California's secretary of state is suing a Nebraska voting machine company for selling nearly 1,000 uncertified machines to the state of California. The lawsuit could cost the company as much as $15 million in fines and reimbursements and, alleges the company, could possibly disadvantage California voters if the machines subsequently could not be used right away.
In pretty much completely unrelated news, the Department of Homeland Security is under fire for trying to push the use of a new kind of radiation-detection machine at U.S. borders. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a plan in July 2006 to buy $1.2 billion worth of these machines, which he called a "vital priority." Just one month later, the Government Accountability Office alleged that officials had greatly exxagerated the machine's capabilities. After that, Congress put Chertoff personally in charge of certifying the machines; DHS officials responded to that move by rigging the certification tests. The ongoing problems have stalled the DHS's plan to buy any more of these machines-- so far, they've only bought 55 and use only 10 (for testing).
It seems that at every level of government-- from city councils to the feds-- officials are apt to embrace new technologies to give an appearance of efficiency and expertise. This could be fantastic for their constituents-- if government officials weren't also prone to letting the pomp and circumstance surrounding new technology overshadow a need for basic competence.
Surely, a business selling voting machines should be held liable if it does not meet standards set by the state, but shouldn't the secretary of state be held liable to the people for not verifying the machines' certification before purchasing them? In the case of the radiation-detection machinery, it's fortunate that not many have yet been purchased, but someone needs to be held accountable for trying to unjustifiably push forward the purchase. Radiation detection could possibly the very worst place for subjective influence. But should the accountability end simply at the DHS? Senator Joe Lieberman urged the DHS "to work quickly to resolve its problems so we can put this technology to work." That's a nice sound bite to make Lieberman sound tough on homeland security to voters, but do we really want them rushing through these tests anymore?
No comments:
Post a Comment