EconTech

I haven’t written much about e-voting initiatives, and there is too much to be written in a single space. But a few quick thoughts before passing you on to the well-versed Stokes. Avoiding the technical issues of which I am not capable of commenting on intelligently, the economic issues in these devices and processes are another story. There is essentially no regulation or liability in the security or proper operation of software. There are a myriad of security issues ALL over the place when it comes to software. Until it is possible to hold software companies liable for the operation, including security related aspects, of the software they create, this security issue is going to continue to be with us. It is very expensive to determine the viability of the security measures taken in software; so much so that purchasers will not be able to individually determine the level of security a product will provide. Either this process needs to be done at some collective level pre-marketing (a.k.a. regulation) or post-hoc action should able to be taken when clear evidence of a product-flaw based breach occurs (as opposed to a configuration flaw). In this case, I prefer the liability approach, despite the substantial diversion of monies to attorneys and other inefficiencies. I do not see those issues as being as problematic as attempting to create a non-political, non-corrupt, and competent commission to effectively regulate and test products. But yes, the whole e-voting controversy stems from the exact same problems that exist in software in general, but just comes to a very loud head when one of the major foundations of our democracy is on the line.

1,000 pages of bad news: Ohio e-voting report released

The results are now in from a thorough, $1.9 million test of the voting machines that Ohio has used in elections over the past few years, and they paint about as awful a picture of the state’s electoral apparatus as one would expect given the stead stream of grim news out of counties like Cuyahoga. The two private-sector and three academic research teams that carried out the Evaluation & Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards & Testing (EVEREST) study of Ohio’s e=voting systems did not mince words in the 86-page Executive report that they released this past Friday (or, if words were minced, then one can imagine that the unminced version wasn’t family-friendly): “The findings of the various scientists engaged by Project EVEREST are disturbing. These findings do not lend themselves to sustained or increased confidence in Ohio’s voting systems.”