Network World: 'Net Buzz

News, insights, opinions and oddities

Readers vote 'nay'

Network World readers get it, even if the people who run elections do not.

A diatribe here two weeks ago about the unchecked perils of electronic voting machines focused on the disconnect between an almost universal concern on the part of computer security professionals and a general lack of same on the part of the public. As might be expected given the audience of this publication, reader e-mail about that column sided largely with the worriers.

"I am a .Net Web developer and everything that I've heard about e-voting has me scared," writes Wes Virnelson. "I like the idea of using a paper absentee ballot to make sure my vote is really counted or rather could be re-counted. What I can't figure out is why e-voting machine manufacturers thought that a voting system with no paper trail was a good idea. It defies logic - especially after the Florida fiasco."

It does defy logic in every way except one: money. Buyers of the newfangled devices contend they will save taxpayer dollars - a disputed contention - and makers of the machines need no more motivation than the prospect of turning a buck.

"It would be nice to have a voting machine present me with a nice GUI with large buttons," Virnelson continues. "Couldn't the machine punch a card and then verify two or three times that it was accurately punched? Couldn't the machine then drop the card into a ballot box inside it? Couldn't the electronic version of the ballot be used to tally votes quickly, but the punched paper ballot be used as the 'official' vote?

"Technology is great, but the old saying holds true:To err is human, but it takes a computer to really mess things up."

Add politicians to that mix and, well, you get the mess we're in at the moment: a bitterly contested presidential election two months away and the all-too-real prospect that voters - especially those backing the eventual loser - will not trust the announced results. If the Electoral College tally should come down to the margin of a single state that lacks the ability to conduct a full recount, we'll be fortunate if our democracy survives to sort it all out in time for 2008.

"A real bottom-line analysis is that there are six statutes, reviews and independent audits that Las Vegas [gaming] machines must go through periodically," writes Ron Radick, "but not one for e-voting. Wow."

Of course, the people who run Las Vegas know full well that nothing would kill their golden goose faster than the gambling public reaching the conclusion - right or wrong - that the games are literally rigged, as opposed to merely stacked to the advantage of the house. Yet somehow the people who run elections in this country have failed to grasp that simple concept and are in many locales barreling ahead with e-voting schemes that provide no meaningful protection against fraud, most importantly, a paper trail to be recounted if necessary.

Radick also offered up a trio of Web sites that anyone interested in this topic should peruse: www.verifiedvoting.org, www.eff.org/e~vote and http://black boxvoting.com.

It's nice to know that some of you are stepping up to fight this madness.

"I have been trying to do my part to inform the election powers that be by forwarding URLs referenced in a weekly SANS newsletter that deal with e-voting to the state of Wyoming's Secretary of State's office," writes Rob Mitchell. "As far as I know this has had a positive impact in that the state hasn't deployed electronic voting systems. Thanks for spreading the word. Hopefully, more IT folks will educate the political folks about the dangers of e-voting."

All this ranting is bad for rny blood pressure. I'm off for two weeks of uacay. Postcards to buzz@nww. com.