Which voting equipment has wireless communication capability?

[Fly by night]

I've heard from the Chairman of our State Election Commission (Tennessee) who asked which voting systems are configured with wireless communication capability. I know that the ES&S precinct-based optical scanner is (because the ES&S rep told me so.) I presume that the ES&S central-based optical scan also has wireless capability.

How about any of the central tabulators that are used with DREs from Diebold or other companies? We really seem to have their interest to ban or disable any wireless communication capability in all voting equipment, so as complete a list as possible would sure be appreciated. That includes any DREs that might also have wireless communication.

Thanks kindly. I'm trying to keep working on election reform issues up to the last minute, as I pack for the "big day" tomorrow.

[hedda_foil]

1. WinVote

[Fly by night]

2. Which company manufacturess Winvote? Is it op-scan, DRE ...

... or tabulator? Thanks and klet's keep this kicked for a while.

[demodonkey]

7. I actually SAW the WINvote in action at a voting system expo.

One of the reps told me that as a pollworker I could take it out to a car so a disabled voter could vote and then the WINvote woud BEAM the vote back into the poll!

That's right, the rep said it would BEAM the VOTES -- do you really want your votes beaming around the universe?

Call Scotty, Mr. Spock!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. WINVote made by Advanced Voting Solutions

and anyone who buys them ends up with lots of problems.

The biggest threat is a denial of service, which can be done by a laptop computer in a vehicle parked across the street.

Imagine what could happen to precincts heavily of one party if there was a major denial of service and folks couldn't vote?

[Land Shark]

15. ADvanced Voting Systems, Inc.

Note that Winvote was used in Roanoke County Va this past election, with touch screen vote switches from Kaine and the AG candidate toward the republicans (covered on local tv there too) Kaine still won, but the AG is behind by 400 votes last I heard in a recount situation.

[Melissa G]

3. kickin'

[Fly by night]

4. Got this detailed response from Verified Voting

Here is a note I received from Pamela Smith with Verified Voting (a Stanford University-based organization) that also addresses this issue.
--------
Hi Bernie--
A big problem with the issue of wireless capability is that the technology is now so advanced that it would be hard to detect even by looking inside a system whether it was there or not. It is possible to
"ping" for it using certain types of systems.

In a proposal Diebold offered wireless capability for their TSx DRE to San Diego County - I can document if you like). That was from over 1-1/2 years ago. Part of the stated purpose was to upload (without manually inserting and removing vote cartridges) vote totals from all the machines in one precinct to a designated "accumulator" machine, so that (a) a single tally could be produced representing the precinct totals, and (b) only one vote total cartridge would need to be inserted at the central count facility, versus six or more, per precinct. One assumes another purpose is to allow for easier upload to each machine of the ballot styles and election info for each new election. (Given that San Diego County has 10,200 of these machines, that's a pretty big job and easy to see why it is a big selling point.) Whether the county used it or not I could not tell you. Currently the county is using optical scan. Diebold's older system (TS) has infrared ports, which are of course a form of wireless, though with less accessible a range than newer wireless capabilities.

AVS (Advanced Voting Systems) offers wireless on their WinVote machines, as configured and in actual use in some areas in Virginia for example. We've learned that although the wireless is supposed to be turned off during elections, an official found out that it was actually on in at least one precinct.

I'd have to ask around about some of the other systems. One of the best places to find out this info is from the proposals of vendors who bid on contracts. A St. Louis, MO RFP recently asked vendors for wireless capability... grrr. It said any "proposed system must address the issue of wireless transmission of voting results from the individual polling places to the Board’s central location." This is different than the above-mentioned uses, in that it sends vote information wirelessly such as via a cellular system call to a modem/receiver system at the central count facility.

More soon - Thanks for all your hard work. Best wishes to you always,

Pamela Smith
Nationwide Coordinator
VerifiedVoting.org
[e-mail]

[timewellspent]

5. The ES&S rep was wrong

It's amazing how much info you can get from a sales man. Anyways, the precinct count Optical scan system from ESS does not deal with wireless communications because it is a scanner and tabulator that holds the votes and doesn't have to communicate with anybody except the voter. The votes are store on a pc card that is to the board via a pc card. They do have the capability to transmit totals through a modem, but pollworkers usually can't hang with that.

Central Count has no reason to use any wireless communications.

Check this site out, WinVote makes it all happen.

http://clients.enfocom.com/avs/products_winvote.html


I have witnessed a precinct count Optical Scan and it works well.

[Fly by night]

6. I don't think the rep was misrepresenting the op-scan wireless feature.

Why would he -- how would he benefit? He was responding to my question about how the op-scan is programmed to count the votes. He showed me the slot for the disk (or chip or whatever the right terminology would be in this instance), and then showed me the modem port and volunteered that the op-scan could also be programmed wirelessly. All that would take is an infrared port.

Mind you, I prefer op-scans as the best of the available technology for trustworthiness, efficiency, cost and a host of other features, including the fact that it is a paper-based system. Regardless of whether it has a wireless compatibility, the mandatory random manual recounts would be a check against fraud. But I would still like to disable any wireless capability in op-scans or order equipment with wireless components expressly forbidden.

Once again, I believe the ES&S rep. He knew that I was a very visible voting rights activist so there was no value to him in convincing me that his equipment had an obvious security problem with wireless capability installed.

Welcome to DU.

[timewellspent]

8. I'm not sure how a wireless device would even help them ~

Thanks for the welcome,

I'm just not sure how it would help. I have seen the M100 scanner and I have seen where the PCMCIA card goes and the place where the modem goes. Go to your Board of elections and ask questions. They will answer them.

[Fly by night]

12. It's not necessary for the machine to function, that's for sure.

The argument given to me is that it would allow "more speedy" reports of the results, a reason that everyone of our State Election Commissioners believes is bogus. However, since it would also allow manipulation of the vote-counting software or changing the vote totals, it is wholly inappropriate technology.

See Pamela Smith's comments above about wireless allowing multiple machines to be programmed more rapidly. However, there is no need for speed when it comes to accurately and fairly transferring the consent of the governed to our elected representatives.

I have attended every State Election Commission meeting in my state for the past six months, have met with all county election officials and visited several counties personally. We are the question-askers (and vote protectors) in our state. You'll get to know that after you've been around here a while.

Tennessee: we're not a red state or a blue state -- we're an Orange State.

[yourout]

9. None of them better have.

No effing way there should be wireless or x10 technologies in a voting machine. Never Ever.

[philb]

10. Its known some of the equipment used in 2004 elections could be

serviced and manipulated by the Machine Vendor Company Employees.
This was documented in the Ohio election. The election results were up in real time on Company web sites while the votes were coming in and being tabulated. The machine vendor had remote wireless patch connection to the tabulators and could access the machines.

[Amaryllis]

11. now why on earth would ANYONE put in wireless capability other than

to rig the vote? Any other reason anyone can think of?

[Land Shark]

14. Sequoia has offered wireless as an inexpensive "add on" in responses

to requests for proposals on touch screen voting. I think riversidevoter at yahoo.com had the actual copy of the RFP response in California that contained this "option". I have a copy too but am on the road for a few days and can't get it to you.

[Boredtodeath]

16. ALL OF THEM

Wireless capability is as simple as adding wireless capability to your laptop - you put a wireless card in one of the PCMCIA slots.

At this point, they are making the display screens with wireless capability in the screen itself (see IBM's and Toshiba's laptops). You'd never even KNOW your voting machine was communicating wirelessly; nor would poll workers.

[FogerRox]

17. thank you bill

[Boredtodeath]

18. Actually, not Bill Bored

But, you're welcome. :-)

Since Bill Bored is such a tireless worker on this issue I don't mind being mistaken for him at all.

[FogerRox]

19. DOH-- sorry

[onthebench]

20. They put wireless in because the counties want it

Why are we not attacking the stupid county people for these features? Every single company can add on the wireless feature. The problem is that the lazy county people want it because they want elections to be easy. They tell the voting machine companies to put it in their quotes. Any company reading an RFP says to themselves that if the county wants it we better put it in. Most states do not have a specification for the security of the machine let alone wireless security. If you are a county with 4000 machines to setup for an election. You do not want to take a CD or flash card and open each machine and load the program individually. Even in counties with 700,000 voters, they may only have three techincal people on staff that you could trust to know how to load the ballot. Even if they hired 3 more people, it would take 3 weeks to load the machines. That does not even include time to test them.

The central tabulators in the some counties use VPNs to upload info. In California, it says in the law to transport the ballots back to central with at least two people. What I fear more than even a 5% swing of the vote is the absolute stopping of an election. The worst nightmare is when we get all of the security hashed out and everyone pats themselves on the back that we are all safe. Then the election results show one million votes for "Mickey Mouse". Then what happens? Well then Chimpy declares that the election is obviously invalid and that he should stay on for a few more years to investigate things. That is how the dictator takes over by invalidating elections.

Thanks for letting me rant.