"Did a Counterculture Subvert the Megamachine, or the Other Way Around?" By Christopher Tillman Neal

Technology and science are at the core of historical developments in the twentieth century and onto the 21st. I believe a counter cultural phenomenon can and often times brings people together to create a sphere of designers. What I mean by designers are people who wish to build an artifact, and I believe the world can be an artifact. In addition, a technological apparatus can be an artifact as well, and the Internet that was once primarily used for governmental means has transformed the way we communicate worldwide, and is also a technological artifact because it is made by humans. Hence, we are as a nation and on an international scale, a sphere of designers. In reference to megamachine subversion, I do, however, believe that a counterculture subverted the megamachine because in the 1960s computer technology was looked upon as embodying a rigid organization—a mechanical conformity that made the military-industrial complex possible. 


However, individuals like Stanford University’s Communication’s Department Assistant Professor Fred Turner, and Stewart Brand, best known for the ‘Whole Earth Catolog’ and who assisted Doug Englebart with ‘The Mother of All Demos’ a famous presentation of many revolutionary computer technologies, were aspired to break down the boundaries of individual experience and embrace a larger collective consciousness. Since World War II and into the Cold War I think our society moved into, a post mature age, which tried to repeat its successes, trying to recover the values of the past, and was met with inertia when it set out on an innovative path, to cast off some of the ballast of the past and move on to something contemporary, cutting edge, but challenging. I feel as a society we are too often, offering old solutions to new problems, and I think this is where the counter cultural phenomena sparked to subvert the megamachine—this technological super system. 


On the other hand, Professor of Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT Sherry Turkle, writing on the subject of ‘technological spin’ or the stories we tell ourselves about our technologies, contends that we are still anxious about technology spiraling out of control, distrustful of the soul of the megamachine and worried about the mechanization of the human mind. Consequently, the evolution of the Internet gave rise to a new collective consciousness to counteract this mechanization of the human mind, felt by counterculturalist. 


The Internet as an artifact, seems to embrace a collaborative digital utopia-like sphere, which is modeled on the communal ideas of the 1960s counter cultural revolution, where individuals who participated in that counter cultural phenomenon so vehemently rebelled against the Cold War establishment in the first place. Nevertheless, the article entitled “Where the Counterculture Met the New Economy—The WELL and the Origins of Virtual Community”, by Fred Turner states: “It [The Whole Earth Catalog] thus offers a concrete, detailed account of the processes by which the counter cultural celebration of small-scale technologies as tools for the transformation of consciousness and community came to undergird popular understandings of early computer networks” (p.5). 


Thus, the vision of counterculturalists such as Fred Turner, and technologists in subverting the megamachine, brought forth an opportunity for them to join together in collective action to reimagine computers; reimagining computers, as personal tools for liberation, the building of virtual and decidedly alternative communities, and the exploration of bold new social frontiers. I do believe that the megamachine can be put off course. I have confidence that if we become more aware of the nature of technology, of the humanness of technology, of the capacity we have to construct our technology socially, we can better control our large technological systems and redirect them.


--


References:



Turner Fred. (2005). “Where the Counterculture Met The New Economy: The WELL and the 


Origins of Virtual Community.” Technology and Culture, Volume 46, Number 3, July 


2005, pp. 485-512


Turkle, Sherry. (2004). “Spinning' Technology: What We Are Not Thinking About When We 


Are Thinking About Computers,” in Technological Visions: The Hopes and Fears That 


Shape New Technologies, ed. Marita Sturken, Douglas Thomas, and Sandra J. Ball-


Rokeach Philadelphia: Temple University Press. P. 19-33.

One Laptop Per Child: Technology, Criticism & Recommendations by Christopher Tillman Neal C. 2008. Information 190 —Technology & Poverty, University of California, Berkeley

I. Technology

The One Laptop Per Child Association, Inc. is a U.S. non-profit association created to overlook the production of an affordable, educational device for use in the developing world. Its present-day focus is on the advancement, manufacturing and placement of the XO-1 laptop to foster children’s education in developing nation’s. OLPC has brought about a lot of enthusiasm regarding the information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D) initiative and one-to-one computing fields of research. One of the key elements of the XO-1 laptop is that it increases an interest in traditional schooling and targets the individual child.  The benefits of targeting the individual child, opens up an opportunity for constructionist learning—learning through exploring rich tools; giving children the ability to teach themselves. Seymour Papert, MIT Mathematician, computer scientist and educator, is one of the pioneers of artificial intelligence, as well as an inventor of the Logo Programming Language, used for functional programming. He created Logo as a tool to improve the way that children intellectualize and get to the bottom of problem solving. In addition, he was the developer of an original and highly influential theory on learning called constructionism, mentioned previously. Constructionism is a theory suggesting that learning is an active method, wherein students are actively establishing intellectual configurations and theories of the world.

Papert has been an enthusiast of the One Laptop per Child initiative to develop and disseminate the XO-1, previously known as the $100 Laptop Children’s Machine in developing nations. The article entitled, One Laptop per Child: Just What Sort of Content Do You Load On These Puppies? by Ethan Zuckerman, describes the goal of the OLPC stating: “…[t]he laptops are devices that enable students to explore, discover and learn—either on their own or with the mentorship of talented educators—much of the focus of tier one and two has been creating devices that function far outside the classroom” (p.1).

Correspondingly, in concern for subversive teaching authority concerning the OLPC initiative, Zuckerman argues: ‘“When I’ve expressed my concerns that the devices are subversive to teacher’s authority in the classroom and that some teachers might be led to actively thwart laptop use in classrooms, OLPC Software and Content President Walter Bender has responded, “That’s why it’s a laptop.” In other words, if the schools are broken pedagogically, at least curious learners will have the chance to explore at home with their human-powered, self-meshing machines” (p.1). Nevertheless, the OLPC organization is chaired by Nicholas Negroponte, who is the driving force behind the OLPC project, a project designed to bring reliable, affordable—state-of-the-art computers to children worldwide. Nicholas Negroponte’s non-profit One Laptop per Child, look’s for the opportunity to accommodate children around the world with new opportunities to analyze, examine, and express themselves.

The Laptops contain a human power system for use where there is no electricity. They corrugate different ways, are covered in rubber and plastic for solidity and display in two modes, both a normal LCD and a sunlight readable black and white screen at 3X resolution. The machines come arrayed with three USB (universal serial bus) ports; they are wi-fi capable and mesh network capabilities, so that for example, a classroom or more of children can share internet access collectively and inexpensively. However, the article entitled, Nicholas Negroponte on Windows XP and Sugar (published May, 2008) describes the agreement made between OLPC and Microsoft stating: “One Laptop per Child is announcing an agreement with Microsoft to make a dual boot, Linux/Windows, version of the XO-1 Laptop…[I]n the meanwhile, OLPC remains fully committed to our goal—a completely free and open learning platform for the world’s children…[S]ugar is the first user interface specifically designed for children and teachers to learn and collaborate and remains our strategy” (p.1).

In essence, Sugar, which is a graphical user interface, was developed for the One Laptop per Child computer-education project and is used on the OLPC XO-1 Laptop computer. It is unique in comparison to conventional desktop environments because it does not use a desktop metaphor—it only focuses on one task at a time. The academic journal, Designing for Development: Understanding One Laptop per Child in its Historical Context by authors Mike Ananny and Niall Winters expound on a very important consideration of information and communication technology for development projects like the OLPC stating: “We suggest that this and other ICT4D projects be critiqued not only in terms of their technological feasibility, economic rationales or models of education but, more fundamentally, in terms of the ideologies they intend their users to enact” (p.107). In like manner, authors Ananny and Winters argue, however, although the OLPC’s interface guidelines are ostensibly low-level instructions of interest only to a self-selecting, self-structuring community of open-source designers, they can also serve-intentionally or otherwise—as powerful signals to policy makers, cultural critics and local communities of the particular ideologies intended to be enacted by the XO’s users” (p.107).

In connection to the preceding argument by Ananny and Winters, I will argue that there are benefits of an open-source process—First, open-source processes reduce operational costs and Second—the fear of being controlled by the software industry is reduced; freeing the open-source community from hegemonic pressure. However, OLPC collaboration with Microsoft raises concerns because of the hierarchical-hegemonic bureaucracy that Microsoft is known for. Thus, further critique of the OLPC project is discussed in the following section. 

II. Criticisms 

The previous section—Technology addressed the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program and its initiative to address the dilemma of bringing pedagogy or the art and science of teaching to the extensive numbers of children in the developing world by means of the XO-1 Laptop—a programmable to engineer, ingenious problem-solving skills apparatus. Hence, the OLPC announced an agreement in May 2008 that they would work with Microsoft to make a dual boot, Linux/Windows version of the XO-1 Laptop. However, the article, One Laptop per Child is Straying Dangerously Off the Track takes a critical approach to the aforementioned agreement stating: ‘“Nicholas Negro Ponte now seems to think that all of Sugar’s problems can be solved by outsourcing a Sugar-on-Windows port to developers in Uruguay, who will be funded by Microsoft. In a clever rhetorical trick, this allows OLPC to continue to insist that it “gets no money to Windows developers,” even though it employs a number of people who work full-or part-time on supporting the Windows-on-XO-1 effort” (p.1).

The OLPC open-source initiative, if not careful, could find them in fear of being controlled by the software industry. On the other hand, the open-source community is free from this pressure. In fact, I believe that an open-source process would result in more accurate software development, as more scientists, software engineers, and others focus on the quality of the software that is used for educating the children of developing nations. The problem with using Microsoft developers on a project designed for non-profit educational innovation is troubling because Microsoft is closed-source—wherein the corporate software production of source code is proprietarily controlled, and is not accessible to any person outside the corporation. The scholarly journal entitled, Problems with the OLPC Approach by Lee Felinities (published November 10, 2005), addresses various problems with the $100 Laptop stating: “By marketing the idea to governments and large corporations, the OLPC project adopts a top-down structure…[D]espite the fact that neither the children, their schools nor their parents will have anything to say in the creation of the design, large orders of multi-million units are planned” (p.1).

For Felenstein, implementation of such technological systems with inadequate infrastructural support, and the lack of power and Internet backhaul capability, will present a serious impediment. Correspondingly, the article One Clunky Laptop per Child featured in The Economist (published January, 4th 2008) had this to say about the OLPC initiative: ‘“Mr. Negroponte sought funding from education ministries: “It’s an education project, not a technology project”, he was fond of saying. Faced with critics who argued he should concentrate on the classic development issues that keep people poor and sick rather than doling out high-tech gear, Mr. Negroponte would rightly reply that education through computers could help resolve all such problems. Today that optimism seems Pollyannaish. Many governments (including Nigeria’s and Libya’s), cancelled their informal commitments to purchase the machines when they realized the devices were untried, the price higher than envisaged and other cheap laptops available” (p.1).

Consequently, Walter Bender, former President of Software and Content for the OLPC project, mentioned in the Technology section of this paper, eventually resigned because he disagreed with the near-total abandonment of the original mission—constructionism—children learning to create life-long exploration and collaboration through open information and communication technologies. The article, Walter Bender Resigned from One Laptop per Child!! describes what led to Walter Bender’s resignation stating: “Apparently, rumor has it that Nicholas Negroponte is close to abandoning Sugar and Linux in favor for Microsoft XP, to spur sales of the XO-1 Laptop. Negroponte thinks that many more laptops need to be sold and a partnership with Microsoft is the way to achieve that goal” (p.1). Thus, the OLPC has received a healthy level of criticism from business, state and academic arenas and the primary concerns are its appropriateness. 

Some believe a partnership with Microsoft will pervert the original mission—constructionism—creating life-long exploration and collaboration through open information and communication technologies. Others argue, however, that it is not a $100 Laptop that children need, it is basic infrastructure and spending on teachers and schools. There have also been concerns of a closed-source instead of an open-source software design team, which can be utilized to reflect the desires of the users. Nonetheless, the OLPC project provides an interesting and valid ideological standpoint from which to view information and communication technologies—implementing innovative design strategies in developing nations. 

III. Recommendations and Ideas 

While the OLPC may have had noble intentions, it has started to look like the project lost its way. It seems as if Nicholas Negroponte’s dream of developing an apparatus (i.e. XO-Laptop) to serve the needs of children in developing nations has been blurred by an ill-defined aim regarding what the OLPC hoped to achieve. However, I will argue, there has not been a lot of focus to remedy the OLPC project woes, but there has been a ton of criticism and to overlook a future forward remedial strategy; helping to redefine the OLPC initiative or redefine OLPC-like strategies in the future is worrisome. For instance, instead of merely focusing on the negative aspects of the OLPC initiative one could hypothetically argue solutions for a more consistent and organized, and innovative approach to assist those in need in various developing nations such as:

-Use software corporations as business advisors only.

-Adopt a core open-source initiative and stick to it.

-Keep pedagogy at the crux of the experiment.

-Involve the children, parents and teachers in the project.

I suggest using corporations like Microsoft as supporters and business advisors, not as partners because partnering with a company that is closed-sourced, (i.e. source code is proprietarily controlled) negates the original purpose of the OLPC project. Embracing an open-source process without wavering has a lot of benefits. For example, open-source allows the opportunity for modification, so that developers, governments, customers, and the children who use the laptop, can change the software to fit a diverse set of needs. In addition, the ability to modify source code provides the developers, with the ability to define next generation software and the software should be developed to grow with the children in developing nations. 

Pedagogy must also be at the crux of the experiment because this technique, in conjunction with an innovative approach to education, will thrust students—along with a developing nation's social and economic structures—into the 21st century. Moreover, beyond the memorization of established facts and the replication of standard procedures, students will need to be able to administer school course comprehension to solve complicated, real life difficulties. The students will need to be able to work in groups on long-term assignments that transcend subject matter boundaries. In addition, the children will need to be able use technology to search for, formulate, analyze and actualize cognition and intelligence. As a result, they will be able to determine what their learning curve is, take measure of their advancement and the quality of the software they use, and continuously develop and improve on what it is that they know.

Nevertheless, policymakers who are joining OLPC in order to accommodate students with new talents that are needed to concentrate on the challenges of the 21st century, should not only present personal computers, but look at the extended dimensions of educational tactics. Chiefly, courses as well as complexities must also be altered if the introduction of personal computers is going to provide for social and economic development.

The children, their schools and their parents should have a say in the creation of the design. This approach supports the original mission—contructionism and pedagogy, which should be central to this experiment. One of the main problems with the OLPC initiative is its total disregard for the role that teachers and parents play in the lives of children in developing nations. When initiating a project like OLPC, the student, parent and teacher experience should be at the top of the list; incorporating innovative solutions to bring the preceding elements together to create a cohesive bond between the child, parent as well as the teacher. All of these elements play an important role in structuring the students' use of the XO-1 Laptop. The training of teachers—children and parents—is a crucial factor to a successful initiative of OLPC project success. Innovative pedagogical techniques are needed for the XO-1 laptop initiative to be a reflection of constructionism and constructionist learning development envisioned by Nicholas Negroponte and the OLPC initiative. Consequently, the most persuasive procedures of skillful educational programs include groups of educators who are involved in collectivist and bilateral support. These procedures often involve all-inclusive associations with government agencies, professional organizations, and the private sector.

I argue that all children in the 21st century can benefit from an educational system that gets learners ready to be critical thinkers, knowledge developers, and learners who are self-motivated to achieve high levels of success in the classroom and in the real world. However, before any OLPC-like project takes form, one would be prudent to consider the thoughts of an internationally influential economic thinker, with a professional background as a statistician and economist in Britain—author E.F. Schumacher and his view of technology. In his book Small Is Beautiful: As if People Mattered, states: “The modern world has been shaped by its metaphysics, which has shaped its education, which in turn has brought forth its science and technology. So, without going back to metaphysics and education, we can say that the modern world has been shaped by technology” (p.120). For Schumacher, the preceding quote describes the relationship of earth and user friendly technology matched to the scale of community life and all of these elements should be considered when introducing a new technology to the world. Equally important is how one shapes technology—Schumacher comments on this topic stating: “ If that which has been shaped by technology, and continues to be so shaped, looks sick, it might be wise to have a look at technology itself. If technology is felt to be becoming more and more inhuman, we might do well to consider whether it is possible to have something better—a technology with a human face” (p.120). The lesson here in connection to the OLPC project and for future OLPC-like initiatives, is that however ingenious the innovation, it needs to be appropriate to the context and culture of the people. It needs to fit in and not be enforced and it needs affiliations and organization to support it.

In conclusion, the OLPC project began with a human face, but however became sick when partnered with a corporate technology giant(s). The OLPC suffered from a hegemonic virus that is all too familiar, when a non-profit initiative comes in contact, with capitalistic pressure to conform to a proprietarily driven ideology, and hidden agenda. This is not meant to disgrace Negroponte’s dream—because his dream was designed to help children, suffering from economic and social neglect, and he should still keep that dream. It is true that the OLPC project encountered many setbacks, but this is where really interesting stuff happens (i.e. experimental stage) because the people in developing nations who use OLPC technology, return with their own ideas and critiques; making OLPC-like projects better for future technological endeavors.

--

References:

         

1.Ananny, M. & Winters, N. (2007). Designing for Development: Understanding

 One Laptop per Child in its Historical Context. ICTD 2007. P.107.

2. Felenstein, Lee. (2005). Problems With the OLPC Approach. The Fonly Institute.

P.1. Retrieved on December 1, 2008 at 7:30 P.M. P.1.

http://fonly.typepad.com/fonlyblog/2005/11/problems_with_t.html.

3. One Laptop per Child News. (2008). Nicholas Negroponte on Windows XP and 

Sugar. Retrieved December 1, 2008 at 6:47 P.M.   

P.1.http://www.olpcnews.com/people/negroponte/nicholas_negroponte_windows_xp.html

4. One Laptop per Child News. (2008). One Laptop per Child is Straying Dangerously Off theTrack. Retrieved on December 3, 2008 at 10:12 P.M. P.1.

http://www.olpcnews.com/people/negroponte/one_laptop_per_child_off_the_track.html

5. One Laptop per Child News. (2008). Walter Bender Resigned from One Laptop per Child!!. Retrieved on December 4, 2008 at 6:10 P.M.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Walter+Bender+Resigned+from+One+laptop+ per+Child%21%21&aq=f&oq=.Schumacher, E.F.(1973). Small is Beautiful—Economics as is People Mattered.Hartley & Marks Publishers Inc. London. P. 120.

6. The Economist. (2008). One Clunky Laptop per Child!!. P.1. Retrieved on December 4, 2008 at 8:30 P.M. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10472304.

7. Zuckerman, Ethan. (2007). One Laptop per Child: Just What Sort of Content Do You Load on these Puppies? Retrieved on November 21, 2008 at 8:31 P.M.

 http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005888.html.

eVoting Security: Critical to Restoring Voter Confidence by Christopher Tillman Neal

Elections grant citizens the ability to pick their representatives and convey their preferences for how they will be governed. Naturally, the integrity of the election system is fundamental to the integrity of democracy itself. The election systems must be adequately built to withstand an assortment of fraudulent behaviors and must be adequately clear and comprehensible that voters, as well as candidates, can acquire the results of an election. Unsurprisingly, history is littered with examples of elections being engineered in order to affect their outcome. Dr. Matt Bishop, professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of California at Davis and author of Computer Security Art & Science says, three components comprise computer security: “Confidentiality, integrity and availability” (p.3). Bishop describes each component stating: “…[C]onfidentiality is the concealment of information of resources, integrity refers to the trustworthiness of data resources, and it is usually phrased in terms of preventing improper or unauthorized change and availability refers to the ability to use the information or resource desired (Bishop, p.4-6). Out of the three preceding components of computer security, two are essential for e-voting security: confidentiality, which preserves anonymity and trustworthiness, which is critical to instill voter confidence.

The design of an excellent voting system, whether electronic or using accustomed paper ballots or mechanical devices, must make good a number of sometimes, competing standards. As was stated earlier, the anonymity of a voter’s ballot must be safeguarded, both to insure the voter’s anonymity when voting against a pernicious candidate, and to insure that voter’s have no evidence that proves, which candidates received their votes. The essence of such a manifestation would avow the means for votes to be purchased by the candidate. The voting system must also be impervious to tampering to circumvent a wide range of attacks, including ballot stuffing by voters and incorrect tallying by insiders. In the paper entitled, Analysis of an Electronic Voting System, by authors Tadyoshi Kohno, Adam Stubblefield, Aviel D. Rubin and Dan S. Wallach discuss the importance of human factors stating: “Another factor, as shown by the so-called “butterfly ballots” in the Florida 2000 presidential election, is the importance of human factors. A voting system must be comprehensible to and usable by the entire voting population, regardless of age, infirmity, or disability” (p.3).

In other words, a voting system must make available, a connection to such a multifarious population because such a multifarious population is a weighty engineering dilemma and one where, if other security is used well, electronic voting could be an awesome upgrade over current paper systems.

The article, Stop the Presses: How Paper Trails Fail to Secure eVoting, by Daniel Castro, argues how traditional paper ballots are not a secure form of voting and a break down in security controls have led to modified, spoiled and, pilfered ballots, as well as stuffed ballot boxes. For Castro, he believes it is time for the debate on e-voting technology to move beyond a discussion of paper audit trails” (p.1-2). On the other hand, I argue that flaws in any aspect or methodology of voting system security can lead to incorrect election results, whether paper or electronic systems are used. I do agree with Castro, however, that e-voting must transcend the discussion of paper audit trails because both paper and electronic systems have their flaws. For instance, as a result of the Florida presidential election, the incompetence of widely used punch card voting systems, have become well understood by everyday people. Then, there is the adoption of ‘direct recording electronic’ (DRE) voting systems to deal with the incompetencies of the paper system. DRE systems, generally speaking, completely eradicate paper ballots from the voting process. As with common elections, voters go to their community and attest that they are allowed to vote there, perhaps by presenting identification (i.e. ID card), although some states grant voters access to cast votes without and identification at all.

The voter is typically provided with a PIN, a smartcard, or some other token that allows them to come in contact with a voting machine, enter the token, and then vote for their candidates choice. When the voter’s selection is attained, DRE systems will typically present an overview of the voter’s choosing, giving them a final opportunity to make adjustments and then, the ballot is cast and the voter is free to depart. However, the most important complication with such a voting system is that the entire election is subject to the correctness, robustness, and security of the software within the voting machine. Should that code have security relevant flaws, they might be exploitable either by dishonest voters or by mischievous insiders. Such insiders include election officials, the developers of the voting system, and the developers of the operating system on which the voting system runs. If any group introduces defects into the voting system software or takes advantage of pre-existing defects, then the results of the election cannot be confirmed to precisely reflect the votes legally cast by the voters.

In a lecture given by University of California, Davis, Computer Science Professor, Dr. Matt Bishop, on October 22, 2003; concerning e-voting security—he provides a discussion of electronic voting schemes stating: “One of the concerns in electronic voting schemes work by having a computerized voting machine take a user’s votes, through an input device like a touch screen and record it in storage. All votes are stored on three different sets of media for redundancy. At the end of the day, one of the pieces of media is removed from the machine, and the votes on it are uploaded to a server using a modem and telephone line. The server is not on the Internet, and can only be accessed through the phone line when the operators are told to turn on the modem at the server’s end on” (Bishop, Lecture 10/22/2003).  The preceding lecture given by Dr. Bishop is an example of how vulnerable e-voting machines are and it takes diligence, prudence and better code writing to avoid malicious attacks, whether the attacks are from insiders or external threats.

Reflecting on Castro’s argument discussed earlier—he said that voting machine security should move beyond the discussion of paper audit trails. I think this is a good point to consider because a paper audit trail in itself is not enough. A voter-verifiable audit trail is a record of how the voter voted, in a form that the voter can read or hear, but this poses two problems. One, the deliberate input of wrong data and two, some people may not want others to see who they voted for. In addition to the aforementioned problems, I hypothesize another issue—the code could deliberately be attacked and if not, one could attack the operating system if not on the actual server and if the server is not connected to anything, the modem could be compromised or hacked. Correspondingly, Forefront: The College of Engineering Magazine, at the University of California, Berkeley, featured an article by Rachel Shafer entitled, E-Voting Machines Crack Under Scrutiny. This article is a discussion of flaws in e-voting machines uncovered by David Wagner, Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley—he states concerning vulnerability issues: “We looked for anything that could corrupt the software, shut down a polling place or do harm to an election”, say’s Wagner, a renowned Cryptologist and Computer Security expert who co-led the study with University of California, Davis Professor, Dr. Matt Bishop, “The flaws we found were pervasive, blatant and mundane” (p.1).

The preceding discovery by Dr. Matt Bishop and Professor David Wagner was directed toward—Diebold Election Systems. In addition, the USA Today article published June 26, 2006 entitled, Analysis Finds E-Voting Machines Vulnerable, by Andrea Stone, further comments on Diebold’s dishonesty stating: “Election officials in California and Pennsylvania recently issued urgent warnings to local polling supervisors about potential software problems in touch-screen voting machines after a test in Utah uncovered vulnerabilities in machines made by Diebold Election Systems, such as:

-Using corrupt software to switch votes from one candidate to another, is the easiest way to attack all three systems. A would-be hacker would have to overcome many hurdles to do this, the report says, but none is insurmountable.
-Even electronic systems that use voter-verified paper records are subject to attack unless they are regularly audited.
-Most states have not implemented election procedures or countermeasures to detect software attacks” (p.1).

In addition to the preceding scrutiny, critique and attack on Diebold’s software vulner-
abilities, the article (Published December 21, 2005) entitled, California Scrutinizes Diebold E-Voting, by Staff Writer of CNET News Anne Broache elaborates on Diebold’s issues stating: ‘“California election officials said this week that they can’t certify Diebold’s electronic voting systems without additional federal review. In a letter sent Tuesday to the embattled Ohio-based company, Elections Chief Caren Daniels-Meade said “significant unresolved security concerns” exist with memory cards used by Diebold’s systems. She ordered the company to submit the source code of programs associated with those cards for “immediate evaluation” by federal independent testing authorities”’ (p.1).

Comparatively, these above-mentioned articles support the article (Published August 23, 2008) entitled, Diebold Comes Clean, Admits That It’s E-Voting Machines Are Faulty by Darren Murph at Engadget stating: ‘“According to spokesman Chris Riggall, a “critical programming error that can cause votes to be dropped while being electronically transferred from memory cards to a central tallying point” has been part of the software for ten years. The flaw is on both optical scan and touch screen machines and while Mr. Riggall asserts that the logic error probably didn’t ruin any elections (speaking of logic error…), the outfit’s president has confessed to being “distressed” about the ordeal. More like “distressed” about the increasingly bleak future of his company” (p.1).

For quite some time, voting machine vendors have maintained that their systems are secure, such as Diebold spokesman, Chris Riggall and that the closed-source nature makes them even more secure. However, my glimpse into this topic of e-voting security revealed that there is a minute variation in the way software is created for voting machines, relative to other market endeavors. In fact, I believe that an open-source process would result in more accurate software development, as more scientists, software engineers, political activists, and others who hold their democracy in high esteem, would be focused on the quality of the software that is used for the election process. Pushing corporate bureaucracy aside, such an exchange of information results in security vulnerabilities being repaired quickly, performance issues fixed in the process and software development reflecting the desires of the users—communally. I will argue that there are benefits of an open source process—First, open-source processes reduce operational costs and second—the fear of being controlled by the software industry is reduced because many applications depend on the game companies like Microsoft play with its operating systems, and the open-source community, is free from this hegemonic pressure. Referring back to the paper, Analysis of An Electronic Voting System by Tadayoshi Kohno et al, this paper adds emphasis to open-source solutions stating: “Of course, open-source, would not solve all of the problems with electronic elections. It is still important to verify somehow that the binary program images running in the machine correspond to the source code and that the compilers used on the source code are non-malicious. However, open-source is a good start” (p.21).

The preceding quote by authors Tadayoshi Kohno et al reveal that their argument is in clear contrast with closed source, corporate software production where the source code is proprietarily controlled, and is not accessible to any person outside the corporation. The aforementioned paper also discusses the open-design process and how it has proven successful in projects ranging from very focused efforts, such as specifying the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), through very large and complex systems such as maintaining the Linux operating system and Australia is currently using an open-source voting system (p.21).
Nevertheless, security designs such as the voter-verified audit trail provide a way for electronic voting systems that create a paper trail, to be perceived and attested by a voter. In such a methodology, the accuracy concern on voting machine code is significantly reduced as voters can see and attest a tangible item that describes their vote. In addition, even if, for whatever reason, the terminals cannot declare who the winner of the election is—the paper ballots can be recounted, either by machine or by hand, to acquire progressively more precise election results.

Authors Tadayoshi Kohno et al also describe supporting measures in their paper analysis that DRE vendors are willing to make concerning voting methodologies stating: “Voter-verifiable audit trails are required in some U.S states, and major DRE vendors have made public statements that they would support such features if their customers required it. The EVM (Electronic Voting Machine) project is an ambitious attempt to create an open-source voting system with a voter-verifiable audit trail—a laudable goal” (p.21).

In conclusion, the arrangement where independent vendors produce privately owned code to run elections appears to be inaccurate, and if we do not change the development of creating voting systems, voters will have no belief that election results will reflect the inclinations of the body politic. It is of primary importance and critical to restoring voter confidence to develop powerful, well-designed e-voting system software to instill, voter confidence and maintain a democratic society.*  




References:

Bishop, Matt. (2003). Computer Security-Art And Science. Pearson Education, Inc.
Addison-Wesley. P. 3-6.
Broache, Anne. (2005). California Scrutinizes Diebold E-Voting. CNET News. Retrieved on
19 November 2008. http://news.cnet.com/California-scrutinizes-Diebold-e-voting/2100-
1028_3-6004615.html.
Castro, Daniel. (2007). Stop the Presses: How Paper Trails Fail to Secure e-Voting.
The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. P. 1-2.
Murph, Darren. (2008). Diebold Comes Clean—Admits That It’s E-Voting Machines
Are Faulty. Engadget.com. Retrieved on 19 November 2008.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/23/diebold-comes-clean-admits-that-its-e-voting-
machines-are-fault/.
Shafer, Rachel. (2007). E-Voting Machines Crack Under Scrutiny. Forefront: College of
Engineering Magazine at the University of California, Berkeley. P. 1. Retrieved on
October 23rd at 7:20P.M.
http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/news-center/publications/forefront/archive/forefront-fall-
2007/in-the-news/e-voting-machines-crack-under-scrutiny.
Stone, Andrea. (2006). Analysis Finds E-Voting Machines Vulnerable. USAToday.com.
Retrieved on 19 November 2008. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-
26-e-voting_x.htm.
Tadayoshi, Kohno et al. (2004). Analysis of an Electronic Voting System. IEEE Computer
Society Press, May 2004. This paper previously appeared as John Hopkins University
Information Security Institute Technical Report TR—2003-19, July, 2003.

*This article was originally published in 2008 during the authors tenure at the University
of California, Berkeley, Computer Science 195, Professor Brian Harvey.

Augmentation: "Importance of Human Computer Interaction" by Christopher Tillman Neal

As the Space Shuttle Discovery made its last descent to Earth on Wednesday March 9, 2011, I could not help but reflect on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which occurred on Tuesday, January 28, 1986. What led to that tragic disaster was an O-ring failure, caused by a breach in the SRB joint it sealed; allowing pressurized hot gas from within the solid rocket motor to reach the outside and impinge upon the adjacent SRB attachment hardware and external fuel tank....

Earlier in history, Douglas Englebart and J.C.R Licklider were part of a grassroots movement that led to the design and evolution of mind-amplifying machinery, which is significant because at that moment in time, the world saw computing as a means solely for scientific computation, business data processing and military defense. Consequently, however normal science has historically had the propensity to create esoteric communities that are not "open source" friendly, and I argue there are consequences for taking such a linear approach to scientific discovery. As mentioned earlier, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is a profound example of a tightly knit enclave of scientists who failed to act, which is attributed to the disconnect between NASA's engineers and executives. American physicist, Richard Feynman highlights the failings of NASA's engineers and executives in his book What Do You Care What Other People Think?

Nevertheless, human computer interaction is crucial, because "poorly designed" human-machine interfaces can lead to many unexpected problems like the Challenger disaster. Through HCI I believe our minds are amplified through the intersection of computer science, sociology, and design. Equally important is that HCI can improve the interactions "between users and computers" by making computers more usable and receptive to the user's needs.

History is a great teacher, and as the US Space Shuttle Discovery made its way to the Smithsonian Institute, I hope this moved us as citizens to open up our eyes to the importance of HCI and user experience. Coupled with how it can minimize the barrier between the human's cognitive model of what they want to accomplish and the computer's understanding of the user's task.

About the Author:

Christopher Tillman Neal is a detail-oriented IT professional with 7+ years of experience. He is driven by the sociology of computer-mediated communication—skilled at operating in a wide range of platforms. Graduating from the University of California, Berkeley, Christopher has a diverse career portfolio, which consists of social media analytics, information technology, sales, marketing, and project management. Christopher received rigorous virtual community and social media training from Berkeley, and Stanford Professor Howard Rheingold who is one of the world’s foremost authorities on the social implications of technology.