Log Trails
-
Log TrailsWould you run your database without a log system? It seems that it's a critical part of any production database that you have a log independent of the data to ensure that changes to data are made in accordance with ACID principles. It's only with a complete log record that you can prove and ensure that there is some integrity of your data. Even if it's changed to a wrong value by someone after being set to something else, the log ensures that you know it was changed.
So this story asking whether voting machines need a paper record seems a little silly. Some log of what votes are made, even a receipt of some sort, would seem to be an obvious requirement.
This isn't a political request. It's a common sense that in some area that's important to ensure integrity in a place where you want to know that an individual's faith in their actions is maintained. It's a place where the choice of how a government will function is true to its tenants, and that the voice of the people is actually the voice that is chosen.
I think that the decision to use technology is a good one. It can speed elections, lower costs, and bring the capabilities for more choices, last minute choices, and who knows what other improvements can be invented. However the decision to implement a specific technology should be done so carefully and without compromising the requirements of the system.
I know that all too often decisions are made to further corporate business interests. Someone bought the VP tickets to a sold out event or played golf. Or they offered a great discount on product X because you already own product Y, even though another company's solution is technically better. I get that and sometimes those decisions make sense. Sometimes they're just a slick form or embezzlement.
But we're human and it happens. It just should be less prevalent in government where all decisions should be open, aboveboard, and available for review by anyone.
Steve Jones
-
Thanks for the good editorial and links.
Also, I just read that vote by mail is a surprisingly good option, too. And it's not as low-tech as you'd think.
The Election is in the Mail
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/opinion/06goldway.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The New York Times
By RUTH GOLDWAY
Published: December 6, 2006
FYI, I think the line should have been: "It's a place where the choice of how a government will function is true to its tenets...." [not tenants]
-------------------
A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html -
A paper trail is needed <period>
I would even opt to go one step further since there will probably never be 'standardized' electronic voting machines. Let's just go back to plain old paper and pencil. You mark an X. No chads or any other nonsense. You read the names and mark an X. If you can't do that, the ballot will be tossed <period>
I do not know if this is an urban legend or not but I seem to remember reading something about a country tabulating national election results all over the country on pencil and paper and having it completed in 24 hours.
Maybe someone can expand on this ...
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
-
OK, I'll take up the opposing position and it's really quite simple:
Voting is fundamentally immoral and unethical. Once you choose to go down that road, what the heck does it matter whether you're using a pre-inscribed shard of pottery (many of those Athenians couldn't write and had to ask--and trust-- someone else to write for them) or an RFID, retinal-scanning, dna-checking, "Ve must see your papers"-national barcode ID tatoo verifying, paper shreading, vote deleting machine?
Just because 501 out of 1000 people think I should be anal-probed before getting on a plane makes it right or OK? (oh wait, we didn't vote on that...waitaminute!! ain't this supposed to be a democracy?!)
("Anarchy = chaos" is demagogery at its finest.)
"Actually, sir, it says here on this paper record that 50.00001% of the people did infact vote to have you anal probed every morning before you get into your car." "Oh, well, heck, why didn't you say so earlier, officer? Would you like me to bend over the hood here or get on my knees first.?"
-
Tis a spirited and quite humorous discussion today John ... Unfortunately I do not know how to translate your request about "Caesar" and his "equine" riding skills. Sorry to disappoint you. 12 years in parochial schools, 4 solid years of Romam Latin, 8 years of Latin Worship; a long, long time ago have had their toll taken by senility.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
-
"However the decision to implement a specific technology should be done so carefully and without compromising the requirements of the system. ..."
Exactly so, Steve - the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was a well-intentioned effort that sent a billion or so dollars to local election boards across the country in the hopes of killing the Hanging Chad.
Unfortunately, many boards and even whole states, including mine (Maryland) did a "ready, fire, aim" approach to this problem.
I must admit, the Diebold Direct-Reading Electronic (DRE) machines they bought us in Maryland are very cool and easy to use. But they are insecure and subject to wholesale tampering.
I was skeptical of this whole issue until recently, as the most noise about it was coming from groups that seemed to have a conspiracy-based agenda (that is, "... Diebold is in bed with the <insert name of party that won the election> and stole the election from us...")
But after listening to a non-partison critic of the current crop of DRE's, Avi Rubin (he's a professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins) it seemed worth a second look. Avi makes an excellent case in his book, "Brave New Ballot: The Battle to Safeguard Democracy in the Age of Electronic Voting"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767922107
For example, I used to think, what's the big problem - those lever-type voting machines (I'm showing my age) didn't have a paper trail - in fact it never occurred to us that that was a problem. Avi points out that while lever-type machines are subject to retail tampering (that is, you get physical access to a given, single machine and futz with it), DRE's are subject to *wholesale* fraud - malicious code that could skew the results of a whole election district, state, etc. Furthermore, there is really no good way to detect when such an attack has been made.
Also, just after reading this book, NIST came out with a draft report on the security problems of DRE's -it's pretty short, clear, and validates much of what Avi has been saying - definitely worth reading: http://vote.nist.gov/DraftWhitePaperOnSIinVVSG2007-20061120.pdf
I see now that the problem is not a conspiracy as much as it is a natural desire by local election boards to conduct elections more efficiently and with less cost. In Maryland, for example, the decision to go with the Diebold machines came under a Democratic governor whose term ended in 2003. Unfortunately, we were sold a bill of goods and traded in a system that actually is very secure and provides an audit trail - paper ballots read by optical-scan vote-counters - for these problematic DRE's.
I urge all of you to become educated about this issue. I doubt that there has been any significant vote-tampering of DRE's up to now. But the possibility continues to be a source of stress and distrust among the citizenry, undermining the aims of our democracy and good governance.
Best regards,
SteveR
Log TrailsViewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply