Diebold election insecurity systems
Posted May 18, 2006 6:56 UTC (Thu) by ekj
Parent article: Diebold election insecurity systems
This is incredibly naive:
For there to be a problem here, you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software, I don't believe these evil elections people exist.
In other words, the combination of hardware and software used to control voting (and thus government) is simple and straigthforward to manipulate in a way that is hard to detect. But it's not a problem because everyone is going to be nice and not do that.
That's not reassuring. It's a lot like shipping a firewall with a backdoor-password known to 5000 people, and then when it's discovered claim that its not a problem, because those 5000 people are all going to be nice.
Responding to security-problems with "everyone is going to be nice and refrain from taking advantage of this vulnerability" is not what you want to hear from the vendor of the software/hardware that literally holds the keys to the government of the worlds last remaining superpower.
to post comments)