I wonder if the gathering of enough circumstantial evidence such as this email might help???
http://www.gazette.net/200350/montgomerycty/state/191617-1.html E-mail stolen from Diebold is a call to gouge Maryland
by Steven T. Dennis
Staff Writer
Dec. 15, 2003
ANNAPOLIS -- An e-mail found in a collection of files stolen from
Diebold Elections Systems' internal database recommends charging
Maryland "out the yin-yang" if the state requires Diebold to add paper
printouts to the $73 million voting system it purchased.
The e-mail from "Ken," dated Jan. 3, 2003, discusses a (Baltimore) Sun
article about a University of Maryland study of the Diebold system:
"There is an important point that seems to be missed by all these
articles: they already bought the system. At this point they are just
closing the barn door. Let's just hope that as a company we are smart
enough to charge out the yin if they try to change the rules now and
legislate voter receipts."
"Ken" later clarifies that he meant "out the yin-yang," adding, "any
after-sale changes should be prohibitively expensive."
The e-mail has been cited by advocates of voter-verified receipts, who
say estimates of the cost of adding printers -- as much as $20 million
statewide -- have been bloated.
"I find it appalling," said Del. Karen S. Montgomery (D-Dist. 14) of
Brookeville, who plans to file a bill mandating a voter-verified paper
trail.
"I'd really like to have
explained to me anatomically, with
the assumption that almost any place it would be would be painful," she
said.
Montgomery said that the price to add printers should be much lower and
that she thinks it is being high-balled in part to keep people from
talking about the printing system.
Diebold spokesman David Bear would neither dispute nor confirm the
accuracy of the "yin-yang" e-mail on Monday, saying it is "at best the
internal discussion of one individual and does not reflect the
sentiments or the position of the company."
Last week, Diebold dropped threats to sue voting rights advocates who
published the e-mail and other reportedly stolen documents or linked to
an online archive of Diebold files from their Web sites.
According to news reports, a hacker broke into the Ohio company's
servers using an employee's ID number and copied a 1.8-gigabyte file of
company announcements, software bulletins and internal e-mails dating
back to January 1999.
The purloined files include discussions of the security of Diebold's
voting machines, which has been a contentious issue in Maryland and
other states.
State Board of Elections Administrator Linda H. Lamone told The Gazette
last month that Diebold had given a preliminary estimate of $1,000 to
$1,200 per machine to add printouts, or up to $20 million for the
state's more than 16,000 machines. She said last week that she could
not recall whether she got the figure from Diebold or media reports.
Lamone, who said she had not seen the e-mail and did not know if it was
accurate, also said she believes that a clause in the contract
requiring that Diebold give Maryland the lowest hardware price of any
state should guard against price-gouging if the General Assembly
mandates voter receipts. But some portions of the contract still would
have to be renegotiated, she said.
Bear said he did not know the particulars of the contract.
The issue of voter-verified paper receipts continues to gain momentum
nationally, with California's secretary of state announcing that all
electronic voting machines there must include paper printouts by 2006.
The cost cited by one of Diebold's competitors, according to news
reports, was about $500 a machine.
Aviel D. Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer scientist who wrote
a report earlier this year that found the Diebold machines to be
riddled with potential security holes, has advocated for voter-verified
receipts. Without such a check on the machines, he said, errors or
fraud could go undetected. Rubin's report prompted Gov. Robert L.
Ehrlich Jr. (R) to ask for an independent investigation by SAIC Corp.,
which affirmed that the system was "at high risk of compromise."
Bob Urosevich, president of Diebold Elections Systems, declined to
estimate a price in an interview last month, saying the cost would
depend on a number of factors.
Lamone also said that adding paper printouts to the machines before the
November presidential election would be difficult, though not
impossible, if the General Assembly should mandate it. All of the
equipment would need to be retrofitted, retested and recertified; new
procedures put in place; and judges retrained, she said.
Montgomery's bill would allow voters to correct errors they find on a
paper printout. It also would require random checks of paper records in
2 percent of election districts against the computer records to ensure
that there has been no tampering with the computers. The paper records
would be used as the final arbiter in the event of a recount.
Lamone said she retains confidence in the system: "I think they've
undergone so much study now that everyone in the world understands what
their weaknesses are and what processes need to be put into place to
make sure they are not compromised. We here in Maryland have taken
giant steps to ensure the security of the voting system."
Lamone said local jurisdictions are excited about the technology and
conducting successful mock elections, with a voter education effort
planned for late January.
Urosevich told The Gazette last month that the Diebold system is
secure. He also noted that the system passed extensive independent
testing at both the state and federal levels, and said his company had
already fixed the security issues found by SAIC.
Another e-mail from the archive, sent Dec. 18, 2002, and purported to
be from Sue Page, one of Diebold's Maryland project managers,
criticizes Lamone by name:
"Linda Lamone ... makes public statements airing dirty laundry and
casting doubt. She's about power and control. She feels powerful when
she makes negative comments. What she misses is that her negative
comments reflect negatively on her. She should be proud of and support
her initiative of a state wide voting change, rather than casting doubt
on her own decision."
The writer said the State Board of Elections has a negative approach,
mandating to county election directors instead of working with them,
and threatening University of Maryland researchers rather than building
a positive relationship.
Advice on how to deal with the media fell on deaf ears, she writes.
"There's not much that we can do, other than hope that a new Republican
Governor will effect change."
Asked about the e-mail on Thursday, Page said, "I'm not allowed to
comment."
Lamone, a Democrat, has been battling to keep her job amidst efforts
from Ehrlich to install a Republican elections chief. Four of the five
board members would have to vote to remove Lamone; three are
Republicans and two are Democrats.
Lamone said last week she had not seen the e-mail. "I don't know
whether they are really hers or not," she said, but she defended the
agency's actions. Lamone said that the agency has a very positive
relationship with the University of Maryland and a collaborative effort
with the counties.
"I don't know what she's talking about," Lamone said. "We try to be as
collaborative as possible."
These Web sites are where The Gazette found the e-mails reported to
have been stolen from Diebold Election Systems' internal database.
*The "yin-yang" comment by "Ken":
chroot.net/s/lists/support.w3archive/
200301/msg00015.html
*The Linda Lamone e-mail by Sue Page:
diebold.datengrab.biz/lists/support.
w3archive/200212.dir/msg00047.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(21 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
