|
|
|
|
|
Voting Machine Critic Was a Board Member For Competitor |
|
Sean Sadam, Maryland Gazette Aug. 27, 2003 The leader of a Johns Hopkins research team that issued a scathing report on software flaws in the Maryland's new voting machines revealed Sunday that he sat on the advisory board of a competitor to Diebold Election Systems, which makes the machines.Aviel D. Rubin, an associate professor of computer science and technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, has resigned from the advisory board of Votehere Inc., a Bellevue, Wash., maker of voting technology. "I suddenly realized how bad this could be perceived if it got out in the public, so I decided I should go public with it first," said Rubin, who e-mailed reporters Sunday evening with the information. Rubin also informed Hopkins officials of his role on the advisory board, which Rubin and Votehere's president both described as limited. While Rubin had stock options, they were "way underwater and effectively worthless" when he returned them upon his resignation, said Jim Adler, Votehere's founder and CEO. The research Rubin led found security flaws in the voting machines' software that researchers said could allow voters to cast multiple votes undetected. Released July 23, the report came a week after the state Board of Public Works approved a $55.6 million contract for 10,931 new touch-screen voting machines manufactured by Ohio-based Diebold. Reached at a conference in California on Monday, Rubin said he had spent the morning talking to Hopkins officials who asked how he could have forgotten about sitting on the Votehere advisory board. "I sort of just didn't make a connection until yesterday [Sunday]," Rubin said. Darren Lacey, executive director of the Information Security Institute, would not say whether any action would be taken against Rubin. "I really can't comment on specific cases," he said. "It will be handled appropriate to university and school policy." Each school at the university has a committee of administrators and faculty that looks at potential conflicts deriving from faculty members' participation with outside organizations. "Johns Hopkins takes this very seriously," Lacey said. With much of the faculty away for the summer break, he said, it was "too early to tell" if Rubin's involvement with Votehere would be subject to review by the committee. The school of engineering follows formal procedures in reviewing potential research conflicts. Lacey said he was not sure if there was such a review of the voting system research. It is not uncommon for a professor to sit on a company's advisory board but have very little participation with the company, Lacey said. But Mark Radke, director of voting industry for Diebold, said the disclosure that Rubin was on Votehere's advisory board raises further questions about the motivation behind his research. "The report must be questioned even more since he had an association with a company that could benefit from his research," Radke said. He pointed out that the report called for the use of a paper ballot that could be printed by the voting machines; Votehere makes a product that produces paper voter receipts. While Maryland has not called for the use of such ballots, the Hopkins report said such ballots should take precedence over electronically cast ballots when tallying votes. Diebold strongly opposes the use of such ballots because electronic voting technology makes them unnecessary, Radke said. "The people who are pushing a paper ballot want their agenda to win no matter if they use fact or fiction, from what we see," he said. On Aug. 6, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) ordered a review of the voting machines by Science Application International Corp., which holds a $2.6 million contract to handle security for computer systems in state offices. The company is expected to report its findings to the state in early September. Rubin said his contact with Votehere during his two years on the company's advisory board was limited to receiving occasional news clippings about the company via e-mail. Votehere was not aware of his research of the Diebold voting system. "I can see why this is going to look bad ...," Rubin said. "The bottom line is there really isn't anything to that connection." Adler, Votehere's president, said he was not aware of Rubin's research until he read about it in The New York Times. "To say that Avi has a conflict is a ruse to devalue his report," he said. Rubin signed a contract with Votehere that contained a clause saying his participation on the board was not an endorsement of the company or its products. "My research on the Diebold code was not funded by any corporate support, and to the extent that it was funded at all, it was internal Johns Hopkins funding," Rubin said in his e-mail. But Rubin's connection to Votehere does not change the Hopkins research team's findings, Adler said. "I thought it was great work," he said. "Should he have circulated it for comment? Probably. But he didn't." |
|
| |
| |
|
|
