"Microsofte 811" - Making the World Safe for Voting Machine Vedors "Scoop"/Collins

[autorank]

Congress votes on HR 811 this week
Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00056.htm

Microsoft 811 - Safety For Voting Machine Vendors
Tuesday, 4 September 2007, 11:43 am
Opinion: Michael Collins

“Microsoft 811”

© 2004-06 Rand Careaga/salamander.eps With Permission

Making the World Safe
For Voting Machine Vendors

Michael Collins
Scoop Independent News
Washington D.C.

At a New Jersey town meeting this July, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said of his bill, House Resolution 811, “It’s not my bill anymore.”

Why shouldn’t the world be safe for vendors? Microsoft in particular? After all, they pay the bills. Just let them have whatever they want and let the rest of us be thankful we’ve got jobs. This is the prevailing philosophy in Washington, DC, your capitol and the supposed heart of modern democracy.

House Resolution 811 (“The Holt Bill”) is coming up for a vote this week, word has it. The questions are stark. What will we Congress be voting for? Whose interests are represented in the final mark up of this legislation?

Voting in the United States is hardly inspirational. In fact, it’s become down right depressing for both those who follow it closely or those who keep their distance due to the dreadful outcomes in terms of legislative performance.

Let’s look at the close up. But first an acknowledgment. It’s hard arguing with those who say they wouldn’t let us vote if it made a difference because it hasn’t. It’s been eight months since the new Congress was seated and where are we? We’re still hip deep in Iraq and the Senate has done nothing to prevent the president from starting his next project, a military attack on Iran. We have no solutions to universal health insurance. and the rebuilding of New Orleans has been paid for but not begun. What a record! No wonder so many people don’t bother to vote.

For those of us who do vote, what is on the line with H.R. 811, the Holt Bill?

The Vendor Protection Act: Microsoft Uber Allis

A cardinal principal of almost all factions of the election integrity movement has been open computer source code for voting machines. Open source code is defined as, “…source code of software that is available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions.” The basis for computerized voting machine software and methods could be examined by any citizen. As a result, it would be much easier to examine those nail biting elections we have so often or simply check on the integrity of any election, no matter how close. For the technically informed, this is one of the key elements required for transparent and fair elections where computerized voting (e-voting) is in place.

Advocates argue that open source computer code in voting machines will give greater access to understand how the machines operate. Quite simply, open source code will make it easier to assure that the votes cast are those counted. Not only will it be easier to check on any private vendor’s voting machine operations, with open source, this inspection will take place on an even playing field.

That was the original idea behind H.R. 811. The 2003 version of Holt’s bill was very clear. It stated:

No voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software.

The bill, as introduced in 2006 was just as clear:

…source code, object code, executable representation, and ballot programming files (shall be made) available for inspection promptly upon request to any person.
***********
The current version of Holt’s bill up for vote this week backs off of the public right to inspect voting machine software, open source code, in a big way and lets vendors keep secret the software and methods that determine your elections. Let me put it another way, you don’t get to see how the voting machines work that elect the officials who govern you – ever!
***********

Washington to Citizens: Drop Dead

Citizens of the United States of America still believe that the government is a servant, hence the designation public servants for politicians and government officials. The idea wasn’t for them to serve themselves or private interests, like voting machine vendors. They’re supposed to serve us!

Here’s the new Holt Bill language:

an accredited laboratory that inspects voting machines shall hold the technology in escrow (read hold in secret). The laboratory (a private company, likely) can disclose technology and information to another person, if and only if that person or entity is a government agency responsible for voting,a party to litigation over an election or an academic studying elections. H.R. 811

Nancy Tobi of Democracy for New Hampshire wondered how this all happened. The word from Capitol Hill was "take up your concerns with Microsoft and others in the proprietary software industry."

What happened to disclosure of software and methods upon request of any person?

The Washington Two Step

Here we go again. We elect people to make our laws more open and transparent in order to know what is being done by those whose job it is to serve us. What do they do? They take the most fundamental right that we have, voting – electing our representatives – and they make it secret. Sure, a government agency can look at the software that counts the votes, the agency run by the politicians elected by the machines that need inspection. That will do a lot of good won’t it? Oh, and if you have the six or seven figures required to bring a law suit, you might be able to look at source code. Finally, as if to show that they‘re not as anti-intellectual as they seem, the bill says academics can look at the source code and other software and methods. That will do a lot of good, years from now …. maybe.

It’s Official – Voting is Now a Rigged Game Run by the Government

Why not just change the name from elections to voting lotto? Except in this lotto game, the contestants are the very same people who make up the rules, pick the winners, and hand out the cash.

It’s all so elegant and logical:

Politicians administer elections that determine whether or not they keep their jobs. They expect us to believe that they’ll catch each other when there’s any cheating going on and that they’ll report it to us right away. But we’re not allowed to see how the game works, how the equipment operates, or who does what behind the scenes.

Can any of you imagine how Mr. Trump would respond to any casino machine vendor who said, “Look buddy, it’s our software, our machine, and our game – mind your own business” The words are (correct me if I’m wrong), “You’re fired!”

Long term researcher and activist Ellen Theisen of Voters Unite has supported the Holt Bill in its various forms since 2003. This is no longer the case. Theisen outlined her objections to the current Holt Bill clearly on June 11, 2007. I recommend a review of this brief but comprehensive editorial. She pulled her support because the current bill leaves some ballots uncounted; endorses secret vote counting and secret voting software; allows some wireless communication to slip through the cracks; and perpetuates the Election Assistance (sic) Commission, appointed solely by the president.

But I’ve saved the most ironic and outrageous aspect of all of this for last. If you’re still reading, check out these articles by voting issues author Michael Richardson. He did a comprehensive series of articles on the laboratories that will have the honor of holding tight the computer software, source code that determines the outcome of our elections.

Here they are, the laboratories who will store voting source code software; the vote taking and vote counting software that elects our representatives:

• Banned Lab Certifies Nearly 70% of US voting machine 15 Jan 2007
• State Elections Directors approved test labs rejected by National Institute of Standards and Testing 19 Jan 2007
• CIBER Voting Machine Test Lab Failures is 'Old News' Known by Top Election Officials for Years 02 Feb 2007
• U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chair, Donetta Davidson, Knew About Problems of Voting Machine Test Labs But Kept Quiet 20 Feb 2007

This is not quite as outrageous as giving the president the ability to start a war with Iran, but its damn close. Great legislating Congress! We knew you had it in you.

ENDS

Disclosure: I’m an advocate for an immediate return to hand counted paper ballots. However, since my view has not prevailed, I’m more than willing to discuss and critique improvements in any system in use.

Permission to reprint in part or in whole with a link to this article in “Scoop” and attribution of authorship.

[mod mom]

1. NO to HOLT! Yes to verifiable voting. Thank, Auto!

:patriot:

[autorank]

4. Nothing verifiable unless your a state/local elections official or you sue the bastards.

What a bargain. We're screwed again but we knew this was coming. This is just my way of letting
people know that we know;)

[Richard Steele]

2. K&R

[autorank]

5. Thanks Dick! No wonder we're in such a hole - damn system stinks!

:hi:

[Richard Steele]

7. Yes, it really does. Some days...

...I think it can't possibly be fixed
without another bloody revolution. :(

[angrycarpenter]

3. funny isn't it

how the most secret software is full of security holes (internet explorer). If keeping it secret was the answer how come internet viruses can take over computers by the millions and make them do unwanted things.

[autorank]

6. Yep! And think of this, what company or organizaiton FAILS TO AUDIT!

Let's see...boards of elections - can't have those damn audits, might come up with problems,
confuse the people, upset us, make us doubt.

This should have been handled in those first hours. Now we've got the vendors writing
the bill.

The entire political establishment has pushed the citizens way too far, entirely too far.

When you have huge portion of the public, 50% plus, doubting particular elections and the system
in general, you lose legitimacy - that key to governance; the over whemling acceptance of that the
leaders were really elected.

[alfredo]

8. As long as trade secrets deny access, the chain of custody is broken.

[autorank]

10. Another simple truth that just doesn't apply on "Voting Land" where everything is the opposite of

standard practices. Who would think - lets just let those ballots float around some digital vaporware or, in the case of the machines, lets put them in the storage room...whose watching..."golly gee, that's necessary?"

[alfredo]

12. I'm a precinct judge. I do my best to protect the chain of custody,

but I cannot certify that the vote cast is going to be correctly counted. The chain of custody fails in that grey box.

[autorank]

15. I was at a meeting of elections directors.

About 8 from the largest cities. One had an elaborate system of locks, security checks and cameras,
24/7. The other 7 were shocked, why they asked. It was an ephipheny for me. Why? Good grief,
don't they watch Court TV?!? So nobody messes with them.

[alfredo]

17. I need to find out how good the security is where they store our

voting machines. Our county is pretty good, the transition to the new machines, eSlates went well. They had classes just for the machine, and they also gave us a DVD of the material from the class, but that is to be expected in our town. Our county clerk is pretty good.

I have confidence in them, but not so the machines. The county has some reservations about the machines, but they did their best to select the best of the breed. I've heard few complaints about this version of the eSlate. The terminals seem to be fairly secure and easy to use. Still I want to know what is going on in that box.

I have watched the totals of each party voting and compared them to the grand totals and I see reasonable results with a few crossing over. The sample from our precinct is small so I can't say anything definitive about vote flips our manipulation.


One thing I stress is turnout. That's how you beat the machines. Turn out is such numbers the totals will be outside the margin of error. Also the fraudster is only going to flip the percentage they feel they need to win without raising suspicion. Turn out throws their numbers out the window.

[Me.]

9. These Pirates Just Keep On Coming

I too advocate a return to paper counted ballots or at least lever machines as we have in NYS

[autorank]

13. You New Yorkers are a smart bunch.

But I knew that already, lived there for a good bit of time...down town kinda guy;)

I looked at HAVA expenditures as part of the research for this. The states have received millions,
tens of millions, since 2003 - they've all spent 60-70% by now.

But New York State - something like $2.0 million out of $200,000,000 allocated by the feds.
They smelled a big skunk and resisted.

I LOVE NY

or

New York is a Fun City"
Mayor John Lindsay

[snot]

11. K&R'd nt

[autorank]

14. Thanks snot...here's one for you...

Put a whole city on hold, how strange...

[snot]

35. where'd you find that? (nice) nt

[Hissyspit]

16. K'd & r'd n/t

[autorank]

24. Thank you & morning kick

:kick:

[bleever]

18. Holt, who goes there?

None of your business! The software is still proprietary!

Fer crying out loud, it's Labor Day, the holiday that celebrates work done by hand. K&R.

[autorank]

19. Well, these vendors are just one lousy...

"no show" job for democracy. They're beyond the pale of acceptability.

But it will be all fixed when Hoppy rides over the hill with his trusted side kick. If that
doesn't work then the calvary will show up on the ridge and ride to our rescue.

[truedelphi]

28. K & R'ed and placed strategically into at least one other forum

Using tinyurl.com nonetheless! (Although it should be tunyurl.com because it all stinks like spoiled fish to high heaven)

[Vidar]

20. Fuck this! All the voting machines belong in Boston harbor.

[autorank]

21. Preach that truth brother!

That's why this is at the end...

Disclosure: I’m an advocate for an immediate return to hand counted paper ballots. However, since my view has not prevailed, I’m more than willing to discuss and critique improvements in any system in use.

I'm willing but tired of the BIG FAT LIES AND THE SLEAZY DISSEMBLING that's going on with this issue.

It's not that hard to figure out. For example, when the county boards of elections claim that they didn't know that a Federal Judge ordered them to retain the ballots from 2004, dispute the fact it had huge coverage in Ohio, THEY'RE LYING. But they're isn't even an investigation. Why is that?

These machines are junk technology, they're an embarrassment. Recycle, now!

[Vidar]

30. I've been fighing microsoft buggy software for a week now

on my personal computer, for about the thousandth time. Although I often win these battles, I can sometimes see myself joining the luddites: "Return to the abacus."

[livvy]

22. As always, Auto, great job! HCPB for me, too! knr

[autorank]

23. We're so predictable aren't we ... hcpb.

But when you look at the nonsense they go through to work with these stupid machines, the worst technology America produces, then you understand.

:hi:

[formercia]

25. My 2 cents:

[bleever]

27. Ol' Joe knew a thing or two about democracy.

He would have been proud of Rep. Peter King, R-NY, who said before the election, "It's all over except the counting, and we'll take care of the counting".

[kimpossible]

26. Important article on a confusing bill. K&R! nt

[autorank]

32. Thanks!!!

:hi:

[UncleSepp]

29. If I correct this, am I a spelling nazi twice over?

This bugs me: "Uber Allis"? No, it's Ueber (U with umlaut) Alles. Using some kind of Nazi slur doesn't add to anyone's credibility. Using a misspelled one is just stupid.

What also bugs me is the unquestioned assumption that public access to voting machine source code makes voting inherently safer. It might, but then again, it might not. This person doesn't make any real arguments, he just throws around some analogies and leaves it at that.

With voting software, it seems to me that a person who finds an exploitable bug might be motivated not to report the bug to the project so that it can be fixed, but to actually exploit the bug or to sell the information to someone who would like to exploit the bug. For this reason, I think the restricted access to the source code is probably a good idea. It's a piece of critical infrastructure.

The last thing that bugs me about this is that it is implied that the threat to election security comes from a lack of transparency with regard to software. We could have unbreakable software poorly implemented with swiss-cheese network or even physical security, and still have a stolen election. Should we then disclose all the details of the system to anyone who asks? Maybe we should disclose exactly who has access to the system and with what permissions. That'd make us safer, right? ;-) How far should this openness go, given that any information "we" have is also information "they" have?

Edit: I'd also like to see a return to paper ballots, or at least to have voting machines that produce two receipts, one for the voter to take home and one that goes into a lockbox for backup counting. The tester and crusty DBA in me wants the simplest possible secure solution, which to me seems like a piece of paper with some check marks on it carried in a locked box.

[autorank]

31. You're not a spelling Nazi - click through to Scoop & see "Alles"

I agree with the rest of what you say too. In a hurry, will respond more later

[althecat]

33. KnR

:kick:

[autorank]

34. Ola althecat!

:kick:

Call your Congressional Representative - NO on 811

[autorank]

36. So it's in committee.......

...we'll see.

Why didn't the Congress "get" Florida 2000 - it was about fraud! People taken off the voting rolls in a pre planned illegal voter purge 25,000 minority voters at least, legitimate voters, and 20,000 or so turned away on election day 2000 in Florida. Guess who would have won? Gore. There's more - the high rate of spoiled ballots highly correlated with counties with large black populations and Republican dominated boards of supervisors. That's been out for a long time.

We did'nt need better machines, we need real enforcement of Voting and Civil Rights Act laws.

Voting machines, the stupid ballot by that troll board of elections director in South Florida,
were not the issue. It was all about ELECTION FRAUD.

[diva77]

37. the open source advocates overlook the fact that the overwhelming majority

of machines are not inspected or properly tested, nor are they delivered hermetically sealed to the polling place; plus you still can't witness tabulation of votes if they're hidden in a machine...

HCPB best way!