• cartridgewebsite-com-big-banner-02-09-07-2016
  • banner-01-26-17b
  • 2toner1-2
  • 05 02 2016 429716a-cig-clearchoice-banner-902x177
  • ncc-banner-902-x-177-june-2017
  • Print
  • ces_web_banner_toner_news_902x1776
  • 4toner4
  • mse-big-banner-new-03-17-2016-416716a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-212
  • clover-depot-intl-us-ca-email-signature-05-10-2017-902x1772


 user 2005-02-07 at 9:33:00 am Views: 72
  • #10091
    Printer Fails to
    Satisfy E-Vote Activists

    SAN JOSE, Calif. – Three months after the presidential
    election, one of the nation’s biggest makers of touch-screen voting machines has
    created a companion printer that spits out paper records.

    The prototype that Diebold Inc.
    is now touting is exactly what some critics of the ATM-like machines have been
    demanding for several years

    so, paper records alone are not enough to satisfy computer scientists who say
    ency in the electronic machines’ design and software must complement
    paper backups.

    The Diebold
    prototype seeks to reassure voters by displaying their selections under a piece
    of glass or plastic alongside the touch-screen machine. If they spot a problem,
    they can cancel the ballot and start over. And while voters can’t touch the
    paper records, elections officials will be able to use them to verify close

    in the last election reflected the accuracy and security of the (paperless)
    system,” said Diebold spokesman David Bear. “But the fact of the matter is,
    there are some states that are demanding printers.”

    months of criticism by computer scientists that electronic voting systems are
    unreliable, California and Illinois recently passed laws requiring a paper trail
    for electronic ballots, and at least 20 other states have considered similar

    of North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold say the AccuView Printer Module is a step in
    the right direction but doesn’t address the potential for buggy software or
    malfunctioning hardware that could misrecord votes or expose voting systems to
    hackers, deletions or other disasters.

    printers are only valuable to the extent that counties use them, and critics
    worry that county elections officials with tight budgets may not opt for them.

    scientists also are concerned that the handful of private laboratories licensed
    to certify voting equipment, including the printer module, still operate in
    secret and without any federal guidelines.

    “It’s a
    very, very small step forward in terms of security of elections,” said Avi
    Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute of Johns Hopkins
    University and co-author of a scathing report on Diebold machines.

    Like many
    computer scientists, he thinks paperless voting systems should be banned.

    “I’d say
    a Diebold machine with a paper trail is better than a Diebold machine without a
    paper trail, but that’s as positive I can be about it,” Rubin said.

    stock price rose sharply in the months after the presidential election, when the
    machines fared far better than critics had predicted. But executives warned
    investors last week not to expect more dramatic improvements from its voting
    equipment division. The company’s stock hit a 52-week high of $57.75 in
    mid-January, and closed at $54.91 on Thursday.

    About 40
    million Americans cast electronic ballots during the Nov. 2 election, but only
    2,600 touch screens in Nevada – made by Oakland, Calif.-based Sequoia Voting
    Systems Inc. – and a few other prototypes around the country produced paper

    Some of
    the paperless systems were blamed for high-profile failures in November that
    included these:

    Carteret County, N.C., where paperless machines failed to retain 4,438 votes
    during early voting, one Democratic incumbent lost by 2,287 votes out of about 3
    million cast. Courts and the state elections board are deciding how to handle
    the missing ballots, but the winner of the agriculture commissioner race still
    hasn’t been determined.

    three dozen voters in six states complained that they tried to select Democrat
    John Kerry, but the touch screens showed them as having voted for President Bush
    until they revised their ballot. Equipment manufacturers blamed miscalibration.

    And in a
    Franklin County, Ohio, a precinct where 638 voters cast ballots in the
    presidential election, a computer recorded 3,893 extra votes for President Bush.
    The error was corrected in the certified vote total.

    Even with
    the printer, breakdowns and paper jams are possible, said Stanford University
    computer scientist David Dill, a leading touch-screen critic.

    say printers only compound the complexity of the nation’s patchwork of voting
    systems. Counties must pick from hundreds of models of voting equipment,
    maintenance contracts, software and hardware upgrades, consulting services and
    other add-ons.

    no federal agency enforces certification standards, one voter advocacy group is
    creating a Consumer Reports-style ranking for voting equipment.

    Voting Systems Performance Rating would create standards and assign grades on
    such factors as reliability, security, privacy and accessibility for the
    visually impaired. States and counties could use such rankings to help them
    decide which products to purchase.

    can’t solve the voting problem unless you have a totally transparent mechanism
    to evaluate,” said a founding member, David Chaum, a Los Angeles cryptographer.
    “In order to crack this voting systems nut, you have to do it in the broad
    light of day.”