Former delegate gets purported Diebold code

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.voting20oct20,0,5237249.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Diebold Election Systems Inc. expressed alarm and state election officials contacted the FBI yesterday after a former legislator received an anonymous package containing what appears to be the computer code that ran Maryland's polls in 2004.

Cheryl C. Kagan, a longtime critic of Maryland's elections chief, says the fact that the computer disks were sent to her - along with an unsigned note criticizing the management of the state elections board - demonstrates that Maryland's voting system faces grave security threats.

they have it for all the states that use those machines...one size fits all.

This is nuts.

There is nothing to write the program.. I think the complexity comes from the desire to manipulate the output data.

after reading 'news' stories, I'm left with the impression that these wayward computers develop 'glitches' all by themselves. I always thought what goes in, is what comes out. What am I missing?

Doesn't Windows power the Diebold et al machines?

How often do your Windows radio buttons switch on their own? If you click your cursor in a text box and do nothing else, and leave it with no firther input of any kind, doe the text cursor suddenly jump to another box?

You're not missing anything at all. It's intentional, and they've gamed the system so you can never get the evidence needed to prove it.

Neat, huh?

whistle blowers who also want to help save democracy.

As a kind of romantic Robin Hood/Zorro/V for Vendetta soul, I'd like to think that it's disgruntled and angry Diebold employees who realize how shoddy their products are - and how they're being used to swing elections - who are stealing, copying and mailing these disks with the Diebold source code.

On the other hand, these could be people who want vengeance against low pay, outsourcing and bad treatment at work who want to get back at the company.

The deciding factor is, nerds - and I'm one of them, so I won't mince about the term - are generally nonpolitical. We mostly assume that some kind of jock or cheerleader will always end up running the government, so we don't get enthusiastic about any causes. And yes, everyone running for the Presidency, of either party, is a jock or a cheerleader. Either they beat us up in high school or, worse, denied our existence.

So I've concluded that letting this source code out is personal vengeance on the nerds' part. No matter what political types may pretend, to us nerds life has ALWAYS been a dictatorship.

that if more people do not start to complain about this, you may very well see more questionable things in this election as well as 08. Lets face it; Kennedy can't fight this system by himself!:hurts:

If one of my shoddy, rigged products was exposed to public view. I hope someone goes to jail for this. Lots of someones.

This is the people's business and the people have a right to know how their votes are being counted.

The e-voting mess continues to get messier, as the FBI is looking into the possible theft (and leak) of Diebold's e-voting source code. Various articles on this are pointing out how problematic this is, as the source code could help someone discover a vulnerability and cause problems in next month's elections. Of course, to be totally honest, it doesn't seem like it takes all that much work to find security vulnerabilities in Diebold e-voting machines these days with or without the source code. At the same time, it also sounds like this particular source code is a bit old. More importantly, though, if Diebold is really so confident that their e-voting machines are safe (as silly as that may sound), shouldn't they be comfortable with the machines' security even if the source code is public?

http://techdirt.com/articles/20061022/170406.shtml

to go paper ballots. Switch over NOW, dammit!

All software that needs to have high assurance should be following level 5 control of CMMI (old version was CMM)developed by Carnegie Mellon Univeristy. The main problem is that there is not an independent company or entity that is controlling the software. Diebold can create the source code but there should be a different independent company compiling the code and controlling the versions. I do not know if the original SAIC report mentions this but they should know about CMMI.

For those that are newer to the voting machine issue, there is an evolution of reasons for the existence of electronic voting. The main reason that it will stay electronic in some form for now is that the disabled voters have the right to vote independently. A paper ballot is not accessible to blind and other disabled voters. Also, voting is supposed to be anonymous, which is why there is no link of your vote to you. This anonymous requirement is what allows for all of the controversy. I am in favor of linking the vote to a piece of paper. That piece of paper is what keeps the electronics honest. The piece of paper can be created in a way that does not link the voter to the vote. The voter should be able to see the paper to verify that their vote was recorded correctly. Avante was the first to patent such a complete system. They held several local elections so their system is not a pipe dream but it was actually implemented. I recall it scoring high marks in a head to head with several vendors in a live Connecticut Municipal election.

For the sake of this country's future.

I hope copies were made and there are persons looking thru the code carefully right this second!

They would be HEROS.