Other countries have been more circumspect. Germany and the Netherlands, for instance, each carefully weighed the evidence pro and con, then decided that touch-screen machines were too insecure for a democracy.
These countries were not swayed by arguments of speed, or convenience, or of high-tech glitter. They were not swayed by politics or schmoozing. The crucial factor was the necessity that balloting and vote counting be secure and observable by the public. And these machines clearly fail that test.
And don't get me started on Internet voting. It's mind-blowing that this proposal keeps cropping up, like Whack-a-Mole. It should have been killed once and for all by the report commissioned by the Pentagon in 2004, in which leading computer experts concluded that the Internet is inherently too insecure for voting. As a result of that report, the Pentagon axed its plans to offer Internet voting to overseas military personnel. A summary of the updated report and a link to the report itself are available at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/23/all_internet_voting_is_insecure/
Congress last year passed a bill encouraging use of the Internet for
"support" of voting by overseas citizens.
The bill cagily skipped over the question of whether it was specifically
permitting Internet voting. An amendment was later added, to say that the bill should not be construed as authorizing Internet voting. But this falls far short of saying that Internet voting is "not permitted."
So it was no surprise that some state legislatures came to assume that, since Internet voting had not been forbidden, it was acceptable. Whether this was the outcome that some in Congress hoped for, I can't say. But the wording of the bill gets Congress off the hook when Internet voting hits a roadside bomb.
The statute, H.R.1739, is viewable online at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1739:
Late breaking news: I heard on NPR last week that several states have recently authorized overseas voters to cast votes via the Internet.
The nose of the camel is now in the tent. Next, everyone will be permitted, even encouraged, to vote by Internet--the worst possible combination of computers and intrusion-capability in the world today.
When you mention Germany and the Netherlands, you say "touch
screen" machines. What about optical scanners? They surely have many of the same problems regarding transparency, accuracy, ability to observe and hackability.
I read that DC election officials did a test run of internet voting recently and gave potential hackers just three days notice. Nevertheless, a team from the University of
Michigan was able to easily breach security. They left behind a calling card - the University fight song - which they had inserted into the program. Amazingly enough, that still wasn't enough to derail the momentum. Will we ever learn?
I believe that only DRE's were in the case presented to the German
court, so that's all they ruled on. Of course, their rationale was
also applicable to OCR machines. See summary by Paul Lehto at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ballot-integrity/message/4015
Both type of voting machine were banned by the Netherlands. See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ballot-integrity/message/3500
Yes, human nature is remarkable, as shown by the short-shrifting of
the test in D.C. shows. I'm sure the legislators who were present
were dismissing the test with the thought, "Well, nothing's perfect."
Well, I guess that's where we find ourselves for the foreseeable future. And I'm going to be out of town on Election Day and will have to vote early, despite your good advice! Bummer. Anything you'd like to add, Roy?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
