Election systems is just one of their business units though: http://www.nedap.com/index.php?cat_id=31

While it's the same company isn't it a bit of a stretch? It's like saying Microsoft is awful because they make an awful search engine Bing.

Indeed, it's a weird way to pose this. As I recall, it was never the company or their specific voting machines that was the subject of discussion, but rather the idea of using closed (and thus unverifiable) voting machines produced by a commercial company for general elections. Stating that this makes the company evil or unreliable seems a bit dishonest to me.

Full disclosure: I am a former employee (I worked on the product mentioned in this article), but I joined the company much after the voting machines were in the news, so what I know is pretty much what was in the media at the time.

Being able to use a radio to know who voted what because of electronic interference emitted by a voting machine is not just a "closed voting machine by a commercial company" problem, but one of pure negligence, ignorance and poor workmanship. If you design a voting machine, you design and test for those requirements.

Wasn't that another product? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking These hacks are pretty clever.

Either way, you have a point. If anything, the efforts of hackers have upped the requirements of anyone who still has the guts to produce voting machines (and created awareness of the increased costs with their customers) and this is a good thing.

I find your explanation somewhat disingenuous, which kind of illustrates why I distrust this company and it's culture.

Nedap voting machines were proven to be insecure, and Nedap tried everything to keep that quiet, including legal threats against those who disclosed those vulnerabilities. The way Nedap tried to manipulate political opinion with half truths and misdirection was also rather dubious.

And yes, it was very specifically Nedap's machines that were the subject of discussion in the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany.

You did read the last line where I said that I joined the company years after the voting machines were in the news, and never had anything to do with them?

Of course Nedap's machines were the ones in the news, as they were the only machines that were used. I was simply saying that my impression at the time (as a normal person watching TV) was that the discussion was more about how voting machines should not be used for elections unless they can be proven to be secure and have guaranteed integrity (something the Nedap machines failed by public opinion). I am sure that if The Netherlands, Ireland and Germany had used machines with similar issues from another manufacturer, the same discussion would have taken place. This is a good thing™, shit like this scares the living daylights out of me: http://www.truth-out.org/new-court-filing-reveals-how-2004-o...

I cannot speak for the company's conduct at the time, because I simply don't know enough about it :)

Then you may be surprised to learn that Diebold who makes US voting machines also makes most of the ATM machines.

Hi Rick, maybe you should come and visit Nedap. I would really like to show you how we do business here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQ5Aac96aM Kind regards, Bart

Diebold, the company famous for making horrendously engineered voting machines, also makes all of the (completely awesome) ATMs for the bank I use. It was a little unnerving at first, but I came to the conclusion that it's not that bad.

The big reason: regulation. The banking industry, as with the health care industry, is highly regulated. The election industry is not, because no one's really been making them until recently.