|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Electronic Voting Machines Implication Bungled
| + | #redirect [[:Image:Senior_Project.doc]] |
| − | | + | |
| − | Electronic Voting Machines Implication Bungled
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The 2000 presidential election was historic, (facts about fl). As a result Congress implemented the Help Americans Vote Act (explain). However, in the race to implement the requirement to use electronic voting machines (true?), the implication became horribly bungled.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The software so hastily written. Bad process (from report); no comments; anyone could commit changes; no review process.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | As a result, many issues have come up. Security and mistakes
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Theoretical mistakes (can’t recount – so don’t know if mistake)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Have not affected an election yet – that we know of; but some elections close (Al Frankin) – what machines used then?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Societal implications about having accurate machines; needed for democracy
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Not an excuse to ignore vulnerabilities with the machines; problem with old machines yes – but now is the chance to fix problems with old system (accessibility, security); goal is not to = security of old system but perfect security (absence of no insecurities)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Why does society accept this?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | What we can do to fix: open source code (let people review), more careful coding standards, voter verified paper trails
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Category:English 12]] | + | |
| − | [[Category:Senior Project]]
| + | |
Email Me
