Skip to main content

View Diary: YouTube Take Action: Diebold Hacked (+DIEBOLD REBUTS) (267 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, it IS about the software (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    STOP George

    quoted from Avi Ruben's study, which precedes the newest Princeton study (Ruben is one of the foremost researchers on electronic voting systems):

    It is impossible to estimate the probability of a successful cyber-attack (or multiple successful attacks) on any one election. But we show that the attacks we are most concerned about are quite easy to perpetrate. In some cases there are kits readily available on the Internet that could be modified or used directly for attacking an election. And we must consider the obvious fact that a U.S. general election offers one of the most tempting targets for cyber-attack in the history of the Internet, whether the attacker's motive is overtly political or simply self-aggrandizement.

    The vulnerabilities we describe cannot be fixed by design changes or bug fixes to SERVE. These vulnerabilities are fundamental in the architecture of the Internet and of the PC hardware and software that is ubiquitous today. They cannot all be eliminated for the foreseeable future without some unforeseen radical breakthrough. It is quite possible that they will not be eliminated without a wholesale redesign and replacement of much of the hardware and software security systems that are part of, or connected to, today's Internet.

    You are right that private and proprietary software has no place in our public elections.  But it is unclear if you understand that there are several voting machine companies serving the U.S.  Removing Diebold from the mix won't address the problems created by ES&S (Sen. Chuck Hagel's old company), Hart-Intercivic, Sequoia, etc., etc.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site