![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anotheranonUnbelievable!
Worth going through the free day pass rigamarole, or read choice quotes at DailyKos. Diebold, the voter machine company in question, has confirmed that the memos about the flaw are theirs, so I don't think this is from Conspiracy TheoryLand.
I'm not sure which amazes me more - that Diebold knows there's a massive security flaw and have chosen to ignore it (!!!), or that it stores votes in a Microsoft Access database - even I know that Access has crappy security and shouldn't be used for anything even remotely "mission critical"!
Maybe I'm just naive or overly idealistic, but I always thought the motive behind computerized voting was to make the count faster and more accurate, and this system does not appear to be capable of doing EITHER! And why would it be so tragic to create a paper trail? I'd hope that there would be greater focus on security and accuracy than on the bottom line, but maybe my head IS in the clouds - if you read to the end of the Salon article it discusses the expensive publicity campaign that Diebold is starting to counter the negative publicity, and it does not appear that the company has any intention of fixing the errors in their software.
Not only is the country's leading touch-screen voting system so badly designed that votes can be easily changed, but its manufacturer is run by a die-hard GOP donor who vowed to deliver his state for Bush next year.
Worth going through the free day pass rigamarole, or read choice quotes at DailyKos. Diebold, the voter machine company in question, has confirmed that the memos about the flaw are theirs, so I don't think this is from Conspiracy TheoryLand.
I'm not sure which amazes me more - that Diebold knows there's a massive security flaw and have chosen to ignore it (!!!), or that it stores votes in a Microsoft Access database - even I know that Access has crappy security and shouldn't be used for anything even remotely "mission critical"!
Maybe I'm just naive or overly idealistic, but I always thought the motive behind computerized voting was to make the count faster and more accurate, and this system does not appear to be capable of doing EITHER! And why would it be so tragic to create a paper trail? I'd hope that there would be greater focus on security and accuracy than on the bottom line, but maybe my head IS in the clouds - if you read to the end of the Salon article it discusses the expensive publicity campaign that Diebold is starting to counter the negative publicity, and it does not appear that the company has any intention of fixing the errors in their software.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-09-24 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-09-24 05:39 am (UTC)