| ||
Sat 2024-12-21
Fri 2024-12-20
Thu 2024-12-19
Wed 2024-12-18
hydroxychloroquine fraud withdrawn Tue 2024-12-17
Sun 2024-12-15
Sat 2024-12-14
Fri 2024-12-13
Thu 2024-12-12
Tue 2024-12-10
Search
Archives
2023
12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
One good site
MDN
Nelson Minar
Blog licensed under a Creative Commons License
|
The New York Times has a
Diebold
love piece about voting machines. It's well written enough,
explaining various concerns with the technology in clear language. But
every concern is answered as if it's not a problem, and in the end
even I was wondering why Computer Geek Lunatics were harassing
Poor Diebold. My favourite bit, the last sentence:
Critics say they can only hope that the problems will not be severe
enough to require recounts, since paper ballots will not exist.
Why the #$($*#*$ won't paper ballots exist? The article doesn't get
into that. Nor does it discuss
the Diebold
backdoor that lets you change the votes, nor the
ACM's emerging
position against electronic voting.
And it only briefly
touches on the long sorry operational history. Still, it was nice to
learn Diebold's gonna add some crypto to the communication links. Duh!
I generally like Guernsey's articles, but I think she relied too much on Diebold for this article. |
|
