California Bans All E-Voting Machines

Grok Headline matches for California Bans All E-Voting Machines

California bans the use of some
e-voting machines

California bans the use of some
e-voting machines 05/02/2004 06:16 PM
Ca. Sec. of State bans the use of some electronic voting machines. It is not likely that paper receipts will be available for Ca. voters in time for the Nov 2 elections.

California Bans E-Vote Machines

California Bans E-Vote Machines 05/01/2004 04:46 AM
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley decertifies all touch-screen voting machines and recommends charges against Diebold. By Kim Zetter.

Calif. Official Bans Some Voting
Machines (AP)

Calif. Official Bans Some Voting
Machines (AP) 04/30/2004 08:37 PM
AP - The state's top elections official called for a criminal investigation of Diebold Election Systems Inc. as he banned use of the company's newest model touchscreen voting machine, citing concerns about its security and reliability.

Calif. Official Bans Some Voting
Machines

Calif. Official Bans Some Voting
Machines 04/30/2004 09:48 PM
AP via Daily Press May 1 2004 1:50AM GMT

California set to reject Diebold
e-voting machines

California set to reject Diebold
e-voting machines 04/23/2004 09:46 PM
ATM giant faces uphill battle

California county ditches Diebold
e-voting machines

California county ditches Diebold
e-voting machines 05/26/2004 07:43 PM

California Bars a Firm's Voting Machines
in November Election

California Bars a Firm's Voting Machines
in November Election 04/30/2004 09:52 PM
California will prohibit the use of 15,000 of voting machines from Diebold Inc. in the November election because of security and reliability concerns.

Gambling Machines Much Safer Than
Electronic Voting Machines

Gambling Machines Much Safer Than
Electronic Voting Machines 06/14/2004 03:33 AM
It appears that making sure gambling is fair is much more important than making sure our elections are fair. One of the defenses pulled out by those who want to keep going with existing electronic voting machines is that no one seems to complain about electronic gambling machines. Perhaps that's because electronic gambling machines are held to a much higher standard than electronic voting machines. This NY Times editorial lists six different ways in which gambling machines in Nevada are under much more scrutiny than electronic voting machines. These include things like the fact that the state requires copies of the source code of all electronic gambling software, as well as their stringent licensing procedure for any company that wishes to sell electronic gambling machines. Employees of any such company have to go through background checks to make sure they have no criminal record. Considering that Diebold had convict ed felons involved with their electronic voting systems - you wonder if a similar licensing procedure might make sense for voting machines as well.

Voting Machines Vs. Slot Machines

Voting Machines Vs. Slot Machines 12/04/2003 01:10 PM
Slashdot Dec 4 2003 12:50PM ET

CA Secretary of State Bans Diebold
Machines

CA Secretary of State Bans Diebold
Machines 05/01/2004 03:23 AM

Voting Machine Companies Make Political
Contributions to Both Democrats and
Republicans - New Report Traces Campaign
Contributions of Companies that Produce
E-Voting Machines

Voting Machine Companies Make Political
Contributions to Both Democrats and
Republicans - New Report Traces Campaign
Contributions of Companies that Produce
E-Voting Machines 08/13/2004 03:15 AM
New research on the political campaign contributions made to Democrats and Republicans by voting maching companies. [PRWEB Aug 13, 2004]

California Bans Genegineered Fish

California Bans Genegineered Fish 12/04/2003 07:06 PM
Cheeko writes "California regulators have announced that they are blocking the sale of genetically engineered fish. The arguments of the regulators seem to ...

California Bans Front-Seat Computer Use

California Bans Front-Seat Computer Use 01/02/2004 09:34 AM

California bans using computers or
watching TV while driving

California bans using computers or
watching TV while driving 01/02/2004 02:31 PM
Guess you won't be able to use that Executive Laptop Steering Wheel Mount we wrote about a few weeks ago. At least not while driving...

New California Law Bans Anonymous Media
File Sharing

New California Law Bans Anonymous Media
File Sharing 09/22/2004 06:37 PM

Ohio Halts E-Voting Machines

Ohio Halts E-Voting Machines 12/04/2003 06:04 AM
Fears of vote tampering cause the state to delay implementation of new touch-screen systems until after the November 2004 election. Meanwhile, state officials will work with manufacturers to make the systems more secure.

E-Voting Machines Get Official Thumbs
Down

E-Voting Machines Get Official Thumbs
Down 04/22/2004 06:53 PM

AP: California Panel: Don't use Diebold touch-screen voting machines . By an 8-0 vote, the state's Voting Systems and Procedures Panel recommended that Shelley cease the use of the machines, saying that Texas-based Diebold has performed poorly in California and its machines malfunctioned in the state's March 2 primary election, turning away many voters in San Diego County.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. The evidence has been building steadily against Diebold, and now an important panel has advised the state to hold an irresponsible company's feet to the fire. But there's a much bigger issue to consider: Are any of the voting-machine companies' black boxes to be trusted? The answer is No. Maybe these things work right, but maybe they don't. We can't afford to take this kind of a chance with our elections. California -- and every other state -- should insist that these machines not be used until they have a voter-verifiable paper trail. That's the only way to restore even a tiny bit of trust to a broken system. Better yet, we should move to systems like the one developed by the Open Voting Consortium, which is developing a system that is a) open; b) runs on cheap hardware; and c) can be verified to prevent improper election results from fraud or coding mistakes. Let's fix this mess, soon. Meanwhile, a cheer to the California panel that has told Diebold what needed to be said.

Flaw in Florida E-Voting Machines

Flaw in Florida E-Voting Machines 06/13/2004 07:34 AM

Venezuela Goes With Untested E-Voting
Machines

Venezuela Goes With Untested E-Voting
Machines 07/12/2004 07:08 AM
If you thought there were problems with the US using electronic voting touch screen machines, take a look down in Venezuela, where they're getting ready for an election where they will use new e-voting machines that haven't been tested yet. The machines, from a small Florida-based company do have a printed receipt, which is better than most US machines. However, the software for the machines has not been tested or certified yet, though the government claims they'll get around to it before the elections. Of course, this is the same government that had to postpone the entire election four years ago, after it was determined just days before the election that the electronic voting machines they were to use then weren't ready.

Diebold to Pay $2.6M Due to Insecure
Voting Machines

Diebold to Pay $2.6M Due to Insecure
Voting Machines 12/19/2004 03:51 PM
Slashdot Dec 19 2004 4:24AM GMT

Venezuela using untested voting machines

Venezuela using untested voting machines 07/11/2004 06:20 PM
Boston Globe Jul 11 2004 10:12PM GMT

Diebold voting machines vulnerability

Diebold voting machines vulnerability 08/31/2004 08:20 AM
Cory Doctorow: Diebold's voting machines have a stunning security defect:

Manipulation technique found in the Diebold central tabulator -- 1,000 of these systems are in place, and they count up to two million votes at a time.

By entering a 2-digit code in a hidden location, a second set of votes is created. This set of votes can be changed, so that it no longer matches the correct votes. The voting system will then read the totals from the bogus vote set. It takes only seconds to change the votes, and to date not a single location in the U.S. has implemented security measures to fully mitigate the risks.

This program is not "stupidity" or sloppiness. It was designed and tested over a series of a dozen version adjustments.

Link (Thanks, Michael!)

Voting Machines Missing for La. Election
(AP)

Voting Machines Missing for La. Election
(AP) 09/18/2004 10:51 AM
AP - Many New Orleans voters were unable to cast ballots Saturday on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage because voting machines had not been delivered to polling places, a state official said.

Group Seeks Upgrades to Voting Machines

Group Seeks Upgrades to Voting Machines 02/17/2004 06:32 PM
San Jose Mercury News Feb 17 2004 11:19PM GMT

Controversy heats up over electronic
voting machines

Controversy heats up over electronic
voting machines 08/27/2004 01:58 PM
Companies testing new touchscreen voting machines refuse to discuss their flaws.

Defending Weak Electronic Voting
Machines

Defending Weak Electronic Voting
Machines 05/11/2004 06:09 PM
I'm still a bit confused why anyone would object to electronic voting machines having more security and more ways to prove they're accurate, but everyone has their reasons. Unfortunately, this debate is turning into a political debate of Republicans vs. Democrats rather than a focus on the actual issues. That explains this latest editorial in defense of current electronic voting machines, which seems to paint the whole discussion as a Democratic plot to make democracy more expensive. The author does try to go through all the complaints, but starts off with a completely pointless argument to set the tone of his argument. He picks up the comment of a comedian about how the machines can be hacked over the internet and points out these machines are not hooked up to the internet. This makes it appear that the people who are really complaining about these machines have no idea what they're talking about and think the machines are hooked up to the internet. The real complaints about the system being easily tampered with are brushed off by saying no one has ever been caught tampering with these machines. The simple response to that is that he forgot to add the word "yet" to the end (and that just because no one's been caught doesn't mean it hasn't happened). He then brushes off the idea that tampering is a real problem anyway, since people could only tamper with one machine at a time, since (apparently) messing up a few votes is okay. As for the very unlikely possibility that anyone is tampering with the voting software to better favor one candidate, he says that random testing takes care of that. Random testing certainly helps - but as the California situation showed, the random testing was done incorrectly and uncertified software was loaded after machines had been "tested." Furthermore, there's simply no reason not to make voting machine software publicly open so that independent testers can go through the code and verify there's nothing wrong with it. Finally, all the way at the end, he gets to the real complaint that most people have with these voting systems: that there's no recountable paper trail. His response shows just how much he doesn't understand the real issue. He says that each machine records the electronic votes multiple times, and the recount is easy: just view one of the other records. This leaves out the important middle step: knowing that any of those records actually recorded the vote properly. I can make a thousand identical copies of the same incorrect records and it doesn't help me to verify the accuracy of the original vote. He claims that the only reason to add a paper trail is to make the machines more expensive - but it's already been shown that the addition of such a paper trail adds a tiny cost to each machine (many of them already have paper printers included). Besides, at what point did anyone say democracy had to be cheap? Ignoring all the politics on either side concerning these voting machines, why would anyone not support making these machines more secure while also including some way to verify the accuracy of the vote? Most people arguing for better security don't believe there's some big plot to steal an election or that hackers are waiting to mess up the vote. We just don't like the fact that it's possible and would feel a lot better with a more secure system. What's wrong with that?

Indian Voting Machines Compared with
Diebold

Indian Voting Machines Compared with
Diebold 05/14/2004 12:06 PM

Diebold Sued (Again) Over Shoddy Voting
Machines

Diebold Sued (Again) Over Shoddy Voting
Machines 07/12/2004 08:38 PM

Indian voting machines compared with
Diebold's

Indian voting machines compared with
Diebold's 05/13/2004 10:57 AM
On the eve of the first Indian election run with electronic-voting machines, a technologist called "smz" has posted an in-depth comparison between Diebold's voting machines and the ones in use in India.

The System is a set of two devices running on 6V batteries. One device, the Voting Unit is used by the Voter, and another device called the Control Unit is operated by the Electoral Officer. Both units are connected by a 5 meter cable. The Voting unit has a Blue Button for every candidate, the unit can hold 16 candidates, but up to 4 units can be chained, to accommodate 64 candidates. The Control Units has Three buttons on the surface, namely, one button to release a single vote, one button to see the total umber of vote casted till now, and one button to close the election process. The result button is hidden and sealed, It cannot be pressed unless the Close button is already pressed.

The voting unit has a list of candidate's names and their Party Symbols pasted on the surface, and a Blue button to cast a vote faces ever candidate's name. The Party Symbols (like a Lotus, an elephant, a horse etc.) are approved by the election commission to be unique, All political parties use these symbols while campaigning, and illiterate people can identify their candidates by looking at his symbol, and pressing the blue button in front of his symbol.

Link (Thanks, smz!)

Fla. Voting Machines Work in Primary
Test

Fla. Voting Machines Work in Primary
Test 08/31/2004 05:00 PM
AP via Daily Press Aug 31 2004 9:43PM GMT

Malfunctioning (?) Voting Machines, Part
MMMCCXVIII

Malfunctioning (?) Voting Machines, Part
MMMCCXVIII 03/08/2004 11:18 PM
This letter to the editor in the Washington Post is just one more reason to ask voting officials everywhere: Why are you so resistant to voter-verifiable paper trails?

Calif. recertifies touch-screen voting
machines

Calif. recertifies touch-screen voting
machines 06/11/2004 02:34 PM
USA Today Jun 11 2004 6:24PM GMT

Calif. panel calls for ban on Diebold
voting machines

Calif. panel calls for ban on Diebold
voting machines 04/22/2004 08:09 PM

Yahoo! News - Fla. Voting Machines Have
Recount Flaw

Yahoo! News - Fla. Voting Machines Have
Recount Flaw 06/13/2004 07:32 AM
Fla. Voting Machines Have Recount Flaw. The Jeb Bush Florida Theft of the Election 2004 Update .. Florida officials knowingly certified a voting machine that they knew had a flaw! .. AP

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040612/ap_on_el_pr/f lorida_voting_machines_1
track this site | 4 links

Security of electronic voting machines
sparks controversy

Security of electronic voting machines
sparks controversy 12/12/2003 05:30 PM
A heated debate over the security and reliability of electronic voting machines is heralding the arrival of presidential primary season.

Ireland Realizes The Dangers Of Current
E-Voting Machines

Ireland Realizes The Dangers Of Current
E-Voting Machines 04/30/2004 12:16 PM
It looks like the message is finally getting out about the problems of current e-voting systems. As California is looking to get rid of the unreliable machines, Ireland is now making noises about banning the machines as well. It's not that anyone is against the idea of electronic voting - but that the current way it's implemented is dreadful and raises all sorts of questions about whether or not your vote is actually being counted. Apparently, in Ireland, the Prime Minister has been pushing for such electronic voting for a while, but a commission is now recommending not to use the machines in their current form.

Diebold Knew They Broke The Law With
Uncertified Voting Machines

Diebold Knew They Broke The Law With
Uncertified Voting Machines 04/20/2004 04:44 PM
Every time I read another article about Diebold, you wonder what's really going on at the company. They clearly seem to be living in their own little reality where they simply ignore the very important questions people are starting to ask about their voting machines. I wonder how anyone in their right mind could use a Diebold voting machine after these fiascoes. Despite plenty of questions concerning their voting machines over the past few months, Diebold didn't do anything differently and knowingly broke their contract (and the law) with Alameda county by using uncertified software. Diebold's lawyers tried to get them around this by suggesting they claim that the software was "experimental" rather than "uncertified." Despite being clearly told not to do this, Diebold went ahead and used the uncertified and barely tested software which was rushed onto machines for the primary elections in California last month. Even worse, when an employee spoke up to point out that there was poor quality control and an aspect of the voting system was likely to fail, he was quickly fired. When you put together all of the information compiled over the last year concerning Diebold's voting machines, their inability to comprehend why people are upset, and what looks like their outright violation of the law, why would anyone agree to use such a machine during an election?

Computerized Voting Machines Bring
Relief, Fear

Computerized Voting Machines Bring
Relief, Fear 09/05/2004 06:35 PM
VOA Sep 5 2004 10:38PM GMT

Paper Ballot E-Voting Machines Fails
During Test

Paper Ballot E-Voting Machines Fails
During Test 08/16/2004 02:47 AM
While at first glance it might look bad that one of the first new e-voting machines from Sequoia that actually has a paper ballot backup system failed during a demo test, it actually does a wonderful job proving the point most people fighting against current e-voting machines have been trying to prove. The system failed to mark the paper ballot on votes recorded in Spanish, which may seem embarrassing during the test. However, by not marking the paper ballot, it was immediately clear that there was a glitch in the system which could then be fixed. With traditional electronic voting machines that had no paper ballot backup, no one would know whether or not their vote was counted at all.
Grok Description matches for California Bans All E-Voting Machines
GrokA matches for California Bans All E-Voting Machines

California Bans All E-Voting Machines

The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry: