Conference Call With Debra Bowen

Debra Bowen is California Secretary of the State responsible for the Top To Bottom Review, and the decertification of electronic voting machines from Diebold and two other vendors: <transcript and conference call>

Some people have criticized the Review as being biased and not conducted in the real world, and it certainly was not, it was conducted in a laboratory setting. The major criticism has been that it did not take into account the physical security that is used in many counties–most counties–but I think it is a mistake to assume that an attacker who wants to interfere with the outcome of an election will not find a way to get their hands on either a voting machine that is used in the polling place, one of the memory cards that is used, or on some other piece of equipment. Or the source code itself…

I’m often asked by people what they can do to support my efforts and to ensure that their votes are accurately counted. My answer would be to get even more involved. Clearly members of the Courage Campaign are already involved, but I’m asking people to go beyond that. If you have concerns about their being an adequate number of well-trained poll workers and you can afford a day, please become a poll worker.

Thorns In The Side or Unappreciated Donors?

“Hackers Welcome” is a refreshing read, at least for the technically inclined.  A great comparison of how different companies treat the discovery of software problems by outsiders – as things to be covered up or as gifts to be appreciated.  Insiders who do the same are either appreciated, suppressed, or out themselves for our benefit – we call them Whistle-blowers.

That kind of stonewalling, enmity and miscommunication has long characterised relations between hackers and software developers, says Jennifer Granick, a cyber-law attorney who represented Lynn in his legal battles…But that attitude is now changing. Software developers are learning that cooperating with hackers is better than ignoring or attacking reports of exploitable holes in software…
Companies, including 3Com’s TippingPoint division and iDefense, offer to buy vulnerabilities from hackers for several thousand dollars apiece, promising to inform the vendor of exploitable flaws.
“Had (Diebold) engaged with us, they’d have a reasonably secure system,” says Felten[Professor, Princeton University]. “Instead, they stonewalled, and look where it got them.”

My only caveat is that the reasoning applies to many people who do not fit the definition of “Hackers”.

FAQ: Have they have fixed all the problems with the voting machines?

Lately I have heard several versions of this statement. In July a registrar said something close to the following to me: The company let go of all the bad (convicted felon) programmers and they have fixed all the problems with the machines. Last week a local monthly paper had this to say in an editorial: … Continue reading “FAQ: Have they have fixed all the problems with the voting machines?”

Lately I have heard several versions of this statement. In July a registrar said something close to the following to me:

The company let go of all the bad (convicted felon) programmers and they have fixed all the problems with the machines.

Last week a local monthly paper had this to say in an editorial:

Potential glitches uncovered by the University of Connecticut Voting Technology Research Center in 2006 have been remedied. – Glastonbury Life

The security holes discovered by UConn have not been fixed. We are using the same version,1.96.6, of the software that UConn tested. The state requires that all software versions be certified by the Secretary of the State before they are used in our elections. Thus far 1.96.6 is the only version that has ever been certified in Connecticut. Time is running out for a coordinated update of machines before the November 6th election.

Continue reading “FAQ: Have they have fixed all the problems with the voting machines?”

CT Voting and Audit Stories – NJ Certification Problems

Doubts Cast On Voting Machines. Westport News – An excellent summary of the concerns with the AccuVote-OS in Connecticut.

Cromwell Vote To Be Audited. Middletown Press – “Town officials learned of the audit in a telephone call from a reporter Thursday night.” I wonder what the official plans are to notify registrars that their towns have been chosen and the municipal clerks who will need to randomly select offices for audits?

N.J. To Miss Voting Deadline, Cherry Hill Courier Post – Optical Scan will not be certified to meet Jan 1 deadline: “The New Jersey Institute of Technology conducted its first round of testing this past summer on three of the machines. Although the machines received a ‘good bill of health,’ Milgram said the results did not meet the criteria the office set in the spring.” More details in the NY Times and the blog from Larry Norden of the Brennan Center.

Random Drawing

Updated: 9/14 and 9/16

Yesterday I attended and participated in the public random drawing of districts for audit. Hopefully, in the next day or two CT-N will put up the video. I did manage to catch some of the rerun late last night. (Note: I will keep updating this entry as more information and the video becomes available.)

Read the Good News, The Not So Good News, and What We We Can Learn, below:

Continue reading “Random Drawing”

Primary Audits Insuffient – The Numbers and The Loopholes

CORRECTION: Watching the CT-N rerun Secretary Bysiewicz said 98%-99%

UPDATE: I participated in the random district drawing today at the Secretary of the State’s press conference.

Actual count: 110 districts, 11 to be audited.
Loophole leaves West Haven, part of Bridgport, and other elections exempt from audit.
Secretary claims audits detect errors and fraud 96?-98% of the time, I say at most 2%-4%.
More details and comment tomorrow.

Original post 09/12/07:

We say that the audits mandated by Public Act 07-194 are insufficient. Yesterday twenty-three Connecticut municipalities held primary elections. Here are the numbers, if I have them correctly:

Primary elections: 23

Election districts (approximately): 125

Districts, statewide, to be selected for audit: 13

Minimum number of primaries that will not be audited: 10

Continue reading “Primary Audits Insuffient – The Numbers and The Loopholes”

ConnPost Covers Election Glitches

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said there were only a “very, very small number of issues” with the new machines…
Bysiewicz said that of the 125 Connecticut precincts using the machines Tuesday, only six reported significant problems with their machines.

As a retired software engineer I would say this is not surprising, given the challenges of rolling out a new system with little opportunity to phase the system in one location at a time. Yet, it means we can expect perhaps 30 – 40 “significant” problems in November. Of course it is all context. We would be quite disturbed to learn that trucks going over Avon mountain had a 95% certainty of working brakes or that the state effectively guarded the Social Security numbers for 95% of the taxpayers. But a machine problem is not the same as uncovering a problem with an election – we hope that procedures were followed and that they will prevent these problems from compromising an election.

We can also choose to have blind faith that without adequate audits, without software transparency, and with secret programming, through miracles and trust in human nature our votes were counted accurately, that these six visible problems were not joined by invisible errors and intentional fraud.

One item in the article gives one pause in considering the integrity of such mitigating procedures:

While at Thomas Hooker School, about 75 ballots could not be immediately counted due to problems with the paper, because of the humidity. The paper ballots were too damp and the voting machine could not process them. The ballots were taken to the Town Clerk’s Office to be counted. It wasn’t immediately known when the count would take place.

Read the full story.

Sign “The Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections”

 Note:  Petition now closed to additional signers, Thank You.

ANNOUNCEMENT: CTVotersCount is initiating a “Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections By November 2008”. Addressed to Connecticut Secretary of the State (SOTS), Susan Bysiewicz, and the Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE).

It is now the time to begin creating support for changing the law in the short legislative session next year, if we are to have elections of integrity and confidence in Connecticut for the November 2008 elections. Elections which include President, 5 U. S. House races, along with the complete Connecticut House and Senate. The time to start, for citizens is NOW!

Continue reading “Sign “The Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections””

Three Issues After Monroe, CT 2006 Audits

Previously I covered my concerns with audit differences in the audit of the 2006 election. Today I will cover my observation of the Monroe, CT audit.

On November 27, 2006 I was able to witness the audit that was taking place in Monroe, CT. Monroe has four voting precincts and two of them were selected for full hand recounts.

There were three issues associated with the audits and several problems with the election process.

Read the details:

Continue reading “Three Issues After Monroe, CT 2006 Audits”

Campaign of GAE’s Co-Chair Charges Election Procedure Violations

Representative Christopher Caruso is Co-Chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) which writes Connecticut election law including the current Audit Law PA 07-194. He has entered the primary for Mayor of Bridgeport. I have been appreciative of Representative Caruso’s efforts in support of the campaign finance law and voter verified paper ballots. However, as readers of this site are aware, I am critical of the inadequacy of PA 07-194 written primarily by the Secretary of the State’s Office and the leadership of the GAE.

The Representative’s campaign clearly agrees that procedures are regularly violated in Connecticut.

Citing a history of poorly-run elections conducted under the shadow of taint, and a range of current violations of Connecticut Election Law by the Democratic Registrar of Voters Santa Ayala, Bridgeport Mayoral candidate Chris Caruso’s campaign manager wrote to Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz today asking her to monitor Tuesday’s election and to consider intervening…

“I hope that you will direct your staff to keenly monitor the conduct of this important election to help guarantee that the process is fair, and that you will even consider taking a more active role in the conduct of the primary in Bridgeport,” wrote Grossman.

John Kantrowitz highlighted this on MyLeftNutmeg as part of the coverage of their mayoral debate.