 |
|
Melanie Warner/NYTimes report on Machine Politics in the Digital Age, about Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., who:
It would make sense for outside contractor's providing voting systems and software to be held to the same standards as federal employees, who are restricted from involvement in political activities. It just seems as though those who program, control and maintain the systems should maintain an impartial stance.
I disagree.
Istm that the system should be designed to provide assurance in the face of obvious and forseeable threats. Insider attacks are common. Voting must be robust enough to deter, detect, and correct insider attacks.
Posted by: Ned Ulbricht on November 9, 2003 01:28 PMI agree with Mary. It's especially unnerving to find that Diebold management has contributed heavily to a particular political party (Republican, but the party identity is beside the point other than the fact that it's the party in control of many state legislatures). And then seeing the CEO say he's "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president" is just plain scarey.
Especially given Diebold's history in delivering a machine that can and has been tinkered with via modem.
What we have here is a company making voting machines that Diebold itself can hack. And Diebold itself (in the person of its CEO) has gone on record as being "committed" to seeing that one favorite candidate receives the votes he needs to win.
This is like a bad high-tech dream from a bed in Guatemala or Nicaragua. Unfortunately, when you wake up, you're in Ohio or Florida.
Posted by: UncleBob on November 10, 2003 11:07 AM