[36716] in bugtraq
Re: Diebold Global Election Management System (GEMS) Backdoor Acc ount Allows Authenticated Users to Modify Votes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Jacob Muller)
Tue Sep 28 19:31:44 2004
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
In-Reply-To: <C823AC1DB499D511BB7C00B0D0F0574CC40ACA@serverdell2200.interclean.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <C33775E8-1123-11D9-BCA4-000D93C20BB0@gotlinux.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Jacob Muller <adam@gotlinux.us>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 03:55:28 -0400
To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
This is very true...
At a recent family gathering I spent about an hour trying to explain to
various people why "open source" voting machines are more secure.
Everyone perceived "open" as being able to go in and change votes...
The fact that I was trying to explain the open source model for the
first time did not help...
I simply don't understand why a company doesn't do open source voting
machines... you could sell the hardware and the software.. and get the
open source community to write the software for you.... It seems like a
perfect arrangement.
Adam Jacob Muller
"They [conservatives] don't get it. We [liberals] love America just as
much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the
way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like
grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and
anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually
understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and actually
helping your loved one grow."
- Al Franken, Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and
Balanced Look at the Right
On Sep 27, 2004, at 10:01 AM, David Brodbeck wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Claudius Li [mailto:aprentic@sectae.net]
>
>> So my question is, given that this seems to be a solved
>> problem why is there so much debate on finding the solution?
>> Surely I am missing something obvious.
>
> You're missing the social dynamics around it. There are several
> parties
> involved:
>
> - State officials who actually pick the voting equipment. They
> generally
> are politicians, with a background in law or business. They don't
> understand the complicated technical issues behind electronic voting.
>
> - Companies who build the voting equipment. Their motive is profit.
> They
> want to get a marketable product out quickly and cheaply. They
> perceive
> (correctly) that the audience they're selling to does not understand
> or care
> about complicated security issues, and can be easily impressed by
> trivial
> but sophisticated-looking features.
>
> - The public. They don't understand these issues either, and they
> have a
> short attention span.
>
> - The news media. They don't push security issues because they lack
> good
> visuals and don't fit into a 15-second news spot. Anything longer and
> they'll lose their audience (see above.)
>
> - Computer scientists and voting activists. They *do* understand the
> issues, but are unable to explain them in a way the news media, the
> public,
> and state officials find compelling and understandable. The companies
> who
> build the equipment can easily label them as alarmists or conspiracy
> theorists.
