Re: [Full-Disclosure] Will a vote for John Kerry be counted by a Hart InterCivic eSlate3000 in Honolulu?
From: defiance (seclists_at_stratitec.com)
To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:04:42 -0500
So why did you put yourself at risk and use it? You had a choice didn't you?
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 8:24 pm, Jason Coombs PivX Solutions wrote:
> 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
> A search for known security vulnerabilities or potential flaws in voting
> equipment manufactured and sold by Hart InterCivic turns up:
> 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
> If anyone has any further information about Hart InterCivic and the
> eSlate3000, please contact me directly.
> Jason Coombs
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.