USATODAY.op-ed by BBV makers:"Electronic voting is solution"

[papau]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=2&u=/usatoday/20040204/cm_usatoday/electronicvotingissolution

Electronic voting is solution
Wed Feb 4, 7:44 AM ET Add Op/Ed - USATODAY.com to My Yahoo!


By Harris N. Miller

Voting is democracy in action. No process better underscores the trust American citizens have in their government, and no process, poorly conducted, can go so far in undermining that trust. Given the stakes involved, getting election-systems technology right is absolutely critical. Small wonder so much attention has been focused on election technology and, specifically, direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines.<snip>

Electronic voting is the much-needed next generation. It brings new levels of accuracy, prevents overcounts and undercounts, enfranchises voters (especially those with physical disabilities and non-English speakers) and improves ease of use for all. Honest mistakes are eliminated, and stuffed ballot boxes are a thing of the past.


But a small number of vocal critics, conveniently forgetting the crisis instigated by the older voting technology, claim electronic voting is a curse, not a cure. They argue that software-dependent systems have gaping security holes and cannot verify results.


Such views, based on conjecture rather than fact, argue against fixing the problem altogether. DRE security is already strong. Measures to prevent tampering make the technology far superior to anything before, and improvements continue. Local election officials operating in the real, not academic, world know that the rewards of moving to DREs far outweigh the manageable risks.<snip>


...voters using DREs are very pleased with the experience....people must see beyond the critical hype and hypothetical worst-case scenarios and vote for common sense.


Harris N. Miller is president of the Information Technology Association of America, which includes makers of electronic voting machines.

[I_like_chicken]

1. *cough*bullsh*t*cough

I like how the author doesn't bother to state how any of these criticism are just conjectures. And they argue against fixing the problem....umm ok

[einniv]

2. based on conjecture ??

So the university studies are conjecture? Just some college kids debating theoreticals?
Ummm no:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/technology/29CND-SECU.html

[BeFree]

3. hilariuos!!

It's nice to see them having to defend themsleves and their Black Boxes.

There were a few bits of truth embedded in this article, that otherwise is an assemblage of lies. For instance:

"It brings new levels of accuracy"....only problem is the level is much lower.

and:

"Given the stakes involved, getting election-systems technology right is absolutely critical"... Yeah, if * is not elected, it will be the end of Dieblod/BBV. But that statement also shows why the rest of the article is just a lie. Given the "critical" nature of election systems, you'd think the companies, if they really wanted to do the right thing, would accept all criticisms as part of the process of improvement. Yet, as we can see, they obviously don't want any critics. Nowhere in this article is there an appreciation of the several studies which found security problems. No, this article just says: "Such views, based on conjecture rather than fact".

They are really getting desperate. They know the gigs up.