More troubles for Diebold

An article posted yesterday at Computerworld talks about more troubles for Diebold's e-voting machines. The article quotes Diebold spokesman David Bear as saying, "Instead of recognizing the advantages of the technology, we keep ringing up 'what if' scenarios that serve no purpose other than to confuse and in some instances frighten voters."
Another part of the article says, "A Diebold spokesman did not dispute Hursti's findings but said that Black Box Voting was making too much of the matter because the systems are intended to remain in the hands of trusted election officials."
Now let me say that I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Working with computers day in and day out, I believe that I am knowledgeable enough to make an educated decision about electronic voting machines.
Having said that, I believe there have been enough questions raised about the security of these machines that I am very concerned about the accuracy of an election using them. Let me explain why. I believe that for the most part, the people who have access to the machines are "trusted election officials." Now keep in mind, I said for the most part. All it takes is one malicious person to have access for a few minutes. Doesn't that concern anyone? I believe that the big elections in this country are heavily influenced by money. Big money. So how much would it cost for a malicious person to have access to one of these machines? Probably a lot less than one might think. Would we ever know that this is what had happened? Probably not.
I also believe that this is an issue that is non-partisan. Democrats could buy access to a malicious person just as easily as the Republicans could.
Do I think paper ballots are perfect? No. Do we want to replace something that has imperfections with something else that has just as many imperfections?