The Nashua Advocate: Diebold Speaks Out On Election Controversy

[nashuaadvocate]

Find the article here --

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate

[tjdee]

1. OMG, read this--they think paper printouts are a bad idea?!

Looney Tunes, and nasty about it besides.
Also, the ability of individual voters to verify, on paper, that the choices they have made for candidates and issues on a touch-screen voting machine are correct and will be counted accordingly is a matter of public policy, not of technological capability....

For example, voters cannot leave a polling place with an ATM-style receipt, else we risk subjecting every election to accusations of vote-buying."



But then they say this:

"As a vendor in this industry, we can supply whatever our customer requires. If those requirements ever include a voter-verifiable record printer, we can certainly accommodate that need – provided that appropriate standards and certification processes are in place for such a product. "

:crazy:

[seabeyond]

4. even though a mere six months ago they said not possible n/t

[BR_Parkway]

8. The customer requires access to the source code - this is simple

addition, adding one more vote to the sum total - not the secret recipe to Bush's Baked Beans or the Colonel's Chicken.

I'm not a techno-wizard, but I'm pretty sure that the touch screen that they incorporate comes with instructions on how to program it - then you add a program that totals up all those. It's an advanced calculator - but my MS Excel can do more stuff.

We want the code!

[Amaryllis]

12. What we require is honest elections and I doubt they can supply those.

Able but not willing, clearly.

[bush_is_wacko]

2. I posted a comment on the site. I hope they're watching! I am so tired

of these inadequate responses and outright bullshit flinging going on!

[Wilms]

3. Kick n/t

[darkworkz]

5. That article says

The "big boys" know the people are awake now with numbers growing daily, and they're afraid. They have good reason to be. And when you figure out all that they've done in your name...

Well, let's just say things are going to happen.

[rumpel]

6. Once again, if I may indulge in potsing the CA AG's announcement

OFFICE OF THE AG
PROGRAMS & SERVICES
NEWS & ALERTS
PUBLICATIONS
CONTACT US
SEARCH







REGISTERING WITH US
CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
LINKS TO STATE SITES














Attorney General Lockyer Announces $2.6 Million Settlement with Diebold in Electronic Voting Lawsuit
Settlement Would Resolve False Claims Allegations, Strengthen Security of Equipment


November 10, 2004


04-130
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
[phone]

(OAKLAND) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer today announced a proposed $2.6 million settlement with Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (Diebold) to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the Texas-based firm provided false information to obtain payments from the state and counties for its electronic voting equipment.

"There is no more fundamental right in our democracy than the right to vote and have your vote counted," said Lockyer. "In making false claims about its equipment, Diebold treated that right, and the taxpayers who bought its machines, cavalierly. This settlement holds Diebold accountable and helps ensure the future quality and security of its voting systems."

Lockyer filed the proposed settlement simultaneously with the complaint in Alameda County Superior Court. He filed both jointly with Alameda County District Attorney Thomas J. Orloff and Alameda County Counsel Richard E. Winnie. Before it becomes final, the settlement must be approved by the court.

The complaint is an amended version of a false claims lawsuit originally filed November 21, 2003 by James March and Bev Harris. Lockyer and the local prosecutors, after conducting their own investigation, intervened on September 7, 2004 and took over the case. March and Harris are entitled to claim a portion of the proceeds from the proposed settlement. The court will determine how much they receive. Additionally, if the court determines March and Harris are entitled to recover attorneys fees and costs, Diebold will be responsible for reimbursing those expenses.

The proposed settlement calls for Diebold to pay a total of $2.6 million. The payment would be allocated as follows: $1.25 million to the state and $100,000 to Alameda County to resolve alleged violations of the state's False Claims Act (FCA); $375,000 each to Alameda County and the state to resolve alleged violations of the state's Unfair Competition Law; and $500,000 to the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS). The IGS would use the $500,000 to fund research aimed at training poll workers in the use of electronic voting technology.

In addition to the $2.6 million, the settlement would require Diebold to pay the costs of providing optional paper ballots to voters in Alameda and Plumas counties in the November 2, 2004 general election, if the counties request such reimbursement. Diebold's obligation under this provision would be limited to the cost of providing paper ballots for up to 25 percent of the registered voters in the two counties.

Under the settlement, Diebold also would: pay for optical scan equipment and ballots used in the November 2, 2004 general election in Kern, San Joaquin and San Diego counties; pay for storage of electronic representations of each ballot cast on touchscreen voting units in the November 2, 2004 general election in Alameda, Plumas and Los Angeles counties; upon Alameda County's request, pay for tamper-resistant tape used by the county in the November 2, 2004 general election; install, and pay the cost of installing, upgraded touchscreen firmware in Alameda, Plumas and Los Angeles counties, and upgraded vote tabulation software in all counties using Diebold voting systems in the November 2, 2004 general election; upon Alameda County's request, pay for 750 expanded memory cards for the county's touchscreen voting units.

Additionally, the settlement includes important provisions that would require Diebold to strengthen the security of its touchscreen voting machines and vote tabulation servers. During the course of negotiating the proposed settlement, Diebold took steps to implement some of these "injunctive relief" requirements.

One provision would require Diebold to replace hard-coded, "supervisor" passwords with dynamic passwords, and provide directions and training to enable election officials to change the dynamic passwords. Diebold also would have to encipher data transmissions between touchscreen terminals and vote tabulation servers, and replace hard-coded data encryption, standard security keys with encryption keys programmable by counties.

Additionally, the settlement would require Diebold, upon request of the counties using its voting equipment, to reconfigure the vote-tabulation server to better secure the systems in those counties. In the alternative, Diebold could instruct the counties on how to complete such a reconfiguration. Under the settlement, Diebold would be prohibited from connecting voting systems to specified networks, transmitting official election results through use of such networks, or downloading software or firmware through use of specified networks. The settlement also would require Diebold to offer training materials to the counties on how to use its voting systems.

Further, Diebold would have to provide the California Secretary of State, upon demand, documents from independent federal testing authorities, and information related to the development, testing, installation and operation of its voting systems. The information would allow the Secretary of State to further analyze the Diebold systems used in California elections.

The amended complaint filed by Lockyer and the Alameda County officials alleges Diebold made false claims about the security, and state and federal certification, of its touchscreen machines and vote tabluation system. As a result of those false claims, the complaint alleges, Alameda and other counties spent taxpayer money to buy the equipment. The state then reimbursed six counties for a portion of their payments with funds provided under the Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002 (VMBA), according to the complaint. Those counties included Alameda, Kern, Lassen, Plumas, Santa Barbara and Siskiyou.

In the case of Alameda, the county spent about $11.8 million on Diebold equipment, some of which failed during the March 2004 primary election. Alameda County recouped roughly $8.8 million from the state-provided VMBA funds.


# # # #
BACK






OFFICE OF THE AG | PROGRAMS & SERVICES | NEWS & ALERTS | PUBLICATIONS | CONTACT US | SEARCH
REGISTERING WITH US | CAREER OPPORTUNITIES | LINKS TO STATE SITES
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | © 2001 DOJ

[texpatriot2004]

7. There were two people "accidented" who had invented E- Vote

machines that were fantastic and could print out paper receipts AND be AUDITED. Wonder why they both are gone now? Wonder why they both had "accidents" in the last 4 years?

[righteous1]

9. Does anyone seriously believe that a multi-billion dollar company

would put everything on the line to give Bush a victory. By everything I mean the entire business. Voting machines are but a relatively small segment of their overall sales. But the entire company would be brought down if they got caught doing this. Think about it, the risk/benefit ratio would be astronomically high. Not that I put anything past a business if the proper motivations are there, but these people are not stupid. To risk something of this nature would be ludicrous and no clear thinking business person would disagree that the chance a CEO would take the chance is less than zero.

[BR_Parkway]

10. No, of course they wouldn't be that stupid. All the guys really that

dumb ran companies like Enron, World-Com, Riggs Bank.

[righteous1]

13. Your sarcasm does not address the point, The risk /benefit ratio

was not high with Enron World Com etc. You obviously are not a business person. There is not enough in it for them. Enron was cooking the books concerning several billion dollars as was World Com. The entire amouint of money Bush spent on the campaign would not make someone in a company the size of Diebold blink

[BR_Parkway]

14. While you're mostly wrong, you were right in one respect

I actually am a business person. I have been self employed all my life, currently between the 3 companies we employ around 170 people.

While it's very likely that a $4b publicly held company like Diebold would not be the company that would produce the fraud - Diebold has become synonymous with Election Fraud, like most tissue papers generically called Kleenex aren't manufactured under the Kleenex brand name.

Sequoia Voting Systems, ES&S, Triad are all privately held companies accountable to a very few - and all had the means, presumably had the motive given their campaign donations/promotions and certainly had the opportunity to "tweak" the programs a little bit.

Considering the documented instances of these various companies doing what may be totally innocent, but incredibly stupid things like loading uncertified software in some of the machines, sending technicians out to make changes to equipment in the middle of the recount - thereby opening themselves up to at least the damage to their reputation and potential legal liability in both civil and criminal courts - It doesn't speak well of their companies leadership in looking at potential outcomes and consequences to their decisions.

I don't think my analogy was too far off the mark. Enron, the 7th largest company in the US (16th in the world) and WorldCom (Forbes ranked it 42nd largest in 2002) had a valuations, to use your comment, that make Diebold's value a blink of an eye. And they were both sunk by leaders who thought they could get away with breaking the law.

Warren O'Dell doesn't need a financial payoff for a Shrub reelection to be worth the risk perhaps. He's listed as owning a little over $14 million in stock in the company. Compared to the Presidency and Congressional leadership of the US? The value of that doesn't even begin to come close. Especially if he were a major wingnut who wanted to make sure that the 10 commandments got posted, women stayed at home and had babies and that the constitution got replaced by the Bible. What dollar value the Lord's work?

As for criminal risk - seems like a Presidential pardon is the ultimate get out of jail free card.

[BR_Parkway]

11. No, of course they wouldn't be that stupid. All the guys really that

dumb ran companies like Enron, World-Com, Riggs Bank.

[sepia_steel]

15. Uhhh... yeah.

People in power in *'s world do not get punished when they break the law. We've all witnessed this. If they can help * win, who do they really have to fear? Arrogant and stupid, yes, and I believe in time they will be found out; that arrogance will be their undoing.

But of COURSE they would do it.