E - Vote Machine Certification Criticized

[cal04]

The three companies that certify the nation's voting technologies operate in secrecy, and refuse to discuss flaws in the ATM-like machines to be used by nearly one in three voters in November.
Despite concerns over whether the so-called touchscreen machines can be trusted, the testing companies won't say publicly if they have encountered shoddy workmanship


They say they are committed to secrecy in their contracts with the voting machines' makers -- even though tax money ultimately buys or leases the machines. ``I find it grotesque that an organization charged with such a heavy responsibility feels no obligation to explain to anyone what it is doing,'' Michael Shamos, a Carnegie Mellon computer scientist and electronic voting expert, told lawmakers in Washington, D.C.

The system for ``testing and certifying voting equipment in this country is not only broken, but is virtually nonexistent,'' Shamos added.Although up to 50 million Americans are expected to vote on touchscreen machines on Nov. 2, federal regulators have virtually no oversight over testing of the technology. The certification process, in part because the voting machine companies pay for it, is described as obsolete by those charged with overseeing it.

The testing firms -- CIBER and Wyle Laboratories in Huntsville and SysTest Labs in Denver -- are also inadequately equipped, some critics contend. Federal regulations specify that every voting system used must be validated by a tester. Yet it has taken more than a year to gain approval for some election software and hardware, leading some states to either do their own testing or order uncertified equipment.
That wouldn't be such an issue if not for troubles with touchscreens, which were introduced broadly in a bid to modernize voting technology after the 2000 presidential election ballot-counting fiasco in Florida.Failures involving touchscreens during voting this year in Georgia, Maryland and California and other states have prompted questions about the machines' susceptibility to tampering and software bugs.Also in question is their viability, given the lack of paper records, if recounts are needed in what's shaping up to be a tightly contested presidential race. Paper records of each vote were considered a vital component of the electronic machines used in last week's referendum in Venezuela on whether to recall President Hugo Chavez.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-E-Voting-Labs.html

[jimshoes]

1. Here is another article

from a post I made last night that mentions CIBER and their political donations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=649726&mesg_id=649726