Black Box Voting: Titanic About to Hit Iceberg (New York Times)

[BevHarris]

Okay, the New York Times was far too nice about the SAIC report, but they did end their report with a quote from an official who said this:

"James T. Smith, the Baltimore County executive, who has opposed the move to electronic voting, said the new report should stop the state from using the machines.

"For two years, Baltimore County has warned, `Iceberg ahead!' and now independent experts have warned that it's a gigantic iceberg," Mr. Smith said. "Maryland should not say, `Damn the iceberg, full speed ahead.' "

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/technology/25VOTE.html?ex=1065067200&en=aa7d5fdea73eb5f6&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Okay, now I need something, folks, and I am asking for help. There is a reason that they took out BlackBoxVoting.org and that is because they could NOT afford to have the press coming over for commentary. We'll fax-feed it to them, then, and route them to the blackboxvoting.com site!

Here's what I need

The citizen outrage report -- Bullet points please

Calm, devastating logical rebuttals to the outrage of using these machines knowing what we now know.

- According to Mark Radtke of Diebold, even though the SAIC report identified over 300 flaws, 26 of them critical, THEY ARE NOT FIXING THE MACHINES IN CALIFORNIA (read: a recall election in 10 days using these riggable machines in 14 counties!) or GEORGIA or anywhere else they are using them.

- The SAIC tested a system that has NEVER been used in ANY election and is not even certified yet. They wanted to keep this a secret so they redacted the version number out! I believe what they tested was the touch screen AccuTouch TSx system and the high speed central count program -- I'm going to check a couple things. There is no other reason to have redacted the version numbers, WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE ON THE NASED LIST.

- If there were over 300 security flaws and 26 critical ones (and that doesn't even include ANY of the optical scan systems by Diebold, which the memos show are making all kinds of errors, and it doesn't include the ballot preparation stage or the interface with voter registration) -- anyway:

--- How did this system get certified by Shawn Southworth at Ciber?
--- How did this system get certified by Wyle also?
--- How did this system get passed by Dr. Brit Williams?
--- How did this system get certified by all the state examiners?
--- If Diebold had over 300 security flaws, WHAT ABOUT ES&S which was apparently so similar they had patent lawsuits flying? What about Sequoia? What about Hart Intercivic?

We need to get this straightened out.

Bev

[qanda]

1. Bev, may I say...

Bravo to you. You are to be commended for your tireless efforts and I, for one, applaud you. If our democracy is saved, it will be because of people like you.

[frank frankly]

2. Bev, way to go!

Impossible to overstate how much you've done!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks!

[Cocoa]

3. of course it's possible to overstate what Bev has done

people do it constantly.

[Paulie]

7. Oh yes, I agree

Bev isn't the second comming, which I believe was an overstatement. And shame on those who claim it!

She's definately the next best thing to sliced bread; between that and say the importance of salt cod during the last 300 years or so.

So no more overstatements! Bring Bev down to a more earthly pedistal, only several dozen meters high instead of the full one hundred meters.

Sheesh, you people scare me sometimes. And I don't mean Bev. ;) ;) ;)

[frank frankly]

11. hey i like to support people

i dont deify anybody

[TacticalPeek]

12. Refocus, Paulie.

THEY are the scared ones. The finger writing on the wall tells every corporate hierarchy that, like Enron, like Arthur Andersen, a profitable enterprise with safe markets can still melt away, like chocolate in their hands in a Baghdad summer. At least, I guess that's melted chocolate on their hands.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[BevHarris]

15. No don't, it will get the thread locked.

Threads that do damage get locked. Please, please allow this to thrive because truly the Titanic is steaming toward the iceberg.

I do need some bullet points, folks.

Bev

[stickdog]

13. I didn't realize that someone had already invented an

oligarch-bot.

[Zhade]

48. But we also understate that you're against democracy, so it evens out.

Doesn't focusing all of your efforts on defeating the truth - which you'll never do, incidentally - rob you of the chance to live a happy life?

[Le Taz Hot]

62. I ran into this "overstatement" situation

at the California Democratic Council Convention at the end of July. Some "expert" was giving a presentation about touch-screen voting. I've been sending out regular alerts to all the local Dem. clubs and statewide organizations. As such, one of the CDC officers asked me to offer my services to the "expert." I did so via e-mail and got a condescending letter back wanting to know what my "credentials" were (they're plentiful but I rarely use them) and basically stating that Bev Harris was a "conspiracy theorist" and had a tendency to sensationalize her findings. :eyes:

So much for the "experts." I'll go with Bev's information EVERY time.

[althecat]

4. Can I suggest that people involved in this process...

...add TFHP and Cocoa to their ignore lists. (Is very easy just click the sleeping person Icon.) And then we can have this discussion without too much interruption...

al

[BevHarris]

6. Okay, something good just happened...

I'm going to be working on something for the next couple hours. I hope the research here can flesh this out -- David Allen, Alastair, you guys have a great way with words. I'm too wordy.

I want the points easy to understand and short. Like this:

- California recall election in 14 counties will only have 326 security flaws, and only 26 will be "critical" so go ahead, use those Diebold machines.

whatever number, worded better. Look, people can understand that -- numbers of flaws, the word "critical" and for pete's sake a Diebold spokesman saying they are NOT gonna fix the California problems.

This is a press piece made in heaven. In the mean time, I have a little surprise cooking in the background. Give me a couple hours...

Bev

[alfredo]

9. the results of a couple shots of bourbon below

Remember you California voters in the 14 counties that use Diebold machines, when you go to the polls, the machines you are using are the best your money can buy. They are so good that they only have 326 security flaws, and of that only 26 are critical.

If the big wigs at Diebold are not concerned about the flaws, you shouldn't be concerned either. What's the latest on Laci Peterson?

[nostamj]

63. The bad news is...

they found 326 security flaws in the software that will count the votes in 14 CA counties next month.

The Good news is that only 26 of the flaws are critical.

probably too late but........

[NoKingGeorge]

73. California and legal issues afterward

This election in Ca may NEVER be over. The lawsuits that will be filed because some citizens had to use flawed systems (documented by courts) will tie this up until and maybe through the next Ca election.
Also what happens when a State knowingly uses uncertified equipment?
YO, Georgia and Maryland folks signing off on uncertified versions would be held accountable.

[Zhade]

50. You're right - it WAS easy!

Let them babble on. They'll never stop people intent on the truth. :)

[Melsky]

5. Thanks Bev

This is really impressive, keep up the good work and ignore the naysayers! I have told a lot of people I know about the voting machine problems.

[scottxyz]

8. Wow this is really blowing up!

It just dawned on me about the timing of taking down BlackBoxVoting.org and then the SAIC report coming out - as you alluded to Bev.

Wow! Scary!

I'm not too up on legal issues, but I would suggest things like:

(1) Mirror overseas. (Are we already doing that?) Works for most of the peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. Mirror little pieces all over the place. Put stuff up anonymously on geocities or whatever - then send out the fax right away. Put it on a CD and physical mail that to the media. Some of the best stuff in the world is NOT on the internet. That football team in Long Island - and the Skull & Bones secret society - and Diebold - all get pretty touchy when you say you're launching an investigation against them and try to shut you down.

(2) Use freenet! It was designed by Iane Clarke, one of the top peer-to-peer programmers, to deal with government trying to shut down websites illegally.

(3) My legal take (totally amateur): The Diebold keeps yakking about "copyright" in relation to their memos. I believe the more correct term is "evidence". Get a lawsuit or lawsuits going to make the case. Do you even have to be a lawyer to do that?

(4) Scream holy hell about this incident of the POLITICAL website BlackBoxVoting.org building a class-action legal case and being takien down by REPUBLICAN firm Diebold the day before {INSERT ADJECTIVE} agency SAIC released its report. Scream censorship.

(5) Request a ruling under the Freedom of Information Act finding that these Diebold memos are public property (much like the formulas computing taxes).

[Zhade]

49. I have problems using Freenet - never works well for me.

Other than that, of course, I LOVE it. I wish I could figure out how to make it work for me again.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

14. what's that melody I hear?

Toot! Toot! Toot! You're beginning to sound just like Johnny One-Note, playing the same tired refrain over and over again.

Same old same old, Bev.

The 300 flaws to which you're referring don't all seem to refer to flaws in the software. From what I can see, a bunch of it appears to be issues with Maryland election procedure itself. Did you even read the report?

Your basis for believing that it was the AccuTouch TSx system and high speed central count program that were tested appears to be founded entirely on nothing more substantial than the usual paranoia and conspiracy theory. But whatever, let's even suppose for the sake of argument that it is. Do you insist that Diebold only sell the old system to which you have the source code? Were they supposed to halt development on new systems the day you downloaded an old one? What possible objection could you have to a new, ostensibly improved system, except perhaps that you don't have the source code for it?

You claim the software is flawed and demand security fixes. Diebold provides them. You immediately damn them for it. Your actions are increasingly illogical and erratic.

The reports by the New York Times and the Washington Post were far more balanced and believable than any of the hysterical, inaccurate and overblown ramblings you routinely post here and elsewhere.

JC

[BevHarris]

16. no response.

none.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

18. good call

I can't really say that I blame you. Toot! :)

JC

[stickdog]

20. You seem to stay in the key of F -- as in FRAUD.

Johnny One-Note, indeed!

Oh, I forgot about the A -- as in AD HOMINEM.

What is your agenda here, again?

Oh, yes.

To defend the blantantly indefensible.

If you are a really a programmer -- and I've yet to see a shred of evidence that you are anything but a PR hack -- you clearly must understand that you are fighting against ensuring that the United States is actually the democracy it claims to be.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

21. my agenda?

Bev and the BBV crew raise holy hell about security issues and demand fixes.

Diebold provides fixes to issues raised by Rubin et al and SAIC. Maryland vows to revise its procedures with the goal of addressing security issues.

Bev and the BBV crew damn Diebold for (I guess) working to fix their product.


And you question my agenda. Hilarious.


"Blantantly" isn't a word. Stick to the programming and leave the writing to PR hacks like Bev and (allegedly) myself.

Toot! :)

JC

[Andy_Stephenson]

27. If the system were fixed...

there would be a paper trail. No paper trail, the problem isn't fixed.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

32. yes, I know you want a paper trail

I like a good paper trail as much as anyone, and probably more than most.

Nevertheless, you must surely admit that the fixes and procedural measures described in the Maryland press release are definitely a Good Thing (tm). Come on, admit it. There's no logical way to call it bad.

JC

[BevHarris]

33. SAIC report: Shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic

to borrow an excellent metaphor from scottxyz on the SAIC thread, where he thoroughly debunks the report.

[scottxyz]

36. Here's the link to the SAIC report and my debunking of it

Basically, I debunked the report the way God_Bush_n_Cheney did - we pointed out that until you have something to audit against (eg, paper ballots), you're just "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=398076#401117

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

40. gosh, that was long

Thanks for the summary. You could have just said that instead of rambling on for several pages. Gah.

I'm just glad that Diebold added encryption to the result transmission, I was secretly pretty worried about the whole "janitor illegally tapping the phone line and inserting incorrect data into the unofficial results" scenario. I'm happy they did something about the smart cards too... I hate to think of the guy with one of Rubin's hypothetical "homebrewed voter cards" cheerfully voting as many times as he wants because Diebold wasted all its development effort on providing that guy with a paper ballot with which to verify each of his fraudulent votes.

JC

[scottxyz]

43. Actually, I said more than what's in the summary

The other point, which you may have missed in that lengthy post, was that in addition to verifying the electronic vote against a paper vote, you need to be able to verification against the implementation.

As you say you are a programmer, this may be a topic of interest to you - although only programmers who also have a good understanding of mathematics and logic (specifically, model theory) really grasp the fundamental relationship of "satisfaction" holding between a "specification" and its "implementation" (isomorphic to the relationship holding between a "theorem" and its "proof".)

So my longer post said that not only is there no second copy to check the vote against - but there's no specification to verify the implementation against. This is more addressed to the source-code issue - still a very important topic, which we naturally would not want to let get swept under the rug with the onslaught of bugs and "mitigating actions" and "risk reductions" the SAIC report is recommending to plug all the leaks in the sinking system.

[stickdog]

54. How about the "break into the database and change the results"

scenario?

How about the "embedded compiler easter egg" scenario?

Stop me when I get to something you can comprehend.

[linazelle]

83. It's nice that you're "happy" about the two fixes you named...

Now please address when and how the other 324 items will be "fixed."

[scottxyz]

44. Yes there is a logical way to call it bad

"The good is the enemy of the best."

Or how about: "Almost doesn't count except in horseshoes and hand-grenades."

[scottxyz]

42. Wow - criticizing someone for a typo

You haven't raised any substantive points in your post, TinFoilHatProgrammer.

I'm sure all of us were able to figure out what was meant by the typo "blantantly", so you might be better advised to address the content rather than the form of the messages.

As for Bev being a Johnny One-Note - well, yes, this is rather boring and one-dimensional. We're talking about a badly-written piece of software. That's the "topic". Same topic every day for quite a while now.

The vows to revise the procedures appear pretty empty - even to a non-programmer. The most important and obvious safeguard needed - having a paper copy to verify against - is never mentioned. Therefore, it is quite plausible that this SAIC report is a bunch of hot air. It may be implementing the wrong specification, in other words.

In other words, you may be being gullible for swallowing the SAIC report hook, line and sinker. It may be an incompetently written report - or it may be a deliberate smokescreen designed to PRETEND to be fixing the system. Under this hypothesis, your uncritical acceptance of the report may be a great disservice - you may be playing right into their hands.

The only way to determine whether the report is useful or not, is to have a pretty well-formed idea of what a properly designed system would involve.

One of the most important features needed - something to verify against - is sorely lacking in the rash of recommendations in the SAIC report.

This is why people are saying they're "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

[BevHarris]

17. Okay, work to do -- I can't write the piece and do the other thing

that's happening behind the scenes here. If possible, can someone go to google (hit the "news" tab) and enter "diebold" and bring us back the latest articles, whose published them, name of writer.

That would be a great help!

Bev

[scottxyz]

28. A TV & newspaper contact list - 150 email addr - use BCC: field in email

Bev -

Would this be of any help? Sort of letter-to-the-editor emails more than actual reporters...

What you said, searching for Diebold on http://news.google.com and sorting by date then opening each link and getting an address from the article - that would definitely target people who are already writing about this.

Source:

http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/contactinfo.htm

(I imagine you have stuff like this already working in publicity!)

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[BevHarris]

38. Thanks -- yes, getting the names of people already covering it

is the way to go. I have most of them -- my media database has about 430,000 names in it currently, but the trick is finding the ones that are at least partially up to speed on this.

I am SO glad that yesterday, before this hit, they were all calling me and downloading those memos. I have no doubt the memo stories will surface right along with cease & desist stories and SAIC stuff and California recall stuff.

A bit of synergy never hurts, does it!

[punpirate]

29. Already have NYT and WP...

... so:

http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-machines0925,0,81577.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Reporter: David Nitkin

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20030924-095337-4281r.htm

Reporter: Tom Stuckey

Slashdot (2 hrs ago): http://slashdot.org/articles/03/07/24/153258.shtml?tid=103

References NYT article.

Uggh, Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98248,00.html

Reporter: Michael Duck

Diebold and Alameda County: http://journalism.berkeley.edu/ngno/stories/001131.html

Report by Rujun Shen, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism

San Jose Mercury: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6849670.htm

Reprint of Miami Herald article by Erika Bolstad (interesting comments from ES&S's Urosevich)

MIT Technology Review: http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_rotenberg092403.asp

Writer: Marc Rotenberg

Not much else that's really current that I can find on short notice.

Cheers.

[BevHarris]

34. Thanks. Yeah, ES&S may implode shortly after Diebold

I've got an insider coming forward, still have to check that out, and more waiting in the wings, from what I hear.

[TorchTheWitch]

46. google search

These are just the ones from 9/23 - 9/25

New York Times
Report Raises Electronic Vote Security Issues
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: September 25, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/technology/25VOTE.html?ex=1065067200&en=aa7d5fdea73eb5f6&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Baltimore Sun
Voting system found to have fraud risk
By David Nitkin
Originally published September 24, 2003, 10:08 PM EDT
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-machines0925,0,81577.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Washington Post
Md. Plans Fixes After Vote System Is Faulted
By Brigid Schulte
Thursday, September 25, 2003; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60825-2003Sep24.html

Washington Times
Maryland to buy voting machines
By Tom Stuckey - ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 25, 2003
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20030924-095337-4281r.htm

Slashdot
Diebold Audit Released, BlackBoxVoting.Org Shut Down
by simoniker on Wednesday September 24, @11:15PM
[e-mail]
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/25/012242.shtml?tid=126&tid=172

The Inquirer - UK
Diebold takes down blackboxvoting.org
US election fraud? Perish the thought!
By Egan Orion
Wednesday 24 September 2003, 11:27
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11743

FOX News
Touch-Screen Voting Gets State OK, With Security Fixes
By Michael Duck
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98248,00.html

North Gate News (California)
Accuracy Of Computer Voting Questioned
By Rujun Shen
September 24, 2003 08:39 PM
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/ngno/stories/001131.html

The Mercury News (California)
High-tech election gear about to go?
BY ERIKA BOLSTAD - Miami Herald
Wed, Sep. 24, 2003
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6849670.htm

Technology Review
A Vote Against the Computerized Ballot
By Marc Rotenberg
September 24, 2003
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_rotenberg092403.asp

Toledo Blade (Ohio)
Area readies touch-screen machines
By FRITZ WENZEL - [e-mail]
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030923/NEWS05/109230092


HA! Look at these booboo's scramble...

*PR Newswire
(Diebold Press Release) - Source: Diebold Election Systems
Diebold Election Systems Moves Forward with Maryland Voting Machine Installation
(No Author)
September 25, 2003
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK4.story&STORY=/www/story/09-24-2003/0002023744&EDATE=WED+Sep+24+2003,+04:50+PM

*Yahoo News
(Diebold Press Release) - Source: Diebold Election Systems
Diebold Election Systems Moves Forward with Maryland Voting Machine Installation
(No Author)
Wednesday September 24, 4:50 pm ET
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030924/clw045_1.html

[BevHarris]

47. Thanks -- note how some of them

have the same story but slant the headline differently.
A Delaware paper had a headline something like "Maryland to use high risk machines" -- same article, much more inflammatory.

Thanks, hadn't seen some of these.

[punpirate]

19. Emphasize that...

... only 20% (40 pages) of the report was released to the public. At the state level, redactions should be for personal privacy reasons and no other. Information in this report isn't going to threaten the welfare of any intelligence operatives.

... that the language of what is available publicly is very much at odds with what Diebold claims in their press release.

... contrast the statements made in Diebold's information to investors with their actions and the reality depicted in company memos:

* "We believe in open disclosure."

* "We believe in maintaining the highest ethical standards at all times."

* "Honesty, integrity, accountability and openness are the principles by which we guide this company."

More later, when I've had a chance to look at the pdf of the report carefully.

Cheers.

[BevHarris]

Dup. Hyperactive finger-click

sorry.

[BevHarris]

24. This is great, punpirate -- exactly what we need

"Maryland is studying the 200 page report."

(We got 40 pages, and that was filled with redactions.)

Absolutely -- compare and contrast what we have been promised with what we got. Thanks -- I don't need something long, just something that will get the right questions asked.

Thanks so much.

Bev

[Cocoa]

22. so SAIC is credible now?

You are going to base a publicity push on the evil defense contractor SAIC's results.

How exactly do you judge a party's credibility, is it if the party says what you want to hear?

Oh, yeah, that's the way it works here at DU's BBV division. Dissent=disruption.

[stickdog]

25. Let's see if we can apply some logic here.

No, SAIC is not "credible." They are biased IN FAVOR OF DIEBOLD.

Therefore, if they something is wrong with the Diebold system, YOU CAN BET THAT THEY ARE JUST SCRATCHING THE FUCKING SURFACE.

Cocoa, what is it again that you have against printing and storing (and in some cases counting) voter verified hard copies of each voter's selected election choices?

[Cocoa]

30. I keep saying I'm in favor of VVPB and the Holt bill

Why do people keep asking me this?

[Andy_Stephenson]

31. "Cocoa, what is it again that you have against printing and storing ...

(and in some cases counting) voter verified hard copies of each voter's selected election choices?"

The prevention of fraud pehaps?

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

26. I was wondering the same thing

On one thread Bev appears to dismiss the report because it comes from a "non-independent defense contractor". On the other hand she apparently plans to use the report as a basis for yet another publicity push.

It's all so confusing and erratic.

Also I wonder how hard it must be for the BBV people to wave the SAIC report around in triumph and glee while it almost completely discredits their beloved Rubin report. Ten to one odds say they never quote that part -- ever.

JC

[scottxyz]

45. I read the Rubin report

I read lots of papers like that in my hobby studying theoretical computer science.

It didn't strike me as something which could be "discredited." You might try to plug the leaks it exposes - which is what the SAIC report tries to do - but that's a far cry from "discrediting" it.

In fact, one might say that it is actually "acknowledging" the Rubin report.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

51. there's a difference between reading and understanding

One might indeed say that SAIC is actually "acknowledging" the Rubin report.

One might also say that 69 pages out of a reported 200 equates to 20%. Saying something inaccurate doesn't unfortunately make it true, which is Bev's biggest problem.

And if you really think the SAIC report doesn't discredit the majority of the conclusions reached by Rubin et al, I can't help you... you'll simply have to read it again until comprehension sets in.

JC

[stickdog]

52. TinfoilHatPro, you're out to lunch.

You are either misrepresenting facts or you are an incompetent programmer.

To evaluate the two studies, you can't just compare the conclusions -- which, of course, is what an unskilled NON-PROGRAMMER would do.

There's a difference between understanding the most basic, rudimentary principles of data integrity, auditability and verification and simply representing yourself as a programmer.

THP, what is it again that you have against printing and storing (and in some cases counting) voter verified hard copies of each voter's selected election choices?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

69. and there's a difference between a screen display and a printout

...at least there better not be. So... where are the printers for these machines? :shrug:

[scottxyz]

87. Forgive me, TFHProgrammer

In collegial discussions of scholarly papers among computer science professionals, the phrase "I read..." is commonly construed to imply "I understood." I should have made that more explicit for you.

As papers go, Rubin's was refreshingly easy for me to understand. My disappointment with the SAIC paper was that it used layman's managerial terms to offer managerial and administrative recommendations which did not directly address most of the security holes in Diebold's software. I had been expecting more technical discussion from the SAIC - their purely managerial and administrative "mitigation strategies" would not be considered to "discredit" much less address the main conclusions of Rubin's paper.

A chart summarizing the security holes identified by Rubin and the recommendations offered by the SAIC can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=407492

One has the impression that the Rubin and SAIC reports are like ships passing in the night. The SAIC fails to even refer to most of the vulnerabilities by name.

So my question to you would be, what makes you believe that the SAIC recommendations would have any impact on the holes found by Rubin?

In your experience, have you ever found that hiring new managers and providing better training to users and administrators and adhering to standard operating procedures (which is what most of the SAIC recommendations come down to) can make up for badly architected and developed code?

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

97. good chart

You made a few mistakes on it, however, as a result of misinterpreting the Rubin paper and not considering all the new information you have available. Not to worry, though... I fixed it up for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=407492

JC

[scottxyz]

39. Sort of, Coca...

What we "want to hear" is that the system will be architected properly. So, yes, this SAIC report does not say what we want to hear. It's a lot of handwaving that doesn't address the most fundamental problem - verifiability.

All indications are that the only way to verify ANYTHING in life is to have a second copy of it.

The SAIC talks a lot of talk but neglects this key point.

You don't have to be a programmer or an accountant to understand that you can't check something if there's nothing to check it AGAINST.

Hence the need for paper.

Which the SAIC report doesn't mention.

Hence the SAIC report is "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

So you are not dissenting, you are at best misinformed.

If you feel like dissenting, address these two big flaws in the SAIC report head-on:

(1) It's over 80% redacted.

(2) It fails to mention the most important "mitigating" or "risk-reducing" step that could be taken: printing a second copy to check against, on paper.

For the laymen, who need convincing rather than impressing, try to use the word "paper" in your answer, rather than reeling off the number of some bill you support.

I'm an Access programmer yet many people manage to understand my posts. We shouldn't have to be a lawyer or a legislator to understand yours.

[Cocoa]

70. I thought the DREs do have multiple copies of data

I thought it was a HAVA requirement to enable recounts.

I'm a layman, I think by now it's reasonable to abbreviate "Voter verifiable paper ballot" to VVFB, and to refer to the "Holt Bill." If people don't understand, they can ask.

[Eloriel]

76. HAVA is being interpreted

as merely requiring a paper report of an audit. Or, perhaps, after-the-fact mirror images of the "ballots" (which are electronic). If there's no voter-verification of that record beforehand, it's useless because:

"Any programmer can write code that displays one thing on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another result." - Dr. Rebecca Mercuri

If the voter votes, the machine records something else (accidentally or on purpose, tho I'm more concerned about on purpose), a report printed LATER and without voter verification can as easily show the changed vote as the actual vote. Piece of cake.

Eloriel

[Cocoa]

80. I was addressing Scott's very valid point

I totally agree with the need to have the ability to cross-check any kind of data.

I was just pointing out that the DREs do have this ability, as I understand, and also that it's required by current law.

[Eloriel]

75. Scott -- another problem with the SAIC report

There's no mention of the GEMS software in there either. I made this point earlier, and no one picked up on it. Perhaps GEMS is covered in the un-redacted portion, I don't know. But there are only 3 mentions of GEMS at all -- 8,9 and 17 IIRC -- and NO clarity whatsoever that the GEMS software was included in their review. None.

There IS some (IMO intentional) conflation when they refer to the AccuVote-TS "system," but that's about as close as they come to implying that they audited the whole schlemeil.

Am I right?

Eloriel

[Cocoa]

77. I assumed GEMS was excluded

It seems this was motivated by the Johns Hopkins report, and I don't think that report involved GEMS. So maybe GEMS could reasonably be seen to be outside the scope of the SAIC study as well.

[scottxyz]

88. Yeah I was kind of expecting to hear more about GEMS

Probably they're just trying to obscure the issue.

[WaterDog]

23. I wish I could

do something about this.
I don't want Ah-nold as my governor!

Many Many Thanks, Bev!!! :bounce:

[lostnfound]

85. I sure hope someone is organizing statewide street protests

to occur immediately after the election, if Ahnold wins.

[ParanoidPat]

92. Look at the bright side, if Ah-nold wins.....

.....he can read the Patriot Act in the original German! :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Adjoran]

37. Kudos

to you, Bev, for such tenacious work on this issue!

If not for you, it is hard to believe that anyone would be even talking about it now. That is a great service to our democracy. Hats off!!

[haymaker]

41. Go Bev, Go!!!!!!!

Kick!

[symbolman]

53. I'd like to make two points here as an average citizen

who is not a programmer and doesn't have a lot of time to digest all this, most folks don't have time to even cruise the web and I DO read A LOT to run Take Back the Media and make my flash work -

Number One: The SIAC Report IS MISSING A MAJORITY OF PAGES. FUck the percentage. If it's NOT THERE then it's NOT THERE, no answer means something is being hidden.

Number Two: A LOT Of people (including smart ones) have been most drawn to the simple conclusion and proof that DIEBOLD produces Millions if not Billions of ATM RECEIPTS each and every day and will NOT give you a receipt for your vote.

Can you imagine the outcry if NO ONE got receipts at ATM's - is YOUR VOTE worth any less?

All I have to say other than thanks Bev and Dave and others who put their heads down and move the WALL. To insult true patriots like them by calling them "One NOTE" is an insult to the intelligence of the person making the statement - how about ONE NOTE Brain surgeons or FIghter Pilots, Artists, etc..

They get results.

ANd here is my Ode to the DIEBOLD Fighters once again http://www.takebackthemedia.com/voterevolution.html

Which REVOLUTION do you want to belong to, Bush's or OURS?

[scottxyz]

56. Very good points SymbolMan

Great points about the ATM receipts!

And I also cannot understand about TinFoilHatProgrammer who is harping about "One Note". It's a thread - it's supposed to be about one topic. Lots of threads about BBV - a big topic. Looks like TFHP is grasping at straws instead of rebutting people's arguments.

PS - I've been a big fan of the Take Back The Media website!

I will look at the animation tomorrow. Do I need a fast connection?

[nolabels]

81. Symbolman a real Patriot

As much as I despise the corrupt and violent nature that emanates from the soil of and around the Beltway and the apparatus that support it as such, I have to conclude the wheels that bring it to fruition are very important to everybody. The three pillars that make themselves very useful are being attacked as vigorously as possible.

These three important things I see which make things in a nation workable are the court systems that are used for redress of any real or perceived grievance, the ability to communicate freely on mass with the public at large and the ability assemble peacefully in whole to replace any government unrepresentative of the publics needs. Throughout the world and through history you can watch these three pillars being torn down and eroded and something ugly replace it.

The first two are pretty much gone as far as I can see. This last one they are now going after has to with our vote and this is perplexing to me. The oligarchy in place seems to have missed the boat on this one, and they seem to be backtracking around to pick it up. Much of system that makes it work for them and against us is in place. It is system that keeps the levers away from the common Joe.

Many of the big important parts, fundamental parts they have really missed the mark on and they should be grasped onto before they are also stolen. The oligarchy now seem to be attempting to burn some of the last bridges that they took to this place in time, one of these, the key to our democracy, our vote, is still intact but needs to be defended. This oligarchy wish to stay entrench with the way things are and willing to dig deeper if need be. You can watch it in most of their moves and how they try to set things up.

We all should have known long ago how important our vote is, but now if somebody doesn’t know, you should start looking around more carefully and think about the implications of what our vote means and what could be accomplished with it. The oligarchy is more afraid of us knowing about the power of our vote than most anything else. The oligarchy has got things so twisted, convoluted, misconstrued and ostentatious to make us believe that our vote is almost meaningless. These things they do are all part of the plan to keep them from being put out and or being dealt with

For these reasons I believe Symbolman to be directly on top of things. The issues really are very simple if you figure how and why these things are most coveted by the oligarchy who are most eager and wanting steal them from the rest of us.

Thanks again Symbolman

[hunter]

55. A friendly reminder about "disabled" voters...

Disabled voters were pinning a lot of hopes on these electronic voting machines, and Diebold, ES&S, etc., were doing some mighty sweet talking to various activists and advocates in that camp.

Which means many disabled people are now seeing the "BBV'rs" as traitors whose actions will deny disabled people the right to vote.

I don't know what motivates Cocoa, TFHP, or some of the other detractors here on DU's "BBV" threads, other than than their very stubborn and self-proclaimed skepticism, or more likely, their extreme distaste for Bev's methods, but always be aware of the possibility that they are not "shills" and they may have very good reasons for wanting these voting machines to work.

But honestly, after reading the the "intellectual property" that was "stolen" from Diebold, and even the SAIC report, I can't imagine how anyone could ever trust the ammoral and incompetent boobs that built these Diebold voting machines.

[shirlden]

58. Kick

:kick:

[punpirate]

59. The disabled voters were fed a line by the major manufacturers....

There is one small manufacturer, and possibly two, producing machines that satisfy _all_ the requirements of major disabled groups _and_ produce a paper ballot.

The only reason for the disabled to think of people wanting voter-verified ballots as "traitors" is because they've been led to that opinion by people who _do not want_ a ballot to be produced.

The salient point is that this is not about technology--it is not rocket science. Rather, it's about politics and money. The disabled understand that, too, if they're given the correct information.

Cheers.

[hunter]

71. I've done a little work on website accesssibility issues...

Last night I went back to some of the accessibility forums I used to watch, and there were messages that said things like, "They're attacking our voting machines!"

Electronic voting machine promotions have been very successful in that community.

But I think the bigger problem is all the lazy election officials who simply wanted to hand their big checks to Diebold, ES&S, etc. and walk away from all their problems.

It's sorta like the guy who was driving his big new motorhome down the highway when he decided to turn on the "cruise control" so he could walk back to the galley and get a doughnut...

He's not gonna tell that story to the cops after he crashes.

[althecat]

57. WIRED Weighs in.. = posted this into the SAIC thread too....

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60583,00.html

Is sort of good. And sort of soft. So so. And no mention of the memos...

Why has nobody linked the memos and the SAIC report - that's the story!!!!! That's the real deal...

[BevHarris]

61. But I have a question: Scoop ran the silly press release

but no commentary. Whazzup with that? Google news has it right up at the top.

The Seattle Times wrote an article today that references the memos. They did something very strange: They put a photo up that almost looks retouched in photoshop, or else defective in some way. It looks like I have three giant warts on my face -- and a red blotch below my nose -- and a yellow spot in my hair -- and my teeth are blueish. Really weird. I can't believe it. How does something like that happen? So, I took the opportunity to rip a new asshole for the writer.

Now, you might think he wrote an unbiased article, but that's only because you don't know what information he had.

I told him the truth: That our ISP got a DMCA pull-down demand, and they don't have an option about what to do; they fought it the first time successfully, kicked and screamed this time, but were called by a DMCA lawyer and told they had to do the pulldown. So what does Keith Erwin write? "Her ISP pulled the site" implying it was the ISP decision.

Here's the best part: He got an answer out of King County on that memo.They said they sometimes legitimately have to go in the back door to "get data" to run an election report or to "install a new database."

That is total unmitigated bullshit, not to mention illegal. You most certainly don't need to use a back door hack with Microsoft Access in order to run a report from GEMS! Nor should you be sticking databases in using the back door, which contains no tampering protections. Of course, the writer just dutifully reports it like everything is hunky dory.

He also, by the way, seems to think the link Diebold objected to was to you, Alastair. Didn't bother to check, or ask, of course, just reported that the link went to New Zealand.

Then he wrote the happiest part of the press release on the SAIC report, saying the report shows everything it better now.

I will call their managing editor and tell them they either should grant me an editorial or assign a tech writer who has some clue what he's doing.

Oh, and we should all be pleased to know that (after knowing that we have over 100 memos that prove Diebold has lied to certifiers, the county, and everyone else) King County is going to "take this matter very seriously" and they are going to "call Diebold" and ask. WTF?!?

Then, King County has arranged the following happy fixes to make everything all better:

You have to have TWO people to open up GEMS. (Um, but MS Access is configured for multiuser at the same time, and if someone's in the back door, what good does it do to put two at the front door?)

Next, they are going to make sure GEMS activity is also logged somewhere else. (someone in there with remote access, who gives a shit, just hit the data with the right timing...)

Oh, and they are going to restrict access to the GEMS computer (wait! Weren't we told that is what they were already doing?)

Bottom line: They are sticking together like lint on a sweater.

Bev

[Kelvin Mace]

66. the part I liked was...

"The memos appeared to support reports by Renton Web journalist and author Bev Harris that election results on Diebold's GEMS software could be altered..."

They just can't admit without equivocation that you're right.

Check this post from Slashdot by corebreech:

Pending: your vote is now the property of Diebold, Inc. Any attempt on your part to ascertain the disposition of your vote is hereby declared to be in violation of federal law, e.g., the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

You have the right not to vote. Any vote you make can be used against you in a court of law. The judge presiding in such a court of law may be appointed by Diebold, Inc., and need not require a jury, but if a jury is summoned, it need not be a jury of your peers.

By acting to vote you consent to our determining whether your vote is valid, and in the event it is judged not to be valid, you consent to our voiding your vote and further voiding your right to vote in the future.

You furthermore acknowledge that owing to storage and bandwidth limitations that Diebold, Inc., may experience, your vote may be digitally compressed in a way such that your true intent in casting the vote may be lost. If such an eventuality should occur, your vote may be determined using statistical data derived from any source we deem appropriate or convenient.

You have the right to protest if your vote is cancelled, altered, or in any way modified as the result of such action on our part, however, you hereby acknowledge that in such an eventuality, Diebold, Inc. may determine that your right to vote is deleterious to democracy as implement by Diebold, Inc., and therefore may be considered to be an overt act against the national security of these United States.

You have 10 seconds to comply.

God Bless America.

[althecat]

94. Re the press release...

Yes Bev..

I was kinda surprised it jumped straight to the top of Google.

Scoop archives PRs that's what we do - and I also find it handy to have em in our database - especially when they disappear elsewhere.

I should have run a commentary and linked it but have been a bit short handed around here.... was kind of waiting for the authoritative one to be written by someone else. David's looked kinda good.. but something much better ought to be in the pipeline.

Meanwhile I have been finding it damned hard to find out what on earth is going on re BBV.org etc etc etc... just reading all the crazy happenings around here seems to take up all my time!!!

And someone should scan this photo you mention.. sounds completely bizarrro!!!

And yes the King County story is full of nuttiness but it is the first followup in the mainstream on the memos. And the fact that they are clutching at strams makes em look kinda stupid. I would love to know what the great unwashed are making of all of this... it must surely look like a complete and utter circus. I took the reference to the log to mean that they would attach an exercise book and a pen to the GEMS system wherein people would write what they did. :)

And finally, as for the mention to linking to a site in NZ I emailed the author on that and pointed out that it was a mistake. I thought the site was in Korea. We shall see if they correct this or not - as it did not specifically name us they may decide it is unnecessary.

meanwhile best regards to all...

these are stressfull times!!!

And if anyone managed to find this post among all the BBVing going around here these days then all power to you... it pays in spades to donate to DU and get search access!!!

God Bless and good night

al

[preciousdove]

95. Found your reply and kicking it back up

:toast:

[dusty64]

60. Titanic is a good analogy.

That SHOULD have been the headline.

[Junkdrawer]

64. Kick

:kick:

[gully]

65. Bev, we should be working with moveon.org! They've been a great

catalyst for activism and have a huge database of supporters.

Thoughts?

They could get a petition drive going to congress or???

*Idea: I worked with diebold atm machines as a former banker. Why couldn't they have these machines generate a voting recipt with a hard copy inside the machine? That's what atm's do...

[symbolman]

67. This is the CRUX

of this campaign right here:

"*Idea: I worked with diebold atm machines as a former banker. Why couldn't they have these machines generate a voting recipt with a hard copy inside the machine? That's what atm's do..."

You have to have something that joesixpack can get behind - a "Rovian" point as I call them, like "Drugs are bad" "They want to raise your taxes" etc..

The public will respond to this as a sound byte - or as I call them "repeater stations" :)

[scottxyz]

89. I agree

The lengthy analysis needs to be consolidated into some sound bites or memes.

[Gordon25]

91. You can't hand count electrons n//t

[Kelvin Mace]

68. Tried them many times

So far, no response.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org

[gully]

79. Well lets get some DU'ers on the case!

Start an activism group here and well write moveon?

[BevHarris]

72. MoveOn has ignored this.

If you have a PHONE NUMBER for them, PM me.

[gully]

82. This is supposed to be the email for Eli Pariser

[e-mail]

another email contact is here...

[e-mail]

Here is a link to the names of founders and staff. Perhaps some of our 'researchers' here can try and locate these folks?

http://www.moveon.org/about/staff.html

[NoKingGeorge]

74. After election law suits.

If these machines are used , won't legal questions be raised about the election results no matter what the results are? The lawyers will get rich(er) using all the doubts about security whether or not security palys a part in a particular election.
These states are throwing open the doors to litigation.

[Eloriel]

78. These states -- and the vendors -- have made themselves SAFE

I really need to find out which other states besides GEORGIA have made the "electronic vote" the only legal vote. Therefore, poof! no way to prove fraud:

* No one checks the code line-by-line to help ensure against error or malicious code

* No one CAN check the code after the fact if fraud or even error is suspected

* Any "recount" using the same machines is likely to produce the same results.

* There are no voter-verified paper ballots which can be used for audits and recounts, AND

* Even if we had VVPB, in some states incl. Georgia, they'd be worthless anyway since they're not the "legal vote."

Clever of them, wasn't it?

So no, there aren't likely to be all that many suits -- why argue with something you in effect can't challenge anyway?

Eloriel

[gristy]

84. Check with Gordon25

I really need to find out which other states besides GEORGIA have made the "electronic vote" the only legal vote. Therefore, poof! no way to prove fraud:

I think Gordon25 commented on this at one point. Ask him.

[Gordon25]

90. The ones I know about are...

...Arizona and Nebraska, for sure. I believe that Georgia, Florida and Texas have similar laws; i.e., recounts are to be done by running the ballots back through the machine and taking the machine count as count of record. In Arizona only the state supreme court can order a hand recount. No one can do so in Florida or Georgia because there is nothing to hand count. You can't hand count electrons.

Should be easy for anyone to find out about their state law by doing a Google search on (State) election law recounts.

Gordon25

[TacticalPeek]

86. KKKick against the machine!

:kick:

[oasis]

93. kick

[msmcghee]

96. FWIW

I used to work as a technician for Wyle Labs many years ago. Like other test labs, they get paid to independently test products. The customer is paying money for certification and of course wants the product to pass.

I experienced first-hand how you are pressured by supervisors to overlook things that might cause a problem for the customer - to not make waves. I was being asked to sign off on things that were not right. You quickly learn at Wyle how to advance - it is by making the customer happy and passing their product. I quit because of the inherent dishonesty of that system.

If Wyle fails to pass the product then the customer has to spend a lot of money to redesign the product to eliminate the flaws (that are now officially documented). A customer once stung does not come back. They take their product to another - more accommodating lab.

The only sensible way for any product to be tested and certified is for those interested in the reliability and safety of the product, the purchaser of the product, to hire and pay for testing - not the manufacturer of the product. This is an obvious, inherent conflict of interest.

States that purchase the voting machines - if they truly care about the quality of the machines they purchase - must hire and pay for the testing themselves out of state funds. The testing company must see their mission as uncovering hidden probelms in the product, not hiding them to get more business - otherwise certification is not worth the paper it is written on.

[Bushfire]

99. Thank you for coming forward with your experience

You bring up a great talking point when going to election officials with questions. Just ask them if they paid for certification, or did the manufacturer. Get's pretty simple to see hands can be greased to get the results they want. Obviously not everyone is as honest as yourself.

[cmd]

98. Statement to Canton Repository from Diebold

http://www.cantonrep.com/archive/index.php?ID=122705&Category=11

This statement from Ehrlich has the damning word IF in it. IF operated properly" also means that it can be operated improperly.

'Ehrlich said the independent review indicates “the Diebold machine and source code, if operated properly, can contribute to one the safest, most secure election systems available. Because of this report, Maryland voters will have one of the safest election environments in the nation.” '