[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Full-Disclosure] Will a vote for John Kerry be counted by a Hart InterCivic eSlate3000 in Honolulu?
- To: Full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Will a vote for John Kerry be counted by a Hart InterCivic eSlate3000 in Honolulu?
- From: "Jason Coombs PivX Solutions" <jasonc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:24:59 +0000 GMT
I just voted for John Kerry at a walk-in absentee ballot polling place in
Honolulu County using an eSlate3000 (unit serial number A05A0B) made by Hart
Intercivic: http://www.hartintercivic.com
I was told by the official who gave me the choice of voting on paper or voting
electronically that the electronic voting machines weren't supposed to be here
yet, but that since they arrived in time for the 2004 election, they were being
used anyway.
Will my vote be counted? That depends on a number of unknowns, such as whether
or not the unit on which my vote was cast subsequently malfunctions, rendering
the entire vote tabulating memory card corrupt.
I did not receive a paper printout following the submission of my electronic
ballot.
Excluding the obvious possibility that fraud may occur, either to stuff the
electronic 'ballot box' with false votes, or to intentionally destroy or fail
to count votes for a particular candidate, there are risks inherent to
electronic voting that do not exist in the same way with paper ballots. And
although there are technical safeguards possible that seem like common sense,
these safeguards continue to be ignored. Why?
Will we ever see common sense safeguards added to the electronic voting process?
A search for known security vulnerabilities or potential flaws in voting
equipment manufactured and sold by Hart InterCivic turns up:
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=31&contentid=1570
Prior to casting my vote, I provided a written 'application' to vote containing
my current address and other contact information. Election officials have every
bit of information necessary to inform me in the event of a memory card failure
or other malfunction that causes my electronic vote not to be counted properly.
We know the very equipment that I just used to cast my vote has malfunctioned
in the past. There have never been any reports that any voter has ever been
allowed to revote following the loss of their electronic vote database record.
Why not?
I find it absurd that common sense solutions to electronic voting problems are
not being used. The vote I just cast could be made available for my anonymous
review after it has been counted. For that matter, all votes made by all voters
could be aggregated and published such that any voter could confirm that the
vote that was counted was in fact the vote that they cast.
Such a safeguard would ensure that no fraud could occur without timely
detection by those voters who are directly affected, and no vote would go
uncounted or be miscounted by mistake unless voters choose not to perform such
data validation.
If we're going to allow these electronic voting devices in our elections, then
we the people must be empowered to become the all volunteer quality assurance
army that validates the data output.
Reasonable people can live with the necessity to trust election officials to be
honest, and the criminal justice procedures to hold them accountable when they
are not, but who are we supposed to hold accountable when equipment failures
and flawed computer disaster recovery planning result in the secret exclusion
of members of the public from access to their right to vote?
If anyone has any further information about Hart InterCivic and the eSlate3000,
please contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Jason Coombs
jasonc@xxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html