> So from a computer science or security perspective, how robust do you think > this system is?
It's laughably bad. As has been said before: the software that runs inside Las Vegas slot machines is better written, better controlled, better monitored. Likewise the hardware. I recall reading that Nevada gambling police arrest insider fraudsters on a fairly regular basis--proof that their system works. The most clever I read about was a fellow who inserted code into the programming that watched for a certain sequence of line (coin) plays... after the sequence, it jack-potted. ~~James http://www.turtlezero.com (JA-86) On 11/7/06, Robert Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not really no. About 30% of the installed machines are the Diebold > touch-screen model that does NOT give you a printout. There's no paper trail > and absolutely no way to check that what the person voted for is what the > machine recorded. In addition, Diebold won't release source code because > it's proprietary. And the Independent Testing Authority refuses to release > details of its test program. And anyway, in some states ITA testing is > voluntary - vendors only need to provide a letter that their machines are > capable of passing the tests. > > So from a computer science or security perspective, how robust do you think > this system is? > > Robert > > On 11/6/06, Owen Densmore < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Won't the electronic voting at least provide a hope for analysis, > > especially of "irregularities"? > > > > -- Owen > > > > Owen Densmore http://backspaces.net ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
