BBV: Diebold is Exonerated!

[Cocoa]

Here's absolute proof that Diebold cares about our democracy:

http://www.sunrise.it/s/lists/support.w3archive/199910/msg00108.html

--Ken Clark writing--

Our first priority is to generate correct election results. That is an absolute. This is not a customer prerogative.



This was in a somewhat heated exchange with a man named Rivera. It's impossible to get the full context of the dispute, there seems to be some history that's not in the emails. But it seems that basically Rivera was arguing for allowing the client to bypass some security feature in the interest of giving them more flexibility, but Clark stood up to this on principle.

I'm deliberately overstating the importance of this single quote, of course. But by the way things are discussed here, that one quote should be considered a smoking gun that Diebold is perfect.

[TruthIsAll]

1. Give it up, Cocoa..you are in denial..or worse

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

[althecat]

4. Broken link in MCM's blog...

Unfortunately his link has an exta "/" at the end of the URL...And it is broken...

The correct URL is...

http://www.sunrise.it/s/lists/support.w3archive/200101/msg00069.html

[bpilgrim]

2. Diebold admits to buggy software and improper auditing - SEARCH HERE

http://new.globalfreepress.com/mnogosearch/search.cgi

try 'boogie man' for starters...
then 'vaporware'

over 14,000 memos to sift through, this will make it easier to quickly see what a mess this software company is.

psst... pass the word
peace

[Cocoa]

3. not a good sign, imo

Apologies in advance for this, but this is a pretty classic conspiracy theorist's tactic.

Instead of making a coherent argument that is falsifiable, they say "Google Kerry and Skull and Bones" and consider that to mean something.

Common sense that it's up to the people accusing treason to maybe, say, prove it. If it's not too much trouble.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. You are losing me.

I have never accused anyone of treason. I am not aware that Bev has. Some other people have, but they hardly speak for either of us.

A single instance of honesty does not exonerate Diebold. Despite knowing the flaws in their system, they continue to plod along lying about its flaws.

Ethical people don't lie to protect a faulty, dangerous system.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
1237 Elon Place
High Point, NC 27263
http://www.plan9.org

[Fridays Child]

20. Your sig line is so true.

I believe the same thing.

[bpilgrim]

7. no, it isn't. when software has this many problems and it is being used

to count OUR votes.

besides there is evidence of law breaking by using unvalidated code as well.

i didn't call anyone a traitor so i don't where you are pulling that from but that is another common tactic of a spinmaster as well.

all we are saying is that the current process is flawed and that this is an URGENT problem.

but don't take my word for it, i installed a search engine to make it more convienint for anyone to take a look.

http://new.globalfreepress.com/mnogosearch/search.cgi

enjoy ;->

peace

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jackcgt]

9. OH my gosh, you mean software is sometimes buggy?

Get out. You know that some of our most precious state secrets are protected using version of MS Windows. I happen to know for a fact that some combat field communications systems run on a version of Red Hat Linux. How many times in the past week have I gotten e-mail alerts telling me about new security patches for Linux.

Buggy software is not a smoking gun.

Everything is not a conspiracy.

[bpilgrim]

13. mission critical software needs to above the standard

and yes, counting our fotes is a CRITICAL MISSION.

besides that isn't the only problem...

here try the search engine and see for yourself
http://new.globalfreepress.com/mnogosearch/search.cgi

using code that wasn't certified is a violation of law.
there are huge problems here and trying to say all code is buggy is NOT the answer to this CRISIS.

paper trail and open source is the solution if we are bent on using computers to count our votes.

psst... pass the word :bounce:

peace

[Mairead]

17. Voting software is an application, not an operating system

The algorithm it needs to implement is not a difficult one. There should be no bugs.

[scottxyz]

29. Yes and what an algorithm it is!

Voting system software performs highly complex tasks such as:

(1) Allowing the user to make a multiple-choice selection, and

(2) Adding up the results.

If multiple-choice and addition aren't rocket science, I don't know what is. I hope this voting-system software is heavily protected and not allowed to be exported. Imagine if our allies or - gasp! - our enemies were to get their hands on this stuff!

[aquart]

28. So you don't mind your vote being lost?

Or counted for a candidate you would never vote for?

Big of you.

I am not that generous.

[BeFree]

5. Goes to prove

That some who work for Diebold were discussing end runs around security.

Pretty damning, imo. Goes to show Diebold is, indeed, NOT perfect.

These emails prove Diebold is having serious problems with their machines. Why do they produce such complcated and high maintenance machinery and software, when a paper trail is all that's needed?

[jackcgt]

8. That all depends on whether they were discussing end runs...

pre-production or not. It is commonplace, even compulsory, to explore ways to defeat your own technology. Even after it has been produced. It cannot be made foolproof the first time. "I know that the standard rejoinder is, "But, they're our ELECTIONS! How could you?" but everything can't be perfect the first time. Besides, I have yet to see any proof that Diebold actually HAS done anything to effect an outcome. I have no doubt that they CAN. What we have are a smattering of quotes from various sources inside Diebold. Some are from important people, some are from random Joe's sitting in their cubicles ruminating over e-mail about ways to defeat the system. Hardly a smoking gun...

[Kelvin Mace]

11. We are discussing end runs...

being conducted in the field. There are email in the list in which Diebold admits to leaving a security hole in for convenience. They then instruct the concerned party to "finesse" the testing authority into ignoring it.

No one disputes the fact that software has bugs (though if I were trying to make a database secure, I would use Linux over Windows. You work with the best tools, not the worst.

I have not yet found evidence that anyone deliberately rigged an election, but I have seen plenty of evidence that doing so would be child's play.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
1237 Elon Place
High Point, NC 27263
http://www.plan9.org

[bpilgrim]

12. releasing code with known vulnerabilities on some as important as this

is a BIG DEAL, hello...

also they have used code that wasn't reviewed in elections another big no, no.

there is enough here to prove that this system needs to be stopped and seriously reevaluated before used again at the very least... and time is running out.

counting our votes is a CRITICAL component of our democracy and should not be released until these issues are addressed.

btw: what do you call the head of an Electronic Voting Company?















BREAKING NEWS: Senate Ethics Director Resigns; Senator Hagel ...
... machines 215/327-7105 The Hill Article: http://www.thehill.com US CHUCK HAGEL NOW ADMITS OWNERSHIP IN VOTING MACHINE COMPANY SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE DIRECTOR ...
lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/ 2003-January/006404.html - 12k


see also...

"If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines"
by Thom Hartmann


Maybe Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel honestly won two US Senate elections. Maybe it's true that the citizens of Georgia simply decided that incumbent Democratic Senator Max Cleland, a wildly popular war veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was, as his successful Republican challenger suggested in his campaign ads, too unpatriotic to remain in the Senate. Maybe George W. Bush, Alabama's new Republican governor Bob Riley, and a small but congressionally decisive handful of other long-shot Republican candidates really did win those states where conventional wisdom and straw polls showed them losing in the last few election cycles.

Perhaps, after a half-century of fine-tuning exit polling to such a science that it's now sometimes used to verify how clean elections are in Third World countries, it really did suddenly become inaccurate in the United States in the past six years and just won't work here anymore. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the sudden rise of inaccurate exit polls happened around the same time corporate-programmed, computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machines began recording and tabulating ballots.

But if any of this is true, there's not much of a paper trail from the voters' hand to prove it.

You'd think in an open democracy that the government - answerable to all its citizens rather than a handful of corporate officers and stockholders - would program, repair, and control the voting machines. You'd think the computers that handle our cherished ballots would be open and their software and programming available for public scrutiny. You'd think there would be a paper trail of the vote, which could be followed and audited if a there was evidence of voting fraud or if exit polls disagreed with computerized vote counts.

You'd be wrong.

more...
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm

and this...

BREAKING NEWS: Senate Ethics Director Resigns; Senator Hagel Admits Owning Voting Machine Company
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00166.htm

peace

[BeFree]

14. Depends on transparency

Ok... we have an admition that they can effect an outcome. Thanks, jack. But we all kinda knew that. The issue at this point is: Since the systems can be altered (and we all know it) why is Diebold being so secretive? What is they are trying to hide?

Democracy demands light. Crime against democracy occur in the darkness. Diebold is being dark. Why?

[scottxyz]

32. Yes but not ALL Diebold employees lied ALL the time

Therefore Diebold IS perfect. QED.

And anyone who said Diebold WASN'T perfect was exaggerating. QED.

Therefore Diebold IS perfect. QED.

- Cocoa

[TruthIsAll]

10. Is this desperation or what?

I heard the news today, oh boy!

16,022 Gore votes just disappeared..
Although the news is kind of sad..
At least the Socialist was glad..

[Terran]

15. I really don't see

how one man making that claim that Diebold is honest is a counter to all the evidence that's been presented regarding the problems with BBV. Just a thought.

[Cocoa]

16. see the last sentence in my post

You'll see that I agree with you on this obvious point.

I'm deliberately overstating the importance of this single quote, of course. But by the way things are discussed here, that one quote should be considered a smoking gun that Diebold is perfect.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. So, why are you ducking my attempts to

address your question? I created an entire thread addressing the ethical and moral question of the "intent" of Diebold employees, yet no comment.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
1237 Elon Place
High Point, NC 27263
http://www.plan9.org

[Terran]

27. I don't understand you, I guess

Did you intend to write "that Diebold is not perfect"? How could they be "perfect"? They obviously aren't, far from it. It's been showed that they lied to the State of Georgia about the capabilities of their software.

[Fridays Child]

18. Cocoa, to understand more about the context, you have to start here:

http://www.sunrise.it/s/lists/support.w3archive/199910/msg00101.html

These emails, as I understand them, show an internal dispute between two Global Election Systems (which merged with Diebold after the 2000 election) employees, Ken Clark and Juan Rivera.

They exonerate nobody and, in fact, they indicate only that Ken Clark was more concerned about accurate vote counts than Juan Rivera.

edit: typos

[Cocoa]

21. I realize the quote doesn't really exonerate anyone

My point is about what can be done by selectively extracting quotes that support one view or another.

I think that dispute goes beyond that email exchange. I read the whole thing and like I said, it looks like there's a history there.

If someone were to take Diebold to court, these emails would be only part of the story. Sorry for saying such an obvious thing, but people seem to think this is proof of something.

[BevHarris]

22. Here's an example that evidence of illegal activity

When you have a series of memos about installing and using GEMS version 1.14.11 in an election in California

And only GEMS verion 1.11.14 and 1.17.17 are certified

This is proof that they are installing and using uncertified software.

And when you have the principal engineer saying he has made a decision not to put a password on a file because people do end runs around the GEMS system using that back door, that is proof that
1) There is a back door
2) They use the back door
3) Their principal engineer knew there was a back door

The memos can be used as evidence that specific things were taking place that are improper, if we stick to the text of the memo and include the thread.

I don't believe it is necessary to include the entire thread when posting about it, as long as we identify the month and year and people have the links to read the whole thing themselves.

Taken as a whole, which is another way to develop proof, the memos clearly show a pattern of ridiculous amounts of customizing, hacking, and using unapproved software, which is illegal.

Bev

[gully]

23. Let's sue them. Class action!

There must be DU attorneys who will take this up. At least it will garner major media attention, no?

[Cocoa]

24. that could be illegal

It could mean they deliberately violated the certification laws.

But that simply can't be proven here, it will have to be done in court. One crucial thing that will be there in court is the defense, the jury and the judge, none of which are here at DU.

I wonder what effect all this public discussion will have on that court case if it ever happens. I would guess it might be detrimental, but I don't know.

[scottxyz]

30. Charles Manson Exonerated!

Incontrovertible evidence found that a day went by when he DIDN'T murder somebody!

[BevHarris]

38. LOL. But really, Scottyxyz

you did a bit of a flamefest downthread there.

I must say I liked and committed to memory your logical excellence, though:

Appropriate logic
Person A broke the law on day 3.
Therefore Person A has broken the law.
Person A is a lawbreaker.

Inappropriate and incorrect logic
Person A did not break the law on day 7.
Therefore Person A never breaks the law at all.
Person A is hereby exonerated as a lawbreaker.

and, I would add that this would be appropriate logic:
Person A broke the law on day 3.
Person A did not break the law on day 7.
Person A again broke the law on day 12.
Person A is a lawbreaker.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scottxyz]

33. Then why'd you use the deliberately misleading title 'Diebold exonerated'?

n/t

[Cocoa]

39. to show it can go both ways

the same way memos can be quoted as proof of wrongdoing and people can go "OMFG!!!!!" and "HOLY SHIITE!!!!" it can go the other way too.

Also it is a serious contradiction of the Diebold-is-total-evil hypothesis, forgive me but that's how it sounds to me. Remember people believe that they are capable of killing their political opponents. If Diebold was like that, you wouldn't see memos like the one I excerpted from.

[scottxyz]

46. It doesn't go both ways

There is no such thing as a "smoking gun of perfection", to use the weird phrase you invented in your original post on this thread, Cocoa.

Perfection is a 100% kind of thing. It can't be proven by a single instance where something was done right. It can only be disproven when by a single instance of something being done wrong. Do you understand this fundamental asymmetry?

We ARE justified in saying "aha!" when we find ONE instance of Diebold screwing up, and concluding they are NOT perfect.

The converse is not the case. You are NOT justified in saying "aha!" when you find ONE instance of Diebold doing the right thing, and tried to conclude that they are perfect.

So you see, it DOESN'T go both ways. There is no asymmetry here.

Cocoa is trying to say that "NOT NOT PERFECT" is the same thing as "PERFECT". It isn't.

Cocoa is trying to say that "PROTECTED SECURITY ONCE" is the same thing as "ALWAYS PROTECTED SECURITY". It isn't.

Cocoa is trying to say that the fact that others have called horrendous security flaws in Diebold systems a "SMOKING GUN" means that finding a single memo where Diebold advocated security is somehow a "SMOKING GUN OF PERFECTION". Whatever that is.

As far as I know, the term "smoking gun" is applied to discovery of a clear instance of wrong-doing - to indicated that the overall system where the wrong-doing was found is not suspect. The reverse is not true: finding a single instance of doing the right thing does not indicate that the overall system is doing the right thing.

Getting one answer wrong on a test means you didn't get 100% on the test. Using Cocoa's warped "smoking gun of perfection" logic, we would have to argue that getting one answer RIGHT on a test means that you DID get 100% on the test.

This is why I felt it was important, to point out that Cocoa is engaging in a subtle (perhaps intentional) logical fallacy in the orginal posting on this thread.

Double negatives are hard to parse, and Cocoa is trying to pull a fast one by implying that NOT VIOLATING voting-system security once somehow equates with NEVER violating voting-system security ever.

[scottxyz]

48. "Selectively extracting"

Cocoa said: "My point is about what can be done by selectively extracting quotes that support one view or another."

In other words, if we are "selectively extracting quotes" showing that Diebold sometimes violated voting-systems security, and Cocoa is "selectively extracting quotes" where Diebold sometimes didn't then... what does what does that prove?

(a) Diebold ALWAYS violated voting-systems security.

(b) Diebold SOMETIMES violated voting-systems security.

(c) Diebold NEVER violated voting-systems security.

Yes, Cocoa, there is a history here. Diebold didn't violate voting-system security 24/7. Nobody implied they did (except you, when you set up the straw horse you then knocked down.)

People have said that Diebold SOMETIMES violated voting-systems security.

If you run a red light and you get a ticket, do you accuse the police officer of "selectively extracting" evidence and do you say "there's probably a history here"?

[BevHarris]

49. Such clarity. Such logic.

Thank you as usual, scottyxyz.

Oh, and I still like your Charles Manson analogy. :)

[scottxyz]

50. Thank you

I still think the title of this thread is misleading and it should not be allowed to stand.

Perhaps (sarcasm) (/end sarcasm) tags should be inserted around it.

[Eloriel]

45. Or the APPEARANCE of accurate votes, or

the appearance of CONCERN about accurate votes.

I'm not giving these guys an inch. I am QUITE sure there are and were Diebold employees who are fine, upstanding, honest, principled people. Just as Enron employed a lot of good people. And WorldCom, and others. SAIC, since we've got at least one DUer rather thin-skinned about mentioning the dirt on SAIC.

But longtime Diebold programmers? And top execs? Not on your life. Not one inch.

Eloriel

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ParanoidPat]

36. Not before I saved it! LOL!

ROFLMAO! :thumbsup: :toast: :evilgrin:

[angka]

37. knew that would be deleted...

don't make the mistake of j'accusing trolls. even when you know you're right. i've been eating BBV-cold shoulder for weeks.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[angka]

44. believe me i understand.

i have found some of the BBV-trolls to be absolutely infuriating. but calling them on it seems to be treated as worse than the actions of the trolls themselves.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scottxyz]

35. Logic 101 - According to Cocoa

A Cocoa-syllogism:

(1) People have found evidence indicating Diebold lies and cheats.

(2) Cocoa found a quote where Diebold firmly stated that they never, ever lie and cheat.

(3) Diebold never, ever lies and cheats!

QED

Corrollary: Bev Harris lies and cheats! All the time!

QED

= = =

Note to Cocoa - If I ever need a lawyer, remind me NOT to call you!

[scottxyz]

40. I posted a very long post here debunking Cocoa's arguments

And my thread was deleted.

Why was the thead disrupted. It did not violate any of the DU posting rules. It debunked the fallacious logic and English used in Cocoa's original posting at the top of this thread. There was no reason for it to be deleted.

I have retained a copy of this posting on my hard drive. If anyone cares to read it again, I am willing - eager - to repost it. In fact, I demand that I be allowed to repost this thread to the moderators of the General Discussion forum, to reconsider the deletion.

Social software relies heavily and "reputation systems" - knowing who to believe and who not to believe based on experience and rebuttals to their postings. This topic which Cocoa posted was misleading, and it presented an excellent opportunity to dissect Cocoa's logic and let people decide if Cocoa is a person they believe or not. My posting used no ad-hominem arguments, no inappropriate language, and was quite to the point.

I have made several contributions to the ongoing debated regarding BBV (in my capacity as a Microsoft Access programmer), as BevHarris and others may recall. I have spent a lot of time on this bulletin board for the last few months, trying to do my bit to help democracy in this country (often to the detriment of my personal life, which is taking a big hit time-wise).

I would like to know what the criteria are for deleting posts on this thread, and I would like my earlier posting reviewed so that it can be reposted.

I am accustomed to being bounced from FreeRepublic because they are afraid of the truth. I hope that the deletion my lengthy post on this thread was simply reflective of overzealousness on the part of some moderator.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scottxyz]

47. A rebuttal to the original message

It is important to:

(1) rebut Cocoa's attempt to claim that "Diebold was exonerated"; and

(2) expose Cocooa's less-overt attempt to claim that BBVers exaggerate.


Short answer:

The title of this thread should not be "Diebold exonerated". The title should be changed to something like:

Diebold claims they don't violate voting-system security

To which the short answer would be: Big deal. A lot of evidence exists that Diebold DOES violate voting-system security.

And, perhaps most importantly, just because Diebold once claimed they don't violate voting-system security (and just because Cocoa admittedly exaggerated in interpreting this claim) does not mean BBVers exaggerated when they made other, much more well-founded claims about Diebold. Cocoa's exaggeration - cum - mea culpa does not mean that everything everybody ELSE said about Diebold was also an exaggeration. Cocoa's attempt to insinuate this - admitting exaggeration then talking about "the way things are discussed around here" and trying to somehow equate the two - is an affront to the honest efforts of other BBVers to get to the bottom of the Diebold issue.


Long answer:

There is a lot of evidence, both of the circumstatial and the "smoking gun" variety, that Diebold has violated voting-system security.

If you find a single case where Diebold said they didn't, how on earth can you call that a "smoking gun"?

But 'Cocoa' does just that at the start of this thread:

"I'm deliberately overstating the importance of this single quote, of course. But by the way things are discussed here, that one quote should be considered a smoking gun that Diebold is perfect."

First off, what kind of statement is that? Rhetorically, semantically, "smoking gun" and "perfect" don't go together. A smoking gun condemns an entire person or entity based on catching them in a big violation. There is no such thing as a "smoking gun of perfection". A smoking gun can only indict; it cannot exonerate.

This attempts to use a non-existent symmetry to stand the notion of "smoking gun" on its head (saying that if evidence of a single wrong-doing implies guilt, then evidence of doing a single good implies innocence).

The fact that a murder didn't kill somebody today doesn't mean the people who saw him murder someone yesterday don't have a "smoking gun".

But this is just what Cocoa is attempting to do here:

But by the way things are discussed here, that one quote should be considered a smoking gun that Diebold is perfect.

Cocoa does not stop at attempting to wipe away the mountain of evidence against Diebold on the basis of Diebold's single, completely unsubstantiated plea of innocence here.

Instead, Cocoa goes much further and talks about "the way things are discussed around here" - insinuating that the charges against Diebold are just as solitary and unsubstantiated and blown out of proportion as Diebold's plea of innocence which Cocoa admittedly blows out of proportion here. Kind of like saying "Hey I'll admit I played with the truth here. Now it's your turn to admit the same thing!"

Cocoa is claiming that the fact that we have one memo where Diebold claims they never violate voting-system security not only means:

(1) Diebold never violates voting-system security

but also (and here's the part of Cocoa's argument that is most subtly pernicious)

(2) If I (Cocoa) am willing to admit I exaggerated when I said that one small bit of exculpatory evidence means Diebold NEVER violated voting-system security, then people on DU who have been saying Diebold DID violate voting-systerm security (on the basis of lots and lots of incriminating evidence) should be a big sport and admit they were also exaggerating.

This is a very underhanded way to argue. Note that by talking about "the way things are discussed around here" Cocoa is attempting to equate supporting Diebold based on weak evidence here with condeming Diebold based on strong evidence elsewhere. This comparison is invalid, and the subtle means that were used to advance this invalid comparison should raise a red flag. It seems sneaky.

So we have two separate subtly pernicious arguments Cocoa is trying to advance here, both false.

The first one is so obvious and outrageous it is easy to let the second one slip right by:

(1) Strong evidence of Diebold telling the truth once is a "smoking gun of perfection" {sic} - ie, Diebold never lies.

The second pernicious argument is more subtle but more sweeping and perhaps more damaging - because it does not support the credibility of Diebold but rather attacks the credibility of other, unspecified DUers.

(2) I, Cocoa, just made a big bold assertion about Diebold based on almost no evidence. I exaggerated. Therefore, everybody else's big bold assertions about Diebold were probably also based on almost no evidence. Hey, nothing to feel bad about. No hard feelings. Welcome to the club. We're all sinners. (Insert smiley of reconciliation here.)

Notice the clever self-deprecating rhetorical tactics deployed in the attempt in part (2) to attack the mountain of solid evidence against Diebold. Cocoa makes an outrageous assertion SUPPORTING Diebold based on a single, unproven piece of evidence - and then turns around and says "Well I know that was outrageous - just like all those assertions being made AGAINST Diebold around here." The old "we are all sinners" ploy. The old pot-calling-itself-black-to-get-the-kettle-to-call-itself-black ploy. It's a great rhetorical tactic, probably answers to some atavistic non-elistist sense we have of belonging, but it doesn't wash.

(Note: An argument could be made that Cocoa's original posting was in violation of DU rules, which say: "{S}weeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not considered personal attacks. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board."

I submit that Cocoa's statement "the way things are discussed here" is a sweeping statement about an entire group of fellow progressives which is inflammatory and counterproductive.

= = =

Debunking the original posting

Cocoa's assertion at the top of this thread can be easily debunked by any "non-techie" with a gradeschool-level comprehension of English and logic. Cocoa's assertion supporting Diebold can be debunked without any technical knowledge of computers. (On other occasions, Cocoa has supported Diebold using arcane technical arguments requiring computer knowledge to prove or disprove.)

(1) Cocoa found an exchange of emails where someone is asking Diebold to violate voting-system security and Diebold refused.

Cocoa quotes Diebold defending its oft-tarnished honor: "Our first priority is to generate correct election results. That is an absolute. This is not a customer prerogative." Methinks Diebold doth protest too much here.

(2) Based on this single Diebold quote supporting voting-system security (and conveniently overlooking the many other instances where Diebold violated voting-system security) Cocoa accepts Diebold's unverified statement at face value, and then Cocoa makes false assertions and starts a phony thread with the false title:

Diebold exonerated - Cocoa

(3) Then Cocoa tries to defuse the inevitable criticism of the ridiculous claim "Diebold exonerated" with the following admission:

I'm deliberately overstating the importance of this single quote, of course. But by the way things are discussed here, that one quote should be considered a smoking gun that Diebold is perfect.

Cocoa is making false assertions here on several counts.

Look how easy it is to spot the errors here:

(1) Error of rhetoric: When a defendant accused of a crime claims they don't do those sort of things, that's not called "being exonerated". That's called "pleading innocent".

There is a big difference between being exonerated and pleading innocent. It is particularly grievous (and quite possibly a violation of DU posting rules) that such a false assertion should be prominently displayed as the title of a thread.

Many instances have been found where Diebold does appear to violate or encourage violating security in their voting systems. Today Cocoa found a single quote where Diebold claims they don't violate security or encourage violating security.

So the title for Cocoa's post could be either:

Diebold pleads innocent

or

Diebold exonerated by Cocoa

but NOT

Diebold exonerated

(2) Error of logic: In the final paragraph of the original posting, Cocoa admits the title "Diebold exonerated" is an exaggeration because it's based on a single instance when Diebold was apparently found doing something to uphold voting-system security. But Cocoa tries to claim that this exaggeration is somehow justified because earlier instances where Diebold had been found doing something to violate voting-system security had been labeled "smoking guns".

Cocoa is trying to equate two different things:

(a) On the one hand, you have {many instances of} people observing Diebold violating voting-system security - and people saying "aha! gotcha!"

(b) On the other hand, you have {one instance of} Diebold merely claiming they do not violate voting-system security - and Cocoa decides to say "aha! gotcha!"

Using the sort of warped logic Cocoa attempts to use here, a lawyer could argue that the fact that their client did not commit a crime on a particular occasion means they never committed a crime ever.

Nobody said Diebold always violated voting-system security at every moment of history. (This is the "straw horse" which Cocoa sets up to easily knock over and in the process making a sweeping statement about fellow progressives with the disparaging reference to "the way things are discussed around here". Hey, it's not our fault if we find lots of smoking guns on Diebold, Cocoa! Just because they leave a lot of them lying around doesn't mean they're not all smoking guns!) However, an overwhelming body of evidences indicates that Diebold sometimes - perhaps even often - violated voting-system security. A memo from Diebold where they claim not to violate voting-system integrity isn't exoneration. If anything, it could be evidence of coverup.