« Logging to Fund Firefighting? | Main | Fast Flux Mapped »

June 12, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cb65b53ef00e553688a2c8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ATMs and Voting Machines, or, Waiting for Perfection :

Comments

Alex

NICE!

I would also offer that, IMLE, Banks tend to attract better resources for securing these sorts of things than the Gov't does.

Alan

Yes, but you say the author missing the point, what point does he miss? This implies you think there's a problem with his conclusions. He says electronic voting is hard for the same reasons you talk about.

If you read the whole post and some of the other things on his web site, it appears that he has actually looked at the technology in question in depth and agrees that paperless evoting is a problem.

Blaze is a professor at my university and I heard him give a very interesting talk on voting technology earlier this year. I'm curious about what if anything you actually disagree with him about or what you think he's missing, since I believe he's quite influential in this area and his talk seemed spot on at the time.

jsqrisk

Alan, yes I know Matt Blaze, and if you glance back a bit in my blogs, you'll find I've cited his work regarding CALEA and VoIP:

http://riskman.typepad.com/perilocity/2006/06/voip_calea_cons.html

and the Protect America Act:

http://riskman.typepad.com/peerflow/2008/02/centralized-bac.html

Not only that, I like his lockpick work.

However, unless he's changed his position that "we can't exactly stop holding elections until the technology is ready" I continue to disagree with him on that point:

http://riskman.typepad.com/perilocity/2007/08/count-em-all-by.html

India builds and uses an electronic voting machine that's much more secure than the ones in use in the U.S. Not to mention, we already know how to use paper ballots, or combinations of paper and scanners, as Florida does (follow the link at the end of my post). So Matt's post about ATMs is, as I said, true, but misses the point. The point being that we need to do something about easily subvertible electronic voting now, not later. It's irrelevant that making electronic voting secure is hard. We know how to vote without using electronic voting machines, and we need to get on with it.

Alan

John,

OK, thanks. I'm surprised though, because I either misunderstand your or his position, which I'd think would agree (and I thought agreed with my own). He's hardly a defender of e-voting as far as I can tell from the talk I heard, and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. I don't know for sure. I'm just IT staff (in a different school even), so maybe you know more about this than me.

Anyway, certainly the talk I heard him give was very critical of e-voting.

Alan

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Risk Reading

Blog powered by Typepad