U.S. To Certify Labs For Testing E-Voting Machines 75
InternetVoting writes "In a clear counter to the recent criticisms of secrecy involving Ciber labs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has issued recommendations (pdf) to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). NIST recommends the accreditation of two labs, iBeta Quality Assurance and SysTest Labs. The recommendation, emphasizing the need for transparency, includes on-site assessment reports, lab responses, and on-site reviews for each lab. These reports shed much needed light into the process of voting machine certification. Learn more from the Q&As About NIST Evaluation of Laboratories that Test Voting Systems."
Opaque Audits (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounded, prima facie, like progress was being made; but quoth TFA:
Call me cynical, but auditing opaque processes with equally opaque tests doesn't change much; I foresee a holographic sticker labelled “certified.”
I'd wager, furthermore, they expect us to buy it at face value.
Re:Opaque Audits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Opaque Audits (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Opaque Audits (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're being too soft on your own government. Government isn't a child in need of coddling: it's a cynical and self-aware machine that studies to persist at your expense.
Re:Opaque Audits (Score:5, Insightful)
When you think about it, the lack of standards is probably what has caused the current crop of voting machines to be such dismal failures. While I'm not sure I trust Diebold anyway, given their political connections, they probably would have done at least a halfway decent job on their machines if there were a set of standards to measure them against. It's not enough for the US Government to send out a Request For Proposals outlining what they are looking for, unless the functionality and security can be defined against some kind of standard. If the standards had existed first, maybe the machines would not have all the loopholes and omissions which make them such trash currently.
Why is it (Score:5, Insightful)
That politicians can't grasp the immediately obvious? Why do they even bother with electronic voting machines when:
How could any politician come to a conclusion that electronic voting machines make sense? There is no compelling reason to use electronic voting machines at all. The only possible explanation I see is that counties which bought electronic voting machines had county officials on the payroll of the voting machine makers.
The fact that they've been purchased seems to suggest that politics is already not quite as transparent as it should be.
Watchmen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Opaque Audits (Score:5, Insightful)
whats wrong with this picture? (Score:4, Insightful)
"If god had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates"
Re:Opaque Audits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is it (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you are confusing the /. crowd with the 'normal' mom & pop crowd. For the non-technical people it is much easier to press a box with the person's name (which then changes color) that poke a hole in a card.
Re:if you ask me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
And any vote that's not secret can be coerced. Heard any news lately about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pushing for legislation to make votes to form a union non-secret?
Admittedly, in this country, it's hard to believe there could be wide-spread voter tampering, but vote-buying could still occur. For example, a company president could offers election day as a paid holiday (or just a monetary bonus) if the employee brings in his or her ballot indicating a vote for X? Or something more sinister: offer a paid holiday to all who show their ballot, but record who voted for whom, and using that data for some nefarious purpose.
Re:if you ask me.... (Score:3, Insightful)
See also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Committee_on_U
going back in time (Score:2, Insightful)
Voting Computers (Score:2, Insightful)