First, they threw away the citizens' fundamental civil right to oversee elections properly. Then, they strong-armed reluctant local elections officials into buying insecure and unauditable voting machines, at staggering cost to the taxpayers. Now that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has blasted the DRE technology, they say it will be too costly to rectify the situation.
Who is "they"? The Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), an advisory board to the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC), which in turn is run by a small handful of individuals selected by the president of the United States, together with many of the former public officials who pushed for paperless voting in the first place.
Here's an article about the EAC's technical committee stonewalling the NIST recommendations:
They say they will still work to improve security, but that doesn't address the underlying problem: Your civil rights.
This is not, at its heart, a computer security matter, though that is also a problem. The core problem is that citizens, as the owners of their government, must have the ability to oversee it. You can't oversee it if you can't get the information.
Scientists like Ron Rivest, a renowned computer security expert, have their own solutions in mind. The problem is, by treating it solely as a security issue and not as a civil right -- the right to open observation and the right to oversee -- the scientific community is hijacking the citizenry's right to control their own elections.
Prepare to hear arguments that it's okay that you cannot authenticate your own elections. The scientific community, bolstered by private industry and a bunch of cronies who are trying to avoid embarrassment for mistakes they made in ushering in paperless DREs in the first place, have decided on your behalf that you don't mind giving up your rights. ***
Conflicts of interest:
Technical Guidelines Development Committee
John Gale Nebraska Secretary of State Standards Board ( EAC ) Lincoln, NE Oversaw the removal of Nebraska's right to look at paper ballots even in a recount. Nebraska was using optical scans made by a company owned by the leading Nebraska newspaper (Omaha World Herald, which owns most of the newspapers in Nebraska) and a sitting member of the U.S. Senate (Chuck Hagel, who did not disclose his ownership of the voting company properly). I have a letter from Mr. Gale telling a candidate that there is no provision in the law to look at the paper ballots, even if he pays for it, even in a recount.
Dr. Brittain Williams Retired professor- Kennesaw State- University of Georgia National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) Tucker, GA Has been paid significant sums of money as a state technical advisor for Diebold systems (Georgia, Maryland, Virginia); has been an outspoken proponent of Diebold paperless touch-screens for at least four years.
Dr. Ronald Rivest Professor, MIT-Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Cambridge, MA Plans to put out his own technology-based solution, apparently based on cryptography. If paperless touch-screens are removed, especially if buttressed with strong Freedom of Information protections for citizens, his solution becomes irrelevant.
Helen Purcell Maricopa County Recorder Board of Advisors ( EAC ) Phoenix, AZ Her voting system and ballots were locked down by the FBI for the 2004 election; Black Box Voting director Jim March has reported to me on severe security violations in Maricopa County for the Nov. 2006 general election. (Hey Jim, hurry up with the public report!).
Dr. Daniel Schutzer Director and SVP, Enterprise Technology Office CitiGroup New York, NY Am I correct in thinking he may be an investment banker?
Whitney Quesenbery President-Usability Professionals' Association High Bridge, NJ ACCURATE - up to $8 million in funding depends upon keeping technology in voting
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
