CSC 379:Week 5, Group 2: Difference between revisions

From Expertiza_Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 8: Line 8:


===Vested Interest===
===Vested Interest===
district wants to be forward-moving in technology
One of the problems about the voting machine certification process is that so few people are actually involved in the process. The small number of people allows for a vested interest among a number of them to have a large sway, making the certification process less than objective. Vested interest could allow for problems to be ignored so that voting systems can be certified. Obviously, such a bias is unethical and could compromise the certification process causing it to be a poor measure of the voting software's reliability.
company wants to be certified
 
There are two groups of people involved in the certification process and thus two possible vested interests to consider: those of the company producing the voting machine and those of the company testing the voting machine. The company producing the voting machine obviously have vested interest towards their product being certified. In fact, in most cases, they can only make sales if their products are certified. Therefore, the entire revenue procured by voting systems depends on certification. Also, in most cases, if the product isn't certified, the company would have to wait an entire year before they would have the possibility again.
 
The organization that actually certifies products also has vested interest. This is mainly because this organization is a company given the ability by the government to certify voting machines. Since it is a company, the employees typically care very much whether their company is making money. The money it makes is paid by the company producing the voting machine and not the government. This is prime concern for a conflict of interest. Also, the movement to modernize voting in the United States can only become larger if machines are actually certified and used in elections. The growth of this movement is important to companies certifying voting machines because it means more potential market for them.
 
 
* [http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2003/12/61637 E-Voting Undermined by Sloppiness] Kim Zetter, Wired
* [http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2823 E-voting certification company faulted for lax procedures] ZDNet


===Whistleblowing===
===Whistleblowing===

Revision as of 00:19, 5 August 2007

Certification Processes for E-Voting Systems

Study Guide

Hidden Standards / Certification tests

http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/waskell.html

Poor Accountability

Vested Interest

One of the problems about the voting machine certification process is that so few people are actually involved in the process. The small number of people allows for a vested interest among a number of them to have a large sway, making the certification process less than objective. Vested interest could allow for problems to be ignored so that voting systems can be certified. Obviously, such a bias is unethical and could compromise the certification process causing it to be a poor measure of the voting software's reliability.

There are two groups of people involved in the certification process and thus two possible vested interests to consider: those of the company producing the voting machine and those of the company testing the voting machine. The company producing the voting machine obviously have vested interest towards their product being certified. In fact, in most cases, they can only make sales if their products are certified. Therefore, the entire revenue procured by voting systems depends on certification. Also, in most cases, if the product isn't certified, the company would have to wait an entire year before they would have the possibility again.

The organization that actually certifies products also has vested interest. This is mainly because this organization is a company given the ability by the government to certify voting machines. Since it is a company, the employees typically care very much whether their company is making money. The money it makes is paid by the company producing the voting machine and not the government. This is prime concern for a conflict of interest. Also, the movement to modernize voting in the United States can only become larger if machines are actually certified and used in elections. The growth of this movement is important to companies certifying voting machines because it means more potential market for them.


Whistleblowing

Since the software used for voting machines is proprietary, very few people have the chance to discover or check for flaws. At the same time, most of these people work for the company that produced the voting machine and therefore have vested interest in the certification of the voting machines. This extremely private process depends on whistleblowers to point out flaws not found in the certification process. Unfortunately, most such whistleblowers have met the same sad fates as others in the software industry; they have been fired, demoted, and/or challenged in court. Since the requirement for voting software is merely that it be certified, when a whistleblower publicly notifies that the software has been wrongly certified, it is typically used in an election before the whistleblower's claims are verified.

In the case of Diebold's voting software, Stephen Heller blew the whistle on uncertified software present in a voting system to be used in an election. The software was used in the election anyway and Heller now faces possible prison time. In the case of VoteHere's voting software, Dan Spillane, a software tester employed at VoteHere allegedly planned to raise unsolved issues with the voting software in a meeting with state certifiers. He was fired before the meeting took place and the software was certified.

Table of Contents

  1. What is Electronic voting? An Overview of the Possibilities and Procedures
    • How E-Voting will work Kevin Bosner, Howstuffworks
    • Electronic Elections Helger Lipmaa,
    • The Future of electronic elections Stanford.edu
    • E-Voting Standards USACM Policy Brief
  2. The Existing System and an Impetus for a Change in the Way We Vote
    • Voting Technologies in the United States Eric A. Fischer, Congressional Research Service
    • A 'modern' democracy that can't count votes CNN- LA Times
    • Rights Panel to review Fla. voting Washington Post
    • Americans support voting upgrades Dibya Sarkar, FCW
    • Voting After Florida: No Easy Answers Lorrie Faith Cranor
    • Electronic Voting Technology: Can We Be Spared a Repeat of Election 2000? Robert Bellinger
  3. Dangers Associated with Electronic voting
    • MIT-Caltech study votes for paper ballots, levers, scanning devices MIT
    • Report says E-Voting is unsafe Lynn Burke, Wired
    • E-voting -- prospects and problems Douglas W. Jones, Free Republic
    • Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat Michael Ian Shamos, CPSR
    • Let's not rush into electronic voting Dan Gillmor, Mercury News Online
    • Electronic voting systems face obstacles to adoption Patrick Thibodeau, CNN
    • Internet and Electronic Voting Dave Farber & Peter G. Neumann, The Risks Digest
    • Computerized Voting - No Standards and a Lot of Questions Ron Newman Statement on Electronic Voting Rebecca Mercuri
  4. Legal Issues
  5. Planning for the Future - The Proponents View
  6. Related Sites (Electronic voting providers)

Prompt

Recently there have been many concerns about the certification processes for e-voting systems such as the inability to determine methods used during the certification process and what parts of the e-voting system were not adequately tested. Examine concerns surrounding the certification processes and their ethical implications. Provide links to groups that have investigated the problems you cite and if possible, responses made by the manufacturer/provider of the e-voting system and/or voting district(s) that use the system.

Briefly discuss how individuals and groups have participated in whistleblowing on this topic (methods used, actions taken).

Related External Links

Related Class Website Links

Retrieved from "https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_5,_Group_2&oldid=2139"