Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: antiRepublicrat
Good question. But the article isn't about all voting machines, just Diebold's extremely lax security in theirs.

Does anyone use non-rewritable media for electronic voting? If not, some of the same issues are just as applicable to other systems as to Diebold's. To be sure, the succeptibility to outsider cheating may not be as bad on other systems as on Diebold's, but any system with rewritable code will be subject to undetectable insider cheating.

By contrast, putting code and votes on non-rewritable media would mean the only way to cheat would be physical substitution of the media in question. Use of well-designed serialized holographic seals could make such substitution sufficiently difficult as to no longer be the easiest method of fraud.

81 posted on 09/17/2006 5:14:21 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: supercat
Does anyone use non-rewritable media for electronic voting? If not, some of the same issues are just as applicable to other systems as to Diebold's.

Non-rewritable would be safer, but not absolutely necessary. You could still transmit a virus with it, and the best safety it gives is the inability to change votes, but in this case the votes put on the media are already bad if the machine is infected.

And we could achieve the same thing with flash cards if the machine would just cryptographically sign the vote file.

83 posted on 09/18/2006 6:14:09 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson