Washington Post: Debating the Bugs of High-Tech Voting

[MelissaB]

Debating the Bugs of High-Tech Voting
Test of Software in Machines Renews Security Concerns

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; Page A15

The already-cantankerous debate over high-tech voting machines, which have been installed in great numbers in recent years, is growing more intense and convoluted as primaries get underway and the midterm election nears.

A coalition of voting rights activists and prominent computer scientists argues that some of the machines are not sufficiently secure against tampering and could result in disputed elections, while voting machine vendors and many election officials say that view is exaggerated.

The latest dispute occurred several weeks ago after it was discovered at a test in Utah that someone with a reasonable knowledge of computer code could gain access to and tamper with the system software on a popular brand of voting machine manufactured by Diebold Election Systems. The developments prompted California and Pennsylvania to send urgent warnings to counties that use Diebold's touch-screen voting systems to take additional steps to secure them.

...snip

But Diebold spokesman David Bear said it was a "functionality" that company engineers had built into the voting machines so their software could be easily updated, and it only becomes an vulnerability if an unauthorized person gains unfettered access to the machine, and there are safeguards against that happening.


More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900816.html

[MH1]

1. Does anyone else find this hilarious -

Bear says that is not true, and he repeats a frequent refrain about why the security concerns are overblown: "It's based on the premise that you have some nefarious or evil election official that's willing to commit a felony and break the law."

Bear is identified in the article as a "Diebold spokesman." Gee, how could I tell?