge conflict of interest, the hacker or rigger should immediately be able to condemn such citizens for damaging the confidence of the public in our elections, persuading members of the public to look the other way rather than follow their instincts to defend democracy.
POST-CHALLENGE IMPLICATIONS
Just think: the government gets all of its money and power from the voters and yet Supervisor Stone and other government officials have the audacity to turn the bright lights of suspicion upon THE VOTERS, or We the People, the "masters" of this representative democracy. Shame on them. It is truly unbelievable what the servants are telling us these days, especially the idea that the government need not openly count votes to prove that they truly have earned the "consent of the governed" without which they have no legitimacy whatsoever under our American system.
Ultimately, it is astounding indeed that any politician, VOTING ON THEIR OWN RE-ELECTION CONDITIONS, would approve of secret counts of the votes on electronic equipment. The claimed justification of "trade secrecy" is invalid, but in any case arises from a contract to purchase and there was NEVER an open on the record vote to approve secret vote counting. This due process violation is serious, because if secret vote counting ever came to an open vote, the public would rebel at any politician who approved of hiding the ball from the public. To amplify this point, I commissioned a Zogby poll in August 2006 that found that fully 92% of the American public preferred a voting system that allows the public "to observe vote counting and obtain information" on vote counting. http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1163
Those who approve of this no-public-oversight electronic elections system where the government purports to "audit" itself and watchdog itself are pulling the wool over the public's eyes. If they are serious, then they must also think that not only did Arthur Anderson do a great job auditing Enron, but that Enron could do a great job auditing Enron, because that's what you have when the government vouches for its own election results. "We the People" are an indispensable part of observing vote counting. Anyone who acts otherwise, as Riverside County does, acts against the wishes (as shown in the Zogby poll above) of every single demographic in the country.
THE CALL TO ACCEPT THE COUNTER-CHALLENGE
So, there's a fair test, one that simulates the situation of real elections officials insiders. Election "security" needs to be an impossible to create "two way" security against both insiders and outsiders, whereas normal computer security gives the "keys" to some "trusted" insider. But our American system is not based on trust, it is based on checks and balances, a form of institutionalized distrust. It's really not anything "personal" or offensive to laugh at the idea of anyone auditing themselves, or counting in secret.
Supervisor Stone, are we on for this real test? With your permission, this test will be limited to your personal re-election race, and to no other race, and you will express your "confidence" in the results of that race, whatever they may be, as elections officials like to do with all elections regardless of malfunctions.
