Internal Memos: Diebold Doing End-Runs Around Certification

[BevHarris]

Copies of Memos: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/diebold-memos-1.htm

If certification isn't being done properly, the whole house of cards falls. The above link takes you to actual copies of internal Diebold memos which show that uncertified software is being used in elections, and that Diebold programmers end-run the system.

Our voting system, which is part of the public commons has recently been privatized. When this happened, the counting of the votes, which must be a public process, subjected to the scrutiny of many eyes of plain old citizens, became a secret.

The computerized systems that register voters, will soon sign voters into the polling place using a digital smart card, record the vote we cast, and tally it are now so secret they are not allowed to be examined by any citizens group, or even by academics like the computer scientists at major universities.

The corporate justification for this secrecy is that these systems adhere to a list of "standards" put out by the Federal Election Commission, and that an "ITA" (Independent Testing Authority) carefully examines the voting system, which is then provided to states for their own certification.

However, the states typically do not examine the computer code at all, relying instead on a "Logic and Accuracy" test which will not catch fraud and has frequently missed software programming errors that cause the machines to miscount.

A Diebold message board has been used since 1999 to help technicians in the field interact with programmers to solve problems. The contents of this message board were quietly sent to reporters and activists around the world, most likely by a Diebold employee. In a letter to WiredNews, Diebold has acknowledged that these memos are from its own staff message boards.

Without further commentary, judge for yourself whether Diebold has been following certification requirements: Go to http://www.blackboxvoting.org/diebold-memos-1.htm and judge for yourself.

[seemslikeadream]

1. I'm on my way!

can't wait to start printing!

[KeepItReal]

2. Here are some interesting excerpts from Diebold

"By the way, all of this is why Texas gets its sh*t in a knot over the log printer. Log printers are not read-write, so you don't have the problem. Of course if I were Texas I would be more worried about modifications to our electronic ballots than to our electron logs, but that is another story I guess. "

"I hate more than anyone else in the company to bring up a certification issue with this, but a number of jurisdictions require a "system test" before every election. I just helped Knecht yesterday with an RFP from Riverside that required this. That is why the AccuVote displayes the silly ***System Test Passed*** message on boot up instead of "memory test passed", which is all it actually tests.

No argument from me that it is pointless. You could probably get away with a batch file that prints "system test passed" for all I know. We will do something along those lines with the new unit after a memory test or whatever. "

:wtf: Are they trying to fool the auditors!?

Any entry-level programmer can create a PC voting system with a printout... Why is Diebold's sh*t so complicated?

[DEMActivist]

3. Oooomf! There it is...

Now let's contrast this to the "world renowned" Britian Williams, elections security expert extraordinaire's </sarcasm> assurances of the process:

Many of these procedures are directed toward insuring that the correct versions of the system software is initially installed in the GEMS computers and voting stations and, subsequently, testing at various times to insure that this software has not been altered.

To insure that the initial installation of the software is correct, the following steps are rigidly enforced.

· The State does not accept software from any source except the ITA that conducted the NASED Qualification Tests on the software. When the ITA completes Qualification Testing of the software they submit to the KSU Election Center a copy of the source code and the resulting object code.

· As a part of the State Certification Testing the KSU Election Center prepares a validation program, similar to a virus detector program, that is subsequently used to verify that versions of the software installed in the county systems is identical to the software that the KSU Center certified. This validation program is structured such that it provides a 1/1,000,000,000 chance that someone could alter the software without being detected.

· When the software is installed in a county system, a member of the KSU Center travels to that county and runs the validation program to verify that the installed software is correct.

· This validation program is routinely run before an election is begun to verify that the software is correct. It is run again after the election to verify that the software did not change during the election.

· The validation program can be run at any time that an incident occurs that might potentially alter the software. An example of such an event might be a nearby lightning strike that caused the GEMS computer to crash.

Anyone else rolling on the floor laughing with me?

[GAspnes]

58. laughing even harder

than I did over the "one chance in a billion" comment he made.

[DEMActivist]

4. Get back up there

kick

[papau]

5. Great Catch - that BBV Book may become a 2 volume set!

Nice catch Bev!

:toast:

:-)

[DEMActivist]

8. LOL, no kidding!

At this point, Bev must be wondering what to exclude rather than what to include.

Every time she thinks it's finished, a whole new chapter comes along.

[ParanoidPat]

11. BBV, the mini-series!

Coming to a television near you soon! :evilgrin:
Check your local listings! :)

[Eloriel]

25. Hell, I'm having enough problems just trying to update

my report. It now needs to be completely rewritten in parts.

Eloriel

[TrogL]

6. Anybody got Jimmy Carter's email address?

He ought to find this interesting.

[DEMActivist]

9. No email address, just street addy and Fax number

I think I'll fax a copy over.

[punpirate]

45. This is the email for the Carter Center:

[e-mail]

With this, it will certainly go to staff, but if you find a way to put something like "US electronic voting problems" in the subject line, it might get someone's attention.

Cheers.

[TrogL]

7. Import WHAT!!?!

you'd be at least at 1.17.1 or higher to provide you with the "import" capability with their database

[ParanoidPat]

10. It's NOT a 'bug', It's a 'FEATURE'! LOL!

You guys nailed it some time ago! :evilgrin:

WARNING TO ALL WHO ENCOUNTER BEV, DemActivist or ELORIEL;
Treat them with respect and listen carefully for "Hell hath no fury like....." :evilfrown: :spank:

[DEMActivist]

13. Hey, I wonder...

You think maybe Cathy Cox (Georgia Secretary of State) is cussing the day she refused to meet with Eloriel and I?

Definitely an "if only" moment in her life.

[ParanoidPat]

16. That and the day she decided to go with the Diebold machines!

I bet she cringes every time she goes shopping and the clerk asks "paper or plastic?" :evilgrin:

[Eloriel]

37. If not yet, she will, she will.

That and prison stripes are my fondest wishes for Ms. Cox.

Eloriel

[qb]

12. E-mails I sent to my state rep & senator (MN):

I have been following the security issues associated with touch screen voting in other areas of the U.S. (see http://www.blackboxvoting.com and http://www.blackboxvoting.org), but assumed that our elections in Minnesota were secure with the optical scan devices. However, a recent press release has me concerned. Internal memos from Diebold were leaked to the press, and one of the machines used in Minnesota is mentioned (July 6, 1999 e-mail from Ken Clark, principal engineer for Diebold Election Systems posted at http://www.blackboxvoting.org/diebold-memos-1.htm)

excerpt>
That is why the AccuVote displayes the silly ***System Test Passed*** message on boot up instead of "memory test passed", which is all it actually tests.

No argument from me that it is pointless. You could probably get away with a batch file that prints "system test passed" for all I know. We will do something along those lines with the new unit after a memory test or whatever.

Ken
>

According to the Minnesota Secretary of State's web site (http://www.sos.state.mn.us/election/votesys.html) the Diebold AccuVote ES-2000 is one of the voting machines used in Minnesota.

I am concerned because it appears Diebold has a very cavalier attitude regarding accuracy and security, and actually promotes deception to get around certification requirements.

How do we find out if our votes are really being counted accurately? Thank you for your time.

[sybylla]

14. Okay, I keep getting 404 not found errors when I try to load your link

Is it that busy or is there a problem with the link? Been doing it since this thread first started and can't get at it? Can I get to it from BBV.org main page to try an end run?

Any ideas?

[DEMActivist]

17. Yes, try from the home page

There's a link to it in the first blog entry.

No idea why you are having problems with the direct link. It works fine here.

Anyone else having this problem?

[sybylla]

18. This is really wierd

I just tried bbv.org and got the same 404 not found response. BUT, earlier this morning, I went to bbv.org without any trouble. Perhaps it is traffic between me and the bbv server.

I have this on rare occasions, living out here in the boonies. It's probably just me.

on edit: I'll just try again later in the day.

[DEMActivist]

19. Please report back to us

When you find out what the problem might be. We need to make sure there are no sudden "DNS mistakes" happening.

You know, like the DNS servers suddenly lose our address?

Anyone experiencing problems like this, please report in.

[punpirate]

40. It is happening...

... but it could be related to the way the DNS propagated. Since yesterday, I've been able to get to the main page from the home computer, but there is something wrong with the forum pages (broken artwork links and 404 messages) when trying to access the specific thread. I've killed everything in the cache, and started from the new link given to me Sunday, and it's still happening.

However, from my work computer, which connects through a corporate proxy server, everything's hunky-dory--everything works fine. ???

Cheers.

[Pobeka]

34. You are trying www.blackboxvoting.org not www.bbv.org, correct?

bbv.org is Bethel Bible Village...

[sybylla]

38. Correct

I just abbreviated it for space. I am still getting server not found errors. Will contact my ISP with questions if it is still a problem in the morning - though their high school kids who run their customer service on weekends rarely know more than I do.

[Cocoa]

15. the informality bothers me

you can't really tell for sure from these emails, who knows, maybe they formalize things in some other way, but they seem to be handling these bugs in too much of an ad hoc manner. One of them even mentions that it 's an unfortunate part of company culture.

[shirlden]

20. When do we get to read the rest of the memos?

Thats the best reading I have done since I finished the latest Harry Potter. Malfoy (Diebold) and the Death Eaters (all voting companies) are about to feel the wrath of Harry, Ron and Hermione (the fearless Duers led by Bev).

:bounce:

[BevHarris]

21. There are 15,000 memos

People are looking at different ones and notifying me of the interesting ones. The whole set is now in the hands of several congresspersons, along with the Jim March rig-a-vote CD.

Bev

[Occulus]

47. Ka-CHING!

Are you prepared to testify in front of congress, Bev? It's going to come to that eventually. Not that I don't think you have it nailed.... you do :)

So, what do we do when the people (congresspersons) pooh-pooh what's been found thus far because they themselves benefit from these 'flaws'?

In other words, we know we're right, we've documentation to prove we're right... but what if we're ignored anyway?

[never cry wolf]

22. deserves a kick

:kick:

[DEMActivist]

23. Back up there!

[Gordon25]

24. Torches,pitchforks, tar and feathers...

...would have been the fate of these people' at an earlier time in this country's history. Now it will be endless hours in multiple courtrooms, endless legal bills, endless squirming, and, with any luck, endless jail time. These people have been part of an attempted coup in this country (if you read the literature you find coups for the most part try to take over what is already in place through underhanded means, and use coercion and the pretext of emergency to maintain power; sound familiar?) and should be tried for treason along with a whole lot of pnac-ers and bushites. The oath you take when you enter military service (though it was over forty years ago, some memories don't fade) includes a pledge to "defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic." I remember wondering at the time what they meant by "domestic" enemies of the Constitution. I don't wonder about that any more.

Gordon25

[BevHarris]

26. pledge to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies

Thank you for that, Gordon. This is what we're doing, and it is so gratifying to see citizens rise to the challenge.

It also annoys the shit out of the big corporate boys. One of them recently suggested, on another message board, that Blackboxvoting.org must be the secret PR arm of some well funded conglomerate, and they were guessing who it was. Someone else was stressing out about whether Avi Rubin was an investor.

I have turned away $10,000 in PR assignments this month, accepting only a measly $400 assignment because it is literally all I have time to do. I have to roll my eyes when people say I'm just trying to sell a book. No, I'm just doing what have to do to get the word out. So, not only are we unfunded, many of us have been taking big hits financially, and have given up our jobs and spent our own money to defend and protect the Constitution.

This appears to be a concept that is incomprehensible to the corporate clowns that run America. For this reason, they consistently underestimate the power and strength of the American people, which is our secret weapon.

Bev Harris

[Gordon25]

29. Amen to that

I make jewelry for a living and I figure, based on past performance, I could have made between eighty and eighty-five thousand dollars worth of jewelry in the time I have spent on this issue.Thank Heaven for an understanding and supportive spouse.

And as for "the corporate clowns that run America," they have been lieing to others and lieing to themselves for so long about so much that the truth sounds like lies to them. They actually believe they are as powerful as they try to make us believe they are. And that is their greatest weakness.

Keep throwing punches. They are under attack on multiple fronts now and probably trying to duck and cover. I say that because I have not heard a single word in the press here in AZ about the recent $53 million dollar contract award to Diebold. Normally the publicity wurlitzer would be grinding away. As any good boxing instructor will tell you, when your opponent starts to duck and cover it's because they are hurt.

Let's not give them any time or room to recover.

Gordon25

[Pobeka]

32. Bev, check your PM. n/t

[Cocoa]

28. I took a pledge like that when I became a letter carrier

I pledged to defend the constitution when I took that job.

BBV isn't about defending democracy, it's about how the HAVA money is to be allocated. Does it go to Diebold or to Avante, to oversimplify it.

The grander characterization is more popular here at DU, but I think my more pedestrian one is closer to the truth.

[Gordon25]

30. As a Vietnam Vet...

...I take exception to the comparison. But then maybe I feel different about the oath I took because I saw sixteen good men die for it; and because I was forced to cut another man's throat because of it and live with him in my dreams for forty years asking me if "defending a piece of paper" was worth it.

Maybe this issue for you is all "about how the HAVA money is to be allocated. Does it go to Diebold or to Avante, to oversimplfy it." If so, you have my sympathy.

But not everyone is so blinded by the hip cynicism that permeates our culture today. For some of us, love of country is not just a concept to be used for political or commercial advantage. For some of us, the bedrock of Democracy is the vote. If it is compromised, all else is moot. The Democracy is no more.

Read those corporate emails. They come awfully close to establishing an intent to deceive the end user of the product, the voter. That is the threshold for fraud. I personally could care less if Diebold ultimately gets the AZ contract as long as they go back and rewrite their damn code to 2002 specs, add voter verifiable paper ballots to their touchscreen machines, let someone other than Shawn Southworth certify it, and agree to make their source code open to inspection by election officials. Is that too much to ask?

I'm not going to get into the whole argument here with you about whether this is just sloopy coding and business practices or an intentional effort to influence election outcomes. It would be a bit like trying to convince the sun not to set this evening.

But the bottom line remains: whatever the reason, the system is compromised.

It ain't about HAVA money, honey. It's about honest elections.

Gordon25

[reprobate]

33. You said it, Gordon.

While I do not have to suffer your horrible memories, I too served at the same time. I have pity for those in our country who do not have that little lump in their throat when they think of the Constitution. They are missing a vital part of being an american. Perhaps that is why the country has degenerated into one huge shouting match.

[Cocoa]

48. "hip cyinicism"

you people are encouraging and exploiting cynicism. Look at the way people don't hesitate before trashing whoever opposes the BBV story. It's a total scorched earth policy. Who cares who it is, the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, David Dill, Fredda Weinberg, the NAACP, Common Cause, etc. etc. If they're not going along, they're probably part of the conspiracy.

The anger about the 2000 elections is real, and a few unscrupulous people are cashing in on it.

Just like some people cashed in on the tragic Clinton impeachment by peddling some cheap cigars. This isn't much different.

[Gordon25]

49. You don't like our conspiracy...

...maybe you should go create one of your own. Work with people who share your viewpoint. Do something creative to help solve the problem. That is, if you really care about solving the problem.

And by the way, I am not part of "you people", and if you are going to accuse someone of a "scorched earth policy" towards those working on this issue, I'd like to have some specifics. Who? And who got personally trashed?

Just because arguments are trashed in the process of a debate, doesn't mean the people who are making the defective arguments are being trashed. I've not seen any personal attacks and was under the impression that the modrators would lock any threads containing such attacks. Maybe you should post a complaint to the moderator of the forum.

Gordon25

[Cocoa]

51. Everyone gets trashed

and no, it's not their ideas that are being trashed, it's the people themselves.

You have 101 posts. That's fine, but it also means you don't have much perspective on how the "discussion" here has been conducted.

By the way, it's pretty transparently cynical how all three of you misinterpreted my post below in exactly the same way. It's obvious from my post that when I said "I believe the scientists" it didn't mean I believed them just because they were scientists. I listed the reasons I believed them, and it clearly wasn't just blind deference to authority.

Yet all three of you responded with the exact same misinterpretation of what I said. Whatever. It's just repulsive to me.

[BevHarris]

54. Cocoa's scientists had never seen the documents

you know, the documents which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Diebold broke both federal and state law by using software in actual elections which was NEVER certified at all, it is interesting to see that this argument is discussing (again) something that has nothing to do with the topic.

The scientists Cocoa refers to had not commented on the issue of using uncertified software and doing end runs around certification requirements, like California's rule that the software must be "tamperproof" combined with Metamor/Ciber certifying lab identifying a tampering mechanism.

This is the strategy, folks. Divert attention from the topic, because the topic here is, frankly, indefensible. Diebold's own memos show willful, wanton disregard of both state and national certification requirements.

I understand that someone else is now compiling several sets of memos which show a disregard for state and county requirements upon purchasing the systems. Specifically, there are exchanges in at least three states that say "such & such county requires that we do such & such" (in one case, in order to get a payment cut) and follow up memos which discuss how to end run the requirements by faking things. In one case, they did not have the software ready that they had sold a long time before, so they discussed just making something fake so a demonstration would look like what was promised.

I am working on the book all weekend, but the memos managed to propagate themselves all over the place (there are 15,000 memos) and people are combing through them now to develop reports on specific issues.

It's time for a congressional investigation, and it's time to file for an injunction. This is not a personal attack, This is not cynicism, that is called HOLDING VENDORS ACCOUNTABALE when they receive taxpayer dollars.

It's based on Diebold's own words, folks, including their senior engineers (Talbot Iredale and Ken Clark).

By the way, Diebold employees are not all onboard with this corporate culture. Both current and past employees have been feeding us inside information.

But thanks, Cocoa, for keeping this topic kicked to the front page!

Bev

[Gordon25]

56. First off, you are wrong about...

...my perspective based on my number of posts. I followed the issue here for almost three months before I ever registered to join the discussion, using the time to do my own research, come to my own conclusions, and start working locally to effect whatever remedies were possible. I am the lead author of the Pima County Democratic Party Report on Voting Integrity, here:
http://www.pimademocrats.org/votingreport/votingintegrity.htm
I figured on an issue this important I should wait to join the discussion until I knew what I was talking about and had something of value to contribute. So don't make a mistake of dismissing what I have to say based on the fact that I have only 101 posts.

Second, you ignored the essence of my question which was: quit using generalities and give me some specifics. Who have I trashed? Who has Bev trashed? Who has Eloriel or Paranoid Pat or DemActivist or Hedda Foil? Specifics and links if you please or quit making wild general and unspecific allegations.

Third, regarding your complaint: "By the way, it's pretty transparently cynical how all three of you misinterpreted my post below in exactly the same way. It's obvious from my post that when I said "I believe the scientists" it didn't mean I believed them just because they were scientists. I listed the reasons I believed them, and it clearly wasn't just blind deference to authority." Let's look at the reasons you listed that you believed in them.

"I believe the scientists based on the fact that I haven't seen any scientist accuse anyone of any crime, let alone charge anyone of treason. Also I haven't seen any scientist trash their opposition, or make any appeal to patriotism.
My confidence in the scientists was reinforced by my one interaction with David Dill, here on DU, where he came to respond to the thread suggestively titled "Who owns David Dill's website?"

1. "I trust the scientists based on the fact that I haven't seen any scientist accuse anyone of any crime, let alone charge anyone of treason."

That must mean either you go into it believing there hasn't been any crime and the proof for your belief is that no scientist has accused anybody of a crime. Or you believe there hasn' t been any crime because no scientist has said there was. Am I missing something? In general, don't scientists as a group avoid making accusations of wrong doing, leaving that activity to law enforcement and victims of crime? Please explain how any number of scientists not charging anyone with treason is a rationale for "believing" them?

2. "Also, I haven't seen any scientist trash their opposition, or make any appeal to patriotism."

First, please provide the specifics I asked for earlier. Who got trashed and by whom? Otherwise your argument is a generality which means nothing. Second, please explain your comment about patriotism in the context of our discussion. I don't remember seeing any or making any such appeals. And somehow I just don't understand how any scientist not making an appeal to patriotism is grounds for believing that scientist about anything other than that they haven't made any appeal to patriotism.

3. "My confidence in the scientists was reinforced by my one interaction with David Dill, here on DU, where he came to respond to the thread suggestively titled "Who owns David Dill's website?" You then quote some of the email exchange, none of which seems to have anything to do with whether or not the Diebold emails constitute the beginnings of proof of an intent to defraud, which is a crime.

Note also that you begin this paragraph "My confidence in the scientists was reinforced..." which means, I guess, that you base your belief in scientists on the two earlier reasons you gave. This being the case, I suppose I should just repeat what I said below: a true believer is a true believer and a dyed in the wool skeptic is just a true believer who believes there is nothing worth believing in. IMHO, of course. And thanks for giving me a reason to kick this back onto the front page.

Gordon25

[DEMActivist]

60. Of course, if you're in the room when...

a supposed "world renowned scientist" by the name of Britian Williams calls scientist David Dill and Dave Johnson (along with non-scientist Kim Alexander) LIARS, you're not seeing red, white and blue, I suppose.

I was there, I heard it, I saw it, I experienced it. If you have any doubt about it, feel free to email the reporter from the Atlanta Journal Constitution who was there as well - Jim Galloway - [e-mail]

Please do. Please email Galloway and ask him what he thought of the professional behavior of Brit Williams all afternoon.

[Occulus]

50. I have one single question for you, Cocoa

Have you, yourself, personally downloaded the Diebold binaries and run Jim's security test yourself?

[Cocoa]

52. no

[ParanoidPat]

53. Well Cocoa, wrong is wrong regardless of who it is....

....in other words, even if the Pope came out in favor of these machines in their current configuration he'd be WRONG! Then again, the Pope is not a computer expert. Neither are you the ACLU, NAACP or Common Cause.
I don't fault any of the groups you've mentioned for coming out in favor of helping the disabled with new technologies. The problem stems from the way they were suckered into backing a seriously flawed system under the guise that this is the only way the disabled can have their rights protected. The last I heard, the LWV had pulled their page about these machines from their web site pending further review of the situation. Could you please post links to where the NAACP, ACLU, and Common Cause say that a verifiable paper audit trail is a BAD IDEA?

As for your inference that I and the other people I'm dealing with stand to 'cash in' on this issue and are, to use your term "unscrupulous", all I can do is pity you. You really should seek help. This has cost me way too much time and money that I can't afford with only the chance to get the audit trail we need. The odds are stacked against us considering who we're dealing with and the financial resources they have available. I seek neither fame nor fortune from this, just a paper audit trail and the laws that would allow PEOPLE to look at the ballots in a dispute, not the same software running on a different device as the system is currently being set up behind our backs.

Thanks for kicking this story for more people to see and giving all of us an excuse to kick it again to respond to your nonsense. :evilgrin:
Luv Ya! :)

:kick:

[Cocoa]

59. I just saw Bill Clinton speak on C-Span

Reminded me of the tragedy of his impeachment.

There was nothing funny about his impeachment. I see it as the first manifestation of the real threat to democracy, and I can't relate to the desire to cash in on that tragedy and make light of it the way the whores on TV did.

[TacticalPeek]

62. Tell it like it is.

:dem:

[ParanoidPat]

31. Whatever! Who should I believe? You or....

.....over 1000 computer experts who've looked at this issue and signed the petition to stop these machines? :evilgrin:
Sour grapes. :)

:kick:

[BevHarris]

35. Who should I believe? You or my lyin' eyes?

-- Richard Pryor coined that one, I believe.

And as for me:

Mine eyes have seen the goriness of hacking of the vote. The truth is marching on.

[Cocoa]

39. I believe the scientists

Based on the fact that I haven't seen any scientist accuse anyone of any crime, let alone charge anyone of treason. Also I haven't seen any scientist trash their opposition, or make any appeal to patriotism.

My confidence in the scientists was reinforced by my one interaction with David Dill, here on DU, where he came to respond to the thread suggestively titled "Who owns David Dill's website?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=254798

Cocoa (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-01-03 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #73
105. regarding the groups opposed to the paper trail

What is your overall opinion of this opposition, is there any common ground, or are the differences completely incompatible.

And do you think the opposition is legitimate, or do you think these groups have been compromised in some way.

One point that has been made that I tend to go along with is that the issue of election security is about more than technology, though technology is important. For example, I think it was Brit Williams that conducted a study whose conclusions involved mundane things like what kind of rubber band was used to bind the ballots or something like that.

Not sure if I'm being clear, but basically what I'm saying is that I think it's a mistake to dismiss the concerns such as the accessibility for disabled people, or the benefits of DRE's compared to the older technologies as far as speed and accuracy. Naturally, electronic security is your field, so it's going to be your priority, but it's not the only concern.

------------------

dill (5 posts) Mon Sep-01-03 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #105
115. Accessibility

The opposition is a bunch of groups who don't necessarily
agree, and members of those groups don't necessarily agree.

There are a few people who are spokesmen for voters with disabilities.
Are they really representing their constituents? I don't know.
I've seen email that has been sent out to large email lists, which
is definitely presenting a one-sided and often inaccurate view
of the debate. If people are only getting this information, they
might come to the wrong conclusions.

I don't know what people's motives are. I've talked to a number of
people in voting rights groups, and they seem sincere. But
they are coming from a different world, where concerns about election
fraud have often been used to deny people their right to vote. And
the people I've met are highly non-technical.

I suspect we're going to be at odds in the short term, because there
is so much pressure to spend money NOW on DREs, which they want.
In the longer term,
we can think about how to make sure everyone gets what they want and
need.

I'm certainly not dismissing the concerns of accessibility. Precisely
the opposite. Accessibility is not just a propaganda ploy by voting
machine companies. It is a huge concern for voters with disabilities,
and a huge political issue that may determine the difference between
success or failure on our part.

[Gordon25]

41. Scientists said...

...DDT was safe; that Chernobyl and Three Mile Island couldn't happen; that Agent Orange was harmless; that depleted uranium ammunition doesn't cause any problem; that thalidomide will calm pregnant women down; that sending 50,000 volts of electricity through people's brains was a cure for depression; and that mankind would never escape the gravity of earth's orbit.

Personally, I examine the evidence and think for myself.

Gordon25

[ParanoidPat]

42. Thanks Gordon!

Some people never learn to think. :( I guess that's how we wound up with Bush* in office!

:kick:

[BevHarris]

43. And don't forget, scientists used to recommend LOBOTOMIES

That's a great response. You do some killer posts, Gordon.

Here's one of my favorite stories about science (and by the way, my father was a physicist, grew up around science from day one, I like it very much...)

Did you know that at one point, when scientists were studying the migration patterns of a certain kind of bird, they had the migration pattern mapped out quite exactly across the globe. For something like 50 years, scientists kept a record of every dead bird of this species, drew a map, and there you have it: Scientific migration pattern!

Well, then we got radar, instantly changing the scientifically proven migration patterns: It now turns out that the dead birds they found were only the ones that flew so far off course that they became exhausted and died.

To me, this concept of removing humans from their own voting seems somewhat akin forming scientific conclusions from dead birds that flew off course.

Cheers,

Bev

[Gordon25]

44. Ain't bad yourself

"Somewhat akin to forming scientific conclusions from dead birds that flew of course." LMAO

I like science too. But scientist or charlatan, a true believer is a true believer and dyed in the wool skeptics are just true believers who believe there is nothing worth believing in.

Gordon25

[treepig]

57. using science to bash science

how very ingenious! :eyes:

[punpirate]

65. And, technology appeals to people...

... even if it only raises the cost of something without adding proportionate value.

There are many, many people fighting for "simpler" voting by eliminating paper... how many elections officials have been quoted here as saying "the voters like it." "The poll workers aren't as stressed." Paperless voting has become a sort of rallying cry for a technology, just as was the marketing phrase embracing personal computers--"the paperless revolution." What actually happened? Has paper use gone down? Hardly. It's increased dramatically.

A simple voter-verifiable audit trail, one that's still required in the accounting industry, that's the point of all this. But there are now and have been people here who simply can't get it out of their heads that paperless voting is good, and why is everyone making a fuss about it? After all, the manufacturers and the ITAs and the election officials all say it's a wonderful new technology.

Someone mentioned their fifth grade teacher.... Here's a phrase I heard often in a college trig course not long after I got out of the army, from an instructor who'd spent thirty years teaching math in high school, retired, and then did another fifteen years teaching math in college:

"The inability to let go of a bad idea is the sign of a weak mind."

Paperless voting is a bad idea.

Cheers.

[oasis]

27. kick

[Must_B_Free]

36. At the very least, this calls for an Audit.

Look out Diebold!

[Gordon25]

46. Kick n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

55. kick, and a brief comment on science

I'm not a scientist, far from it, but my understanding of Science (with a capital S) is that it never rests on its laurels. It never takes anything for granted, even its own truths. It keeps asking questions, keeps making sure what it thinks it true and correct and accurate really is true and correct and accurate in light of new developments in other branches of Science.

As my beloved fifth grade teacher told us over and over, the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. Anybody got some ITA info for me?

A new wrinkle for me. Thanks in advance.

[DEMActivist]

63. Not sure what your question is, but...

ITA = Independent Testing Authority

Which is supposed to be the independent testing labs which certifies the hardware, firmware and software. Of course, as you can see by the memo of discussion, "independent" is a loosely defined word when you are discussing elections software.

Of course, that could be because there's ONE man who decides which lab does the testing - R. Doug Lewis. And no one can figure out what OurDoug's background happens to be. All we can determine is that one day, a man who owned a company selling used computer parts opened The Election Center and called himself an expert who appointed the ITAs.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

64. I understand.

ITA has the sound of an agency, a board, or a private company. I was wondering if there was any info as to who or what makes up the ITA. Members, affiliations and whatnot. Btw, thanks for your hard work on this.

[Gordon25]

66. ITA's designated by Election Center

Independent Testing Authorities are private companies accredited by The Election Center to test election software, hardware and firmware.

The Election Center seems to have been set up by someone named R. Doug Lewis who used to own a used computer shop. I know that sounds weird but that is all anyone seems to be able to find out about the guy or where the funding came from for the Election Center. They seem to have simply shown up one day offering what they call "election services" to Secretaries of State and State Elections Directors, and declaring themselves experts in computerized election systems and election security. They are loosely affiliated with NASED (National Association of State Elections Directors) in that NASED seems to have agreed to rely on the Election Center for all certification processes.

So the process seems to go like this. You come up with an election system you want to sell to a state. You contact the state Secretary of State or Elections Director, and they send you to NASED to get certification for your system. NASED in turn sends you to The Election Center. The Election Center assigns your system to one or more of it's "certified" ITA's who then test and certify your system (or not, depending on the case). These certifications are to 1990 standards originally set by NASED (I believe) and which most experts now agree are hopelessly out of date because of technology advances, and particulary lacking in areas concerning election security.

HAVA (Help America Vote Act) passed after the 2000 election fiasco, mandated setting up new 2002 standards, but Congress has not yet funded the committee necessary to establish those standards.

This is an area where there are more unanswered questions than there are certainties. Bottom line, it is an area ripe for a wide ranging official investigation. When it comes to the sanctity and integrity of our votes, we can not, we must not, leave them in the hands of a mystery man and mystery organization who refuses to respond to either questions or complaints.

Hope this helps a little.

Gordon25