What is Digg?98 Comments
- todddavid48, on 03/22/2008, -1/+100If we can't test them we should replace them with systems that can be tested.
- mithrasinvictus, on 03/22/2008, -0/+89Looks like someone has something to hide.
- bgturk, on 03/22/2008, -0/+77Here goes your democracy.
- mchan103, on 03/22/2008, -0/+62Criminal investigation should be initiated on Sequoia Voting Systems. I see massive voting fraud across the country. The Sequoia Voting Systems voting systems should be thrown out and refunded plus interest.
- Berkana, on 03/22/2008, -0/+54This is absolutely unacceptable. Their "trade secret" is essentially a way to steal elections. I hope the investigators rip this one wide open. There's nothing so sophisticated about a voting machine that it needs trade secret protection; we could do it just as well with paper, so they really need to just STFU. I don't buy this nonsense about their intellectual property.
- Mardala, on 03/22/2008, -0/+33"intellectual property rights" ??? its a glorified adding machine. Probably uses an Access database to "fix", I mean, compile the election results.
Its another reason why I think privatization in the US will not work as our society currently stands. We are trusting our voting results to a private company and we're getting screwed. - Arcueid01, on 03/22/2008, -0/+25This is simple........If they don't want an audit then don't allow them to be part of an election. I used to be all about electronic voting thinking that it would help us be more democratic, however, with all of the crooked people out there especially making their way to becoming politicians I think that paper voting with tv recorded counting and multiple layers of security regarding chain of custody is the only way to go.
For some reason there is a large sector of morons in our country who don't understand that playing fair is truly the only way to ensure liberty in our system. If we play by the rules everyone wins. If we don't then everyone loses. It is a really simple concept. - vmass20, on 03/22/2008, -0/+17Hold on a sec..... Sequoia is saying this is Intellectual Property? A ***** program that tallies votes? ummm... im a programmer and im sure many here are... that is a complete joke. Those programs can be done by highschool students. Intelectual property wouldnt be a legal threat. Because its not property. a basic program
- theskyisblue, on 03/22/2008, -0/+15LOL of course... because the first thing he's going to notice is that their voting system is backed by a simple Access piece of ***** database that can easily be altered by entering new values into appropriate cells. And what's this intellectual property *****? This is VOTING. It has nothing to do with business or competition, it's politics and our rights. Just go back to paper voting if we're infringing on some intellectual property ***** by making sure our voting system is working fairly... wtf seriously, only in America.
- dbldwn, on 03/22/2008, -0/+15IMO, it should be illegal for gov't entities to use closed-source software for voting machines. It should be wide open for audit by anyone who wants to make sure there's no underhanded ***** going on.
- grumpyrain, on 03/22/2008, -0/+14One of the cornerstone requirements of any democracy is an open and editable counting process. From a 'dealing with votes' perspective, every practical measure must be taken to ensure that a vote is counted exactly once and that the vote is counted against the candidate the voter intended it to be. Electronic voting should have the advantage that there is no confusion as to handwriting or careless scrawls.
There is no reason why an electronic system can not better checks and balances than a paper based system. Each vote should be traceable from the machine it was physically clocked at through to the central database at the electoral office. Furthermore, a closed implementation is entirely contradictory to the nature of a democratic process. These systems should not only be sent to Princeton, but also internationally to an entirely independent election observer for analysis. - dshey, on 03/22/2008, -0/+13didn't this ***** happen in that terrible Robin Williams for president movie?
- bgturk, on 03/22/2008, -0/+11Maybe this is why they don't want an independent audit:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs - MrWhite7, on 03/22/2008, -0/+10I think an editable system is what we're trying to avoid, the word that escapes you is auditable.
- n00854180t, on 03/22/2008, -0/+9AFAIK (and I am not a lawyer), EULAs have never been tested in court. Also, what terms can they take away if Union County violates their agreement? Not allow them to use them? Who cares? They've already been shown to be grossly flawed in security, to the point where malicious intent is likely on the part of companies that make these machines. Go try ripping off an ATM, then notice the big DIEBOLD logo on the side after you fail to do ***** to it, because it's ***** locked down. Now why oh why exactly does Diebold, who make extremely hard to ***** with ATMs, make ridiculously (if you aren't an engineer, you can't really understand how stupidly ridiculous it is that Diebold even *claims* these things weren't purposely rigged to ***** with votes, they are literally that poorly designed) insecure "e-voting" machines. These voting machines are so laughably designed it reminds me of the result of a 12 year old with Photoshop and Dreamweaver and a "make your own website" tutorial.
- PopcornDave, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8Oddly enough, the ones who don't seem to want to play fair re the ones in power now.
- Mardala, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8I think electronic voting machines are not the problem. But the companies that run them. I think there is a conflict of interest allowing these private companies to run our elections.
Voting machines should have lots of oversight and run on open source code. - 4321234, on 03/22/2008, -2/+9Hmmm.....but my first thought was GOP written code.
- LeeSoong, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7You can get a better paper trail purchasing a $0.79 candy bar ...
- SirMolle, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8Did anyone stop to think that there MIGHT be GPL'ed Code in the machine?
This would be a serious blow to the Company if this was discovered. - ThantiK, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7Honestly, I can't see why the linux/oss community hasn't stepped up to the plate and offered up a solution to this problem. It would be the perfect selling point as well as the perfect hardening tool. Open source the tallying software, develop multiple structures to interface on whatever machine it would be placed on, all available TO THE PUBLIC for code-review.
This way, we know what is in the machine, flaws can be patched quickly, and perhaps we can invent a way of having a verifiable paper trail, without having a verifiable (by third party) vote. The reason they don't want a "paper trail" is because in the past, people have been PAID to vote for certain candidates. If you have a verifiable vote for X candidate, you vote, go show the shark that you voted for X candidate and get paid. We don't want that. We need something open, transparent, and something that can perform the task of allowing a voter to confirm their vote, without allowing the voter to prove to someone else that they voted for X candidate. (to avoid pay-off voting.)
X = X + 1, how hard is that to do, honestly? - enlightenme, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7"One of the unanswered questions here is why Union County would even accept a licensing agreement that prohibits arbitrary third-party review"
At the end of the article, we find the gem. Anybody have a logical explanation about why they would accept that agreement? - grumpyrain, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6= Firefox spell checker + me not proof reading.
Yes, I would agree that an auditable process would be by far preferable to an editable one :) - LoveYouSomeEric, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Shame on the cowards in Union County. They should be inviting a lawsuit of this sort, not running from it. A legal battle like this would draw some much needed attention to the issue of electronic voting machines, which are a serious threat to our fading democracy.
- macinit1138, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5People are so gullible. The country has disgustingly endured two highly suspect Presidential elections in a row and now they think we're going to magically get one on the level this time. I know that I myself expect the election results this time around to be more of the same because AGAIN, NO ONE was ever held accountable for the last two.
- RTourn, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Why is it 3rd world nations can have independent 3rd party verify elections and we can't?
- boozinf, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5in theory, if one were to send an email to info@sequoiavote.com, they might get an autoresponse from "Michelle M. Shafer, Vice President, Communications & External Affairs," mshafer@sequoiavote.com.
in theory. - grumpyrain, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Not necessarily. Each vote along with the machine ID and timestamp could form a hash which could be digitally signed by the private key in the central electoral server. Any attempt to manipulate a vote would break the hash. The source code should be open for anyone to inspect and satisfy themselves that the voting has not been rigged.
- qwerter, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Glad to see that the "intellectual property" of a corporation is more important than democracy. Congratulations, New Jersey, on failing to fail to suck.
- Vohu, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5If the vender is against an independent audit of the voting machines then the results of votes from those machines should be tossed and the machines sent back to the vender with a refund demand and a bill for the elections that have to be redone.
- cipher64, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Just in case yer wondering who owns the company:
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channe ... - Drahkar, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4We hope. Or else we continue to shift to electronic voting and effectively give the elections to the companies that run the machines because they aren't accountable to anyone if this type of thing is permitted.
- smotpoker1, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Eula's will not hold up in courts due to the fact they say they reserve the right to change it at any time without consent or let you decide line by line what the the contract stipulates.***** A eula agreement it doesn't mean anything.
- grumpyrain, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5I am sure there is a mysterious while loop in there somewhere and probably some variables holding the number of votes. I mean a program that collects records then sums them together with a particular grouping - such complex programming has surely never been done before.
- obliviousfool, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4This is reminiscent of Diebold's original claims that the database containing votes in Alaska was proprietary information and couldn't be viewed by anyone outside the company.
- camino262, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4I think the "intellectual property" in this case belongs to the people. Sounds like a case for the Supreme Court.
- meridian300, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4A voting program would take about 15 minutes in .NET, consist of 2 buttons and about 10 lines of code, lol.
This is outright fraud. - Chebsi, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Wow, is all you do go around posting rick rolls...?
- kreneskyp, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3its a possibility but i'm gonna go with they just don't want their piece-o-crap being exposed for what it is. I wish i could sell things that people were legally prevented from examining before they buy them
- inactive, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3If we had a real commander in chief these aholes would all be at camp X ray.
None of these systems should be allowed on the market much less used for voting. - Soccrmastr, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Don't kid yourself. The electronic voting machines just makes it easier for them to rig, but isn't required.
- Arcueid01, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4exactly the point, paper and televised is the only way to go. We also need much tighter chain of custody procedures. Look it up on youtube tons of shady ***** went down this primary.
- InfamousAtheist, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Two possibilities (I'm being serious here... sorry if it sounds facetious):
1. The right people didn't read the agreement and relied on underlings to summarize it for them.
2. Those responsible for the contract details on the government side are corrupt, or were bribed to ignore those important bits.
And I suppose a third possibility is some combination of 1 & 2. - faskippy, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4Why is it that some poor schmuk always thinks that ***** is going to look cool?
- inactive, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Approximately 97% of Smartmatic is owned by its four founders – Antonio Mugica Rivero (a citizen of both Spain and Venezuela), Roger Pinate (a citizen of Venezuela), Alfredo Anzola (a citizen of Venezuela) and Jorge Massa (a citizen of France and Venezuela) – through personal trusts and private foundations in which they hold the beneficial interest. The remaining 2.89% of Smartmatic is owned by key employees of Smartmatic and family and acquaintances of the founders.
http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2006/06/more-on ... - rxbudian, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2If the government is supposed to be accountable to the people, why can't the people who sell their products and services be accountable too?
- Atomic1fire, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2They should have to submit public logs of the election results
and the source code of the device because anything that could harm the election should be fixed - InfamousAtheist, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Which should automatically kick off an investigation by the Justice Department, but our government is so ***** corrupt and the people so apathetic that our so-called democracy will be (has been) stolen right out from under us.
- InfamousAtheist, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Keep telling yourself that. After the elections are stolen again and the police state is enacted, will you remember choosing to ignore the facts?
- aurorous, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Another thought that occurs to me, in addition to violating the EULA if the system uses encryption wouldn't a third party review of the encryption violate the DMCA?
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is