Justice Department May Unwind Diebold E-voting Sale To ES&S
from the but-why? dept
After getting hammered publicly for having e-voting machines that didn't work well and had serious security problems, Diebold tried sell off its e-voting division for years with no luck. It then tried to change its name to Premier, hoping people wouldn't realize it was Diebold. In the end, Diebold finally found a buyer in ES&S, the other large player in the market. Between them they own 70% of the US market, apparently. And that's leading to some concern. The Justice Department is apparently looking into the deal to see if it should be unwound, out of fear that ES&S will jack up prices.Honestly, I don't see what the value is in unwinding the deal. Then you'll have two awful e-voting companies with terrible track records with security and accuracy, rather than one. Instead, why aren't we focusing on requiring truly open solutions so that we actually verify that an e-voting system is both secure and accurate?
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
Filed Under: anti-trust, e-voting
Companies: diebold, es&s, premier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
or, forget e-voting entirely
Something so fundamental in a democracy as an election day should be performed by people, not by machines. Expecially by a machine whose work is extremely difficult to account. Even an opensource solution could have unforeseen security problems.
The only solution is having people counting the ballots and having representatives from all parties supervise in every place counting is performed. Better even, open technologies could be used to open access to raw data while ballots are counted in real-time, to make the whole process even more accountable.
Don't make machines do what should be done by humans!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
e-voting
That is a good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People do what they do already.
Ballots can be changed, faked there is not much that can be done in the real world that cannot in the virtual world.
With that said the solution to a more transparent system may be online voting with secure encrypted keys that will send the data to multiple points and everybody come clean at the end if the results differ something is wrong.
And people could go online to check if their vote was registered and to whom they voted.
That would be impossible with(redundancy) with physical ballots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People do what they do already.
It's true that paper ballots can be changed. What I find concerning about electronic voting is the scale on which fraud could occur. To pad or change individual ballots would require far more organization and manpower than hacking and manipulating the data electronically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People do what they do already.
But I'm talking about society here. A good paper ballots system put a fundamental moment of democracy directly into the hands of common citizens and makes *them* responsible for it. Everybody has a role and every stakeholder has an interest and the right to have representatives at every level of the system. This is what makes it better, not technology - people. This is a moment that makes people become citizens.
If the system functions with an underlying technology that is obscure to most citizens (and don't tell me that common people understand cryptography), that responsibility stops to be theirs and become of someone else - unknown and unaccountable, like diebold. That even if the system were technologically correct.
In the end, what is democracy? If it's only a set of rules (a technology, or, more appropriately, a policy) then it could be easily exported. But it's not: it's a complex system that must exist before in the mind of citizens that partecipate in it. It's not a mystery that democracy is in pretty bad shape even in western countries, and e-vote systems do not help democracy - to the contrary, they're against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Single vendor = junk quality. & The DCMA will protect that vendor
This is a case where the product, which must have a certain verifiable quality, is software, and the unfavorable outcome that could occur due to a poor quality product, would be both serious --> potentially a false election result, and hidden.
This is a perfect example of why the DCMA was such a poor idea, because this problem is arising from software which is copyrighted, encrypted, and protected by the DCMA.
I challenge defenders of the DCMA to explain how this isn't a case of the DCMA interfering with normal free-market processes that are required for a buyer to know that what was purportedly sold, was actually delivered, and will function as advertised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why aren't we requiring open solutions?
But as long as we only think of ourselves we will be under their thumb. They work our greed and fear. We need to step up and vote them out.
We need mostly in America to truly shut down the lobbyists.
No more Obama crap and pandering to our dislikes. Obama was going to get rid of K street. What happened to that?
Instead the lobbyists are still dictating law in America. Only our Congress with the majority agreement can make law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A possible solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll explain my position after I've actually read the article. And then you'll be sorry. They'll all be sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
combined with the fact that i have to go right by my local polling place or its within 5 minutes of where i live, i just dont see the need and/or reason. especially when every possible block to voting that anyone could come up with has already been removed. i cant really think of a single thing that e-voting can accomplish that current methods cant. if there is, feel free to inform me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]