GOLDEN LINING re: Diebold Certification in California >>>>>>

[helderheid]

This just came across my inbox:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: McPherson's conditional certification of Diebold voting systems
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:44:48 -0800


While the initial reaction to the late afternoon Press Release of
California Secretary of State McPherson could be characterized as
disgust and disbelief, there does appear to be a golden lining. If
Diebold is smart , they will immediately withdraw their application and
refuse to do further business in California, especially as it relates
to the use of any of their voting systems, including optical scan and
touchscreen. The reason is legal responsibility and financial
liability.

Secretary of State McPherson issued his "Approval of Use of Diebold
Elections Systems, Inc. DRE & Optical Scan Voting Systems" February 17,
2005. Such a letter is required by the Election Code. As part of that
approval he stated that the approval was "subject to the following
terms and conditions:" I would point people's attention to conditions 4
(j.)(k)(l.). With those conditions, combined with the conclusions of
his Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board in their
"Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter" report, it is
apparent that Diebold Election Systems, Inc. is leaving themselves open
to lawsuits and financial liability if they deliver the current voting
systems, or modify the existing voting systems for use in this state
with the currently federally qualified firmware and software. Counties
too are risking losing HAVA and Proposition 41 funds if they spend
those funds for voting systems that are not compliant with the law, not
including the risk of voter and candidate lawsuits .

..
Among the conditions required for approval of both the Diebold optical
scan and touchscreen voting systems is the following:

Approval Condition 4(j.)
The voting systems "shall comply with all applicable state and federal
statutes, regulations, rules and requirements, including, but not
limited to, those voting system requirements set forth in the
California Election Code and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 "

.. "Further, voting systems shall also comply with all applicable state
and federal voting system guidelines, standards, regulations and
requirements that derive authority from or are promulgated pursuant to
and in furtherance of the California Election Code or ....
including but not limited to, the 2002 Voting System
Standards/Guidelines, developed by the Federal election Commission and
adopted by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and EAC Advisory
2005-04, dated July 20, 2005.

The Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board found:
•
Interpreted code is contrary to standards: Interpreted code in general
is prohibited by the 2002 FEC Voluntary Voting System Standards, and
also by the successor standard, the EAC’s Voluntary Voting System
Guidelines due to take effect in two years. In order for the Diebold
software architecture to be in compliance, it would appear that either
the AccuBasic language and interpreter have to be removed, or the
standard will have to be changed. (p. 3 of Security Analysis)

• Remove interpreters and interpreted code: The architecture of the
AV-OS and the AV-TSx could be changed so they do not contain any
interpreter or use any kind of interpreted code, in order to bring the
codebase into compliance with standards. (p. 5 of Security Analysis)

As currently configured neither the Diebold optical scan voting system
or the touchscreen voting systems are in compliance with the 2002
Voting System Standards because they both contain interpreted code. No
where in the standards does it contain an exception based upon
mitigating circumstances or procedural safeguards. The procedural
security measures recommended by the Advisory Board, and adopted by the
Secretary of State, not only do not make the system comply with the
standards, they are based entirely upon the presumption that there
would be no opportunity nor incentive for any "insider" to take
advantage of the known security vulnerabilities.

The Standards have not been changed, and under the new adopted
standards the prohibition against interpreted code still exists. The
only alternative is for the AccuBasic language and interpreter be
removed. Remove that from the current Diebold voting systems that are
deployed or approved, and they will not work.

Which leads to the final two conditions for approval contained in the
Secretary's conditional approval:

Approval condition 4(k.) places responsibility upon the vendors to make
sure their voting systems do comply with all laws and standards:
"Voting system manufacturers and/or their agents shall assume full
responsibility for any representations that a voting system complies
with all applicable state and federal requirements as referenced
above." If they falsely represent that their voting system does comply
with the above requirements, they will be responsible for any costs for
"upgrade, retrofit or replacement of any voting system..."

Approval condition 4(l.) would appear to put counties too into a
financially risky position if they rely upon the vendor's assurances:
"Any voting system purchased with funds allocated by the Secretary of
State's Office shall meet all applicable state and federal standards,
including the 2002 Voting System Standards, etc.

It would appear that under this condition, if a voting system was found
to not be in compliance with the requirements, the counties who have
obtained Proposition 41 funds or HAVA funds to pay for the voting
systems would have to return them. They then would have to go after the
vendor for either compensation or force them to make their voting
systems into compliance.

Why Secretary McPherson chose to approve voting systems that he knows
are out of compliance with the law I do not know. It appears he will
not be in as great a financial risk as will Diebold Voting Systems,
Inc. and any counties that choose to purchase or continue to use
Diebold's voting systems. His greater risk appears to be political.
Rather than taking a stand against Deibold, and the local election
officials intent on supporting Diebold, no matter what, as Secretary of
State Kevin Shelley did in April 2004, he has chosen the less
confrontational route. Now the onus is on the counties and Diebold to
risk multi-million dollar lawsuits and voter anger, and possible loss
of prop 41 and HAVA funds. While Secretary of State McPherson may have
dodged a confrontation with the vendors and local election officials
now, will he be able to dodge the confrontation coming this next
November with his top political opponent for Secretary of State,
Senator Deborah Bowen.
Jody Holder

[stepnw1f]

1. They'll Pull Out!

Ahhhh.... thank you for this. I hope this get's them out!

[still_one]

2. what good is a law suit AFTER AN ELECTION?

look at 2000 or even 2004 it doesn't change anything

in addition, if they allow machines that ARE NOT COMPLIANT, and because of those machines the wrong people get in, those people can change the LAWS

[Nikki Stone 1]

4. Agreed. I don't know how willing Californians are to leave a seat

unfilled for months or years in order to fight Diebold.

[helderheid]

6. Is it possible Diebold will be forced out before the election because it

does not meet the conditions?

[helderheid]

7. anyone?

[Wilms]

9. Great ideas. Is there a link for that?

Hoiw about posting in ER?

[helderheid]

10. A link for what? I'm confused (nothing new!) :)

Feel free to link in ER - thank you!

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. Is there a link to this law as signed?

"Now the onus is on the counties and Diebold to
risk multi-million dollar lawsuits and voter anger, and possible loss
of prop 41 and HAVA funds. While Secretary of State McPherson may have
dodged a confrontation with the vendors and local election officials
now, will he be able to dodge the confrontation coming this next
November with his top political opponent for Secretary of State,
Senator Deborah Bowen.
Jody Holder"

My fear is that Diebold will risk it, especially in smaller counties without the resources to fight back.

[hunter]

5. Bruce McPherson, ice dancer...

His moves are quite amazing.

He learned his politics in an unusual place, Santa Cruz county, where very old and very conservative California meets the left wings of farm labor and academia.

Dance Bruce McPherson, dance!

[Cleita]

8. This why Kevin Shelley was forced out. He was trying to make

the BVV's comply to transparent and clean election standards. I'm writing my Repuke Assemblyman, as well as my Democratic State Senator, demanding that we scrap all machines and do it the old fashioned way with paper and pen. If they don't know how to do it they can consult with our neighbor to the north, Canada, and follow the way it's done there.

I will demand that we have observers at the precincts to make sure the votes are counted correctly. If this is done and Arnold is still elected my Governor, then I will shut up and swallow my bitter pill, but until then I will not accept that this muscleheaded, sexual predator is my leader.

[nicknameless]

11. Breaking laws has yet to result in fallout for these thugs.

Don't bank on Diebold withdrawing. We can't rely on the matter simply playing out in a way which results in difficulties for Diebold or McPherson.

For example: A 2004 CA audit revealed that in EVERY case of tested Diebold machines, not even a single one had certified software on it. These were the same machines that helped to usher in Ahhnold. Those election results were never challenged.

Instead, I believe that we need to be proactive. McPherson should be sued for breaking state and federal laws.

What political price will he pay if the vote-stealing machines are able to hand him victories?

[Toots]

12. When they own the courts this is meaningless

It is all for show now and not even a good showing...They control all matters,,,