1115.org

Princeton University professor Edward Felten has just confirmed everyone’s worst fears about electronic voting machines:

A Princeton University computer science professor added new fuel Wednesday to claims that electronic voting machines used across much of the country are vulnerable to hacking that could alter vote totals or disable machines.

In a paper posted on the university’s website, Edward Felten and two graduate students described how they had tested a Diebold AccuVote-TS machine they obtained, found ways to quickly upload malicious programs and even developed a computer virus able to spread such programs between machines.
[…]
The machine Felten tested, obtained in May from an undisclosed source, was the same type used across Maryland in its primary election Tuesday, according to Ross Goldstein, a deputy administrator with the state’s Board of Elections. Goldstein said he couldn’t comment on the report until he read it.
[…]
Felten and graduate students Ariel Feldman and Alex Halderman found that malicious programs could be placed on the Diebold by accessing the memory card slot and power button, both behind a locked door on the side of the machine. One member of the group was able to pick the lock in 10 seconds, and software could be installed in less than a minute, according to the report.

The researchers say they designed software capable of modifying all records, audit logs and counters kept by the voting machine, ensuring that a careful forensic examination would find nothing wrong.

The programs were able to modify vote totals or cause machines to break down, something that could alter the course of an election if machines were located in crucial polling stations.

It was also possible to design a computer virus to spread malicious programs to multiple machines by piggybacking on a new software download or an election information file being transferred from machine to machine, Felten said.

Diebold, quite naturally, was quick to react to this news:

The marketing director for the machine’s maker — Diebold Inc.’s Diebold Election Systems of Allen, Texas — blasted the report, saying Felten ignored newer software and security measures that prevent such hacking.

“I’m concerned by the fact we weren’t contacted to educate these people on where our current technology stands,” Mark Radke said.

Radke also question why Felten hadn’t submitted his paper for peer review, as is commonly done before publishing scientific research.

Felten said he and his colleagues felt it necessary to publish the paper as quickly as possible because of the possible implications for the November midterm elections.

Not quite the response I would have scripted if I were running things at Diebold Inc. or Diebold Election Systems. Assuming that I had no interest in aiding and abetting the stealing of elections by arranging for my machines to be hacked into, my single-minded focus would have been on making sure that every last doubt raised by this Princeton University study is erased as quickly as possible, and as emphatically as possible.

I wouldn’t stand there trying desperately to impugn Felten by asking questions about peer review, and making myself look really stupid in the process.

I would quickly, and very publicly, ship off a machine with the “newer software and security measures” to Felten and ask him to see if it withstands his methods.

If it didn’t, I would announce that very publicly myself, or help Felten to announce it. And go back to the drawing board. That way when I finally emerged with a new, improved version, I might still have America’s trust. I might still have a future in the electronic voting machines business.

But that’s just me. What do I know about running a business? Especially one as potentially dirty as the electronic voting machines business.

A parting thought:

About 80% of American voters are expected to use some form of electronic voting in the upcoming election, in which the makeup of the U.S. House will be decided, as well as 33 Senate seats and 36 governorships.

While we do not endorse any particular product, we consider it our civic duty to remind you at this point that a variety of prescription and non-prescription sleep aids are available in the market, should you require one. Some of these products, of course, are habit-forming. And the usual “pregnant or may become pregnant” warning may also apply.