Research proves electronic voting machines unreliable
E-voting machines, such as the Diebold machine, invite voter fraud
Ashley Hardiman
Issue date: 11/3/06 Section: Forum
The Diebold source code was leaked again, showing even more evidence of why electronic voting is not a reliable voting system.
The source code was first leaked in 2003 while Bev Harris, a critic of Diebold, was conducting research using Google's search engine.
Researchers at Princeton University and John Hopkins University were hired to conduct an analysis of the voting software and found that it would be easy to program a counterfeit voting card to work with the machines and then use it to cast multiple votes right inside the voting booth.
"With electronic machines, you can commit wholesale fraud with a single alteration of software," Avi Rabin, a computer-science professor at Johns Hopkins told Rolling Stone magazine. "There are a million little tricks when you build software that allow you to do whatever you want. If you know the precinct demographics, the machine can be programmed to recognize its precinct and strategically flip votes in elections that are several years in the future. No one will ever know it happened."
This is something that every person in this country should be outraged at. Elections, in a country based on democracy, should never have a chance to be stolen. With Diebold voting machines, elections in this country are very vulnerable.
When I vote, I want to know that my vote counts. I am not confident that this country can effectively conduct elections using electronic voting machines. After all, in 2003 the source code was leaked from a Google search.
"In a study released on Sept. 13, computer scientists at Princeton University created vote-stealing software that can be injected into a Diebold machine in as little as a minute, obscuring all evidence of its presence," Robert Kennedy, Jr., the author of "Was the 2004 Election Stolen," told Rolling Stone. "They also created a virus that can 'infect' other units in a voting system, committing 'widespread fraud' from a single machine. Within 60 seconds, a lone hacker can own an election."
The source code was first leaked in 2003 while Bev Harris, a critic of Diebold, was conducting research using Google's search engine.
Researchers at Princeton University and John Hopkins University were hired to conduct an analysis of the voting software and found that it would be easy to program a counterfeit voting card to work with the machines and then use it to cast multiple votes right inside the voting booth.
"With electronic machines, you can commit wholesale fraud with a single alteration of software," Avi Rabin, a computer-science professor at Johns Hopkins told Rolling Stone magazine. "There are a million little tricks when you build software that allow you to do whatever you want. If you know the precinct demographics, the machine can be programmed to recognize its precinct and strategically flip votes in elections that are several years in the future. No one will ever know it happened."
This is something that every person in this country should be outraged at. Elections, in a country based on democracy, should never have a chance to be stolen. With Diebold voting machines, elections in this country are very vulnerable.
When I vote, I want to know that my vote counts. I am not confident that this country can effectively conduct elections using electronic voting machines. After all, in 2003 the source code was leaked from a Google search.
"In a study released on Sept. 13, computer scientists at Princeton University created vote-stealing software that can be injected into a Diebold machine in as little as a minute, obscuring all evidence of its presence," Robert Kennedy, Jr., the author of "Was the 2004 Election Stolen," told Rolling Stone. "They also created a virus that can 'infect' other units in a voting system, committing 'widespread fraud' from a single machine. Within 60 seconds, a lone hacker can own an election."
Be the first to comment on this story