Critics of e-voting file suit against Diebold

[question everything]

ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 11, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO – Electronic voting critics are suing Diebold Inc., alleging that the hardware and software company's shoddy equipment exposed California elections to hackers and software bugs.

California's attorney general on Friday unsealed the lawsuit, among the first e-voting cases to rely on a legal provision for whistle blowers who help the government identify fraud. Computer programmer Jim March and activist Bev Harris, who filed the case in November, are asking the state and counties to join the lawsuit. They're seeking full reimbursement for Diebold equipment purchased in California. State election officials have spent at least $8 million on paperless touch-screen machines.

(snip)

Diebold spokesman David Bear said yesterday the company has not been served with the lawsuit and would not comment until it reviewed the case.

Election officials have until Sept. 7 to decide whether to join the lawsuit, said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Dresslar said the state would decide whether to participate after it completed an investigation.

More..


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040711/news_1n11voting.html

[NMDemDist2]

1. go Bev GO! eom

[cthrumatrix]

2. throw the kitchen sink at them...while the mainstream press ignores

[nodehopper]

3. kick!

[Merlin]

4. Train Wreck Ahead ! Get ready.

Bev is exactly right when she says there is an election day train wreck in the offing.

Just READ the statistic in this article. In one CA county, fully HALF of the voting places did not open on time because of computer malfunctions.

UNREAL!

[lakeguy]

5. Awesome!

Thanks Bev and Jim!!!}( } :evilgrin:

[Kelvin Mace]

6. What a difference a year makes...

BevHarris
Jul-05-03, 10:24 PM (ET)
The TRUTH behind the demands for Black Box findings

A Qui Tam suit.

Each of the key researchers on this issue discussed the possibility of filing for Qui Tam money. The partipants deserve respect for what I feel is a nearly heart-stopping show of honor, each and every one of the researchers turned down the possibility to make millions, deciding that the issue of democracy was too important to cash in and shut up.

Here's the deal on Qui Tam: Yes, you can file, and this gives you protection, BUT: From the moment you file, it all goes under federal seal.

Who controls whether the lawsuit will see the light of day? Basically, John Ashcroft.

When we discussed it amongst ourselves, we each independently came to the conclusion that doing this for money was the wrong thing to do, and doing something that will put a federal gag order on what's wrong with voting machines is a VERY wrong thing to do.

We aren't soiling ourselves with Qui Tam money. Go for it. And if you don't end up disappeared (because remember, Ashcroft gets a full 60 days when you can't even tell people what you know or that you filed the case), and if under some bizarre circumstance Ashcroft appoints a federal judge who will actually treat your case fairly (hah!), and if you stand up to what is sure to be a relentless attempt to destroy your credibility in every way, and if your evidence proves your case, you will split up a few hundred million dollars.

[yowzayowzayowza]

7. Again, in all fairness...

This Qui Tam is a STATE action not a FEDERAL one, the possibility of which did not came about until months later. Ie, no Ashcroft, no prohibition on continued activism. Correct?

[KittyWampus]

8. Can We Put An Asterix After Arnold's Name Now?

just askin'

[Massacure]

9. Arnold got in fairly because of a bunch of idiots.

He didn't "Steal" the election. The people are too sheep-like to need to.

[shance]

12. The Republicans are too sheep like? How would you know or not know

the fairness of that election any more than the rest of us?

Do you have access to privy information?

There are a few who watched the computerized tallies, saw signficant inconsistencies in various areas and seemed to see enough evidence to think it was very possible it was jerry-rigged.

Thats really the whole issue here when dealing with electronic voting, isnt it? At this point you can not fully know with confidence if an electronically tabulated election is valid or not.

[goobergunch]

10. kick

:kick:

[wyethwire]

11. So this is a contract dispute

and not a voting rights case?