When did blind trust become the rage? Take a look at this:
| With primary election dates fast approaching in many states, officials in Pennsylvania and California issued urgent directives in recent days about a potential security risk in their Diebold Election Systems touch-screen voting machines, while other states with similar equipment hurried to assess the seriousness of the problem.
"It's the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a voting system," said Michael I. Shamos, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University who is an examiner of electronic voting systems for Pennsylvania, where the primary is to take place on Tuesday. Officials from Diebold and from elections' offices in numerous states minimized the significance of the risk and emphasized that there were no signs that any touch-screen machines had been tampered with. But computer scientists said the problem might allow someone to tamper with a machine's software, some saying they preferred not to discuss the flaw at all for fear of offering a roadmap to a hacker. "This is the barn door being wide open, while people were arguing over the lock on the front door," said Douglas W. Jones, a professor of computer science at the University of Iowa, a state where the primary is June 6[...] The new concerns about Diebold's equipment were discovered by Harri Hursti, a Finnish computer expert who was working at the request of Black Box Voting Inc., a nonprofit group that has been critical of electronic voting in the past. The group issued a report on the findings on Thursday. Computer scientists who have studied the vulnerability say the flaw might allow someone with brief access to a voting machine and with knowledge of computer code to tamper with the machine's software, and even, potentially, to spread malicious code to other parts of the voting system. As word of Mr. Hursti's findings spread, Diebold issued a warning to recipients of thousands of its machines, saying that it had found a "theoretical security vulnerability" that "could potentially allow unauthorized software to be loaded onto the system." The company's letter went on: "The probability for exploiting this vulnerability to install unauthorized software that could affect an election is considered low." David Bear, a spokesman for Diebold Election Systems, said the potential risk existed because the company's technicians had intentionally built the machines in such a way that election officials would be able to update their systems in years ahead. "For there to be a problem here, you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software," he said. "I don't believe these evil elections people exist." |
I realize that he's paid to say idiotic things like this, but please. f there's one constant in the history of elections its that people try to tamper with them. That's as true here as it is anywhere.
But good lord... if you wanted a sign that Diebold doesn't take security seriously, here it is. They've left a backdoor into their software wideopen, but they aren't the least bit concerned because there they "don't believe these evil elections people exist."
So I wonder... Diebold also makes ATM's. Are those built the same way? And if not, why not? If people are willing to steal a few $1000s from an ATM, wouldn't they also be willing to steal an election? Call me crazy, but I think there's much more at stake in the later.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: BLIND TRUST IS FOR FOOLS.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/107
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment