Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology

176 e-maillanguages. However this cost may be offset by not having todevelop or validate the more complicated software neededfor all-electronic systems.Whatever system is used, federal law requires that visuallyor otherwise disabled persons be given the opportunity,wherever possible, to cast their own vote in privacy.With optical-scan ballots, this is accommodated with a specialdevice that plays an audio file listing the candidatesfor each race, with the voter pressing a button to markthe choice. However, disability rights advocates have complainedthat existing systems still require that another personphysically insert the marked ballot into the scanner.Touchscreen systems, however, with the aid of audio cues,can be used by visually disabled persons without the needfor another person to be present. They are thus preferred bysome advocates for the disabled.Reforms and IssuesIn response to the problems with the 2000 election, Congresspassed the Help America Vote Act in 2002. Since then,the federal government has spent more than $3 billion tohelp states replace older voting systems—in many caseswith touchscreen systems.The biggest concern raised about electronic voting systemsis that they, like other computer systems, may be susceptibleto hacking or manipulation by dishonest officials.In 2007 teams of researchers at the University of California–Daviswere invited by the state to try to hack into itsvoting systems. For the test, the researchers were providedwith full access to the source code and documentation forthe systems, as well as physical access. The hacking teamswere able to break into and compromise every type of votingsystem tested. In their report, the researchers outlinedwhat they claimed to be surprisingly weak electronic andphysical security, including flaws that could allow hackersto introduce computer viruses and take over control of thesystems.Manufacturers and other defenders of the technologyhave argued that the testing was unrealistic and that realworldhackers would not have had nearly as much informationabout or access to the systems. (This may underestimatethe resourcefulness of hackers, as shown with other systems,such as the phone system and computer networks.)Another issue is who will be responsible for independentlyreviewing the programming (source) code for eachsystem to verify that it does not contain flaws. Manufacturersgenerally resist such review, considering the source codeto be proprietary. (A possible alternative might be an opensourcevoting system. Advocates of open-source softwareargue that it is safer precisely because it is open to scrutinyand testing—see open-source movement.)One common response to these security concerns is torequire that all systems generate paper records that can beverified and audited. Some defenders of existing technologysay that adding a parallel paper system is unnecessarilyexpensive and introduces other problems such as printerfailures. They argue that all-electronic systems can be madesafer and more secure, such as through the use of encryption.(A proposed compromise would be for the machine toprint out a simple receipt with a code that the voter coulduse to verify online that the vote was tabulated.)As of 2007, 28 states had passed laws requiring that votingsystems produce some sort of paper receipt or recordthat shows the voter what has been voted and that can beused later for an independent audit or recount,Although control of elections is primarily a state or localresponsibility, the federal government does have jurisdictionover elections for federal office. As a practical matter,any changes in voting technology or procedures mandatedby Congress for federal elections will end up being used inlocal elections as well.In 2007, congressional leaders decided not to require amajor overhaul of the nation’s election systems until at least2012. However, the inclusion of some sort of paper record isbeing mandated for the 2008 election. For users of touchscreensystems, the simplest way to accommodate this is toadd small paper-spool printers, but some states have complainedthat their systems would require more-expensiveaccommodations.Meanwhile, a lively debate continues in many states andother jurisdictions about how to meet the need for accessiblebut secure voting systems without breaking the budget.Further ReadingDrew, Christopher. “Accessibility Isn’t Only Hurdle in VotingSystem Overhaul.” New York Times, July 21, 2007. Availableonline. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/washington/21vote.html. Accessed September 20, 2007.Open Voting Consortium. Available online. URL: http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/. Accessed September 20, 2007.Rubin, Aviel. Brave New Ballot: The Battle to Safeguard Democracyin the Age of Electronic Voting. New York: Morgan Road Books,2006.Saltman, Roy G. The History and Politics of Voting Technology: InQuest of Integrity and Public Confidence. New York: PalgraveMacmillan, 2006.United States Election Assistance Commission. “2005 VoluntaryVoting System Guidelines.” Available online. URL: http://www.eac.gov/voting%20systems/voting-system-certification/2005-vvsg. Accessed September 20, 2007.“Verified Voting: Mandatory Manual Audits of Voter-VerifiedPaper Records.” Available online. URL: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/. Accessed September 20, 2007.Wildemuth, John. “State Vote Machines Lose Test to Hackers.”San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 2007, p. A-1. Availableonline. URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/28/MNGP6R8TJO1.DTL. Accessed September 20,2007.e-mailElectronic mail is perhaps the most ubiquitous computerapplication in use today. E-mail can be defined as the sendingof a message to one or more individuals via a computerconnection.Development and ArchitectureThe simplest form of e-mail began in the 1960s as a way thatusers on a time-sharing computer system could post andread messages. The messages consisted of text in a file thatwas accessible to all users. A user could simply log into the