Democracy By Obscurity
from the for-your-own-protection dept
It turns out that, not only are the makers of electronic voting machines practicing security by obscurity, those who certify the machines are just as secretive. Call it democracy by obscurity. The certification companies, who are hired by the e-voting machine companies (conflict of interest?) won't reveal what they do to test the machines or the results of any such tests. So, while the e-voting machine companies continue to insist that they're secure, they won't show us how the systems work for others to prove that its secure, and the only people who are certifying the machines are secure are being paid by the vendors themselves and won't reveal their testing methods or results. It's the "just trust us" form of counting votes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we must have standards
What standard is used to certify the integrity of electronic voting machines and where can I purchase it for review?
I believe it is a valid criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]