Bruce Schneier wrote the definitive book on cyrptography - Applied Cryptography - and is considered the leading researcher on computer security. He also writes an important monthly newsletter called crypto-gram. In this months issue he takes a look at electronic voting machines, ending with these thoughts:
My suggestion is simple, and it's one echoed by many computer security researchers. All computerized voting machines need a paper audit trail. Build any computerized machine you want. Have it work any way you want. The voter votes on it, and when he's done the machine prints out a paper receipt, much like an ATM does. The receipt is the voter's real ballot. He looks it over, and then drops it into a ballot box. The ballot box contains the official votes, which are used for any recount. The voting machine has the quick initial tally.

This system isn't perfect, and doesn't address many security issues surrounding voting. It's still possible to deny individuals the right to vote, stuff machines and ballot boxes with pre-cast votes, lose machines and ballot boxes, intimidate voters, etc. Computerized machines don't make voting completely secure, but machines with paper audit trails prevent all sorts of new avenues of error and fraud.
I don't see how anyone can conclude that this is an oversight. Taking the paper audit trail out of the voting loop can serve only one purpose - vote fraud. This is not negligence, this is the ground work being laid to steal an election. I cannot imagine any other explanation. But who is behind it?
- jim 12-15-2003 6:37 pm





add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:


Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.