Challenge to BBV doubters. Defend the Diebold Admissions

Allegation #1 (p. 2):
“The most fundamental problem with such a voting system is that the entire election hinges on the correctness, robustness, and security of the software within the voting terminal.”

Response: An ADMISSION
This is fundamentally incorrect. The software is only one part of a voting process. The totality of the software, hardware and the electoral process and procedures, which include certification and testing by election officials, is what safeguards the integrity of election results. Cryptography, in particular, is only a small part of the equation.

Allegation #2 (p. 2):
“Should that code have security relevant flaws, they might be exploitable either by unscrupulous voters or by malevolent insiders. Such insiders include election officials, the developers of the voting system, and the developers of the embedded operating system on which the voting system runs.”

Response: ADMISSION #2
To be true, this claim would require a conspiracy of unscrupulous voters or malevolent insiders, or a combination of the two. The electoral process is designed in such a way that no single individual, or even a small group of individuals, can tamper with the election results. It is also important to note that such a conspiracy would not necessarily require any “security relevant flaws” in the code to accomplish its aims. Fraud of this degree would have the potential to undermine any voting system.

Allegation #3 (p. 2):
“Using this ‘Mercuri method’ , the tally of the paper ballots takes precedence over any electronic tallies. As a result, the correctness of the voting terminal software no longer matters; either a voting terminal prints correct ballots or it is taken out of service.”

Response: ADMISSION #3 AND A DODGE
Voter verifiable receipts do have the advantages cited by the authors, though this solution essentially reduces an electronic system to a paper system, which has risks of its own. For example: Unscrupulous election officials can replace the paper ballot receipts with their own tampered copies (“ballot stuffing” in the classic sense). There are other pros and cons associated with such a system, but a full discussion of voter verifiable paper receipts is beyond the scope of this response.

Allegation #4 (p. 3):
“Many government entities have adopted paperless DRE systems without appearing to have critically questioned the security claims made by the systems’ vendors. Until recently, such systems have been dubiously ‘certified’ for use without any public release of the analyses behind these certifications, much less any release of the source code that might allow independent third parties to perform their own analyses.“

Response: DODGE #2 AND A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Once again, they refuse to release the "certification" process to public review, thus proving the "dubious" claims.

The certification process is both rigorous and arduous. It is by no means dubious. The certification and testing bodies are the third parties that perform their own analysis. Many states require a voting system to go through several levels of analysis before being accepted for production. The Voting System Standards are available to the public on the Federal Election Commission website.

Most of the previous systems that election officials seek to replace either have not been subject to third party testing or have not been tested to the same rigorous standards that are now required for new systems, including the current DRE systems.

The source code for ballot tabulation systems is generally required by statute or regulation to be placed in a third party escrow facility, to be examined only upon court order or the vendor’s failure to support the code. (Talk about a strawman!)

Allegation #5 (p. 4):
“Furthermore, the protocols used when the voting terminals communicate with their home base, both to fetch election configuration information and to report final election results, do not use cryptographic techniques to authenticate the remote end of the connection nor do they check the integrity of the data in transit.“

Response: DODGE #3 - The PCMCIA cards are programmed by the Central Count computer and then INSERTED into the Touchscreen. Good PR move - "optionally connected."

The Ballot Station software doesn’t receive information from the central site from the polling place. This activity is done over private, disconnected networks at election central under the auspices of election officials. At the polls, the system operates offline until polls close, and is then only optionally connected to upload unofficial election results to the central server.

Allegation #6 (p. 4):
“Given that these voting terminals could communicate over insecure phone lines
or even wireless Internet connections, even unsophisticated attackers can perform
untraceable ‘man-in-the-middle’ attacks.“

Response: DODGE #4 - Note the lack of a response about insecure phone lines.
Uploading unofficial election results is done over a private point-to-point network and not through the Internet or dial-up Internet services.

Allegation #7 (p. 4):
“As part of our analysis, we considered both the specific ways that the code uses cryptographic techniques and the general software engineering quality of its construction. Neither provides us with any confidence of the system’s correctness.“

Response: DODGE #5 - Where the offer of proof the scientists are incorrect? Just a "who? us?"
The authors’ analysis provides no evidence whatsoever of the system’s incorrectness, and was undertaken without full knowledge of the election systems.

Allegation #8 (p. 4):
“Cryptography, when used at all, is used incorrectly.“

Response: BIG ADMISSION HERE. INDEFENSIBLE LACK OF CYPTOGRAPHY. THEY WOULD HAVE DONE BETTER TO IGNORE THIS ONE.
This statement is based on the presumption that there is a single correct means of using cryptography. This is not accurate. The software is designed with the realization that subsequent versions will be released to address any needed improvements or requested changes; but the cryptography in the software is used as the developers intended, taking into account additional security measures, and the possibility of future development.

http://www2.diebold.com/checksandbalances.pdf

---

These are just some of them. Let's start here and see how well you do.

These people have one purpose - to perpetuate the "Paranoid Bev" label.

Dealing with FACTS is just not in their playbook.

I have 27 pages of this....I'm really anxious to see some replies....

chicken, huh?

This is fundamentally incorrect. The software is only one part of a voting process. The totality of the software, hardware and the electoral process and procedures, which include certification and testing by election officials, is what safeguards the integrity of election results. Cryptography, in particular, is only a small part of the equation.

Defensive but arguably correct. Software is a more fundamental security problem than hardware, even if human oversight is the fundamental solution. But I'd argue human trust is -the- fundamental problem.

The electoral process is designed in such a way that no single individual, or even a small group of individuals, can tamper with the election results.

Tell it to the Supreme Court. ;)

It is also important to note that such a conspiracy would not necessarily require any “security relevant flaws” in the code to accomplish its aims. Fraud of this degree would have the potential to undermine any voting system.

This is absolutely correct, but it implicitly contradicts the assertion about individuals named Katherine Harris or small groups of individuals wearing robes.

Voter verifiable receipts do have the advantages cited by the authors, though this solution essentially reduces an electronic system to a paper system, which has risks of its own. For example: Unscrupulous election officials can replace the paper ballot receipts with their own tampered copies (“ballot stuffing” in the classic sense).

Forging the original and the paper trail is more complex by an order of magnitude than simply the former. A conspiracy to do both would be unsustainably large compared to bribing a few bureaucrats.

The certification process is both rigorous and arduous. It is by no means dubious.

Famous last words.

Many states require a voting system to go through several levels of analysis before being accepted for production.

Many versions of Windows go through several hundred levels of analysis. 'nuff said.

The source code for ballot tabulation systems is generally required by statute or regulation to be placed in a third party escrow facility, to be examined only upon court order or the vendor’s failure to support the code.

They're invoking the "open source kills profit" argument, which speaks to the basic problem with making civics a proprietary trade secret.

At the polls, the system operates offline until polls close, and is then only optionally connected to upload unofficial election results to the central server.

In other words, their prototype was a star topology but they made it an "unsupported feature" once they groked the PR nightmare.

Uploading unofficial election results is done over a private point-to-point network and not through the Internet or dial-up Internet services.

Phone lines are the least of the problem. Most credit card terminals operate over "insecure phone lines" but the fraud potential lies in identity theft, not a monkey-in-the-middle modulating line noise.

The authors’ analysis provides no evidence whatsoever of the system’s incorrectness, and was undertaken without full knowledge of the election systems.

Clever use of the "sources and methods" defense. They can tell you you're wrong, but they can't tell you why without compromising trade secrets. Another good reason these voting systems should be written and audited by a consortium of Linux dorks.

This statement is based on the presumption that there is a single correct means of using cryptography. This is not accurate. The software is designed with the realization that subsequent versions will be released to address any needed improvements or requested changes; but the cryptography in the software is used as the developers intended, taking into account additional security measures, and the possibility of future development.

Marketing speak for "we're learning as we go". Cryptography isn't a magic bullet; all of the retinal scanners in the world are useless without a minimum wage security guard to make sure the eyeballs are attached to someone's socket.

To paraphrase Stalin: the black boxes aren't the problem, it's the people counting the black boxes. No amount of encryption will change a 5-4 scotus decision, so the problem is quis custodiat not the security lapses themselves.

Not tear down their horrible arguments. :P

But, uh, ummm, you took the wrong side!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah, and you forgot to put that word "paraniod" somewhere in your rebuttal, too!

:evilgrin:

none available, huh?

can we deal with the FACTS and not the personal vendetta against Bev Harris?

Looks like that is not possible.

No one loves Diebold. Everyone agrees that more secure voting would be a Very Good Thing.

Ms. Harris appears to be making more broad, sweeping claims than that, however. Accordingly, it is her responsibility to support those claims, particularly those involving malice. Negligence does not equal intent.

That seems to be the crux of the disagreement here. Ms. Harris and/or her supporters put up some information which they believe support their thesis, and skeptics either agree or disagree.

IMO, that's healthy, not disruptive.

DTH

*plonk*

Waste of time trying yet again to make this about Bev Harris.

You're the one who appears to be making this personal.

Like I said, everyone agrees that more secure voting systems would be a Very Good Thing.

Where there appears to be the most disagreement is the issue of malice. From my perspective, anyway.

DTH

Let's talk about what Diebold said......we have 27 pages of it.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bev Harris. Diebold...do you see that...this is Diebold's response......would you care to participate in the discussion at hand?

Diebold's negligence, and attitude toward correction of existing flaws, and actions regarding code secrecy, are indefensible. And frankly, I don't know many skeptics who would disagree. So if you're making this out to be some kind of coup, it's really not, IMO.

DTH

I asked you to speak to the FACTS.

I asked you to stop throwing around innuendo and disinformation.

"Coup" is your word.

And yes, coup is my word, but it seems accurate. It sure as hell looks like you're trying to make this a big deal, based on your four or five kicks (replete with dismissive comments) of this thread.

:shrug:

DTH

I never said such a thing, never inferred such a thing and never suggested such a thing.

Let's get back to the issue. I have several posts down thread with FACTS we can discuss. Are you game?

"These people have one purpose - to perpetuate the "Paranoid Bev" label."

"Dealing with FACTS is just not in their playbook."

"chicken, huh?"

"Looking for defenders.... none available, huh?"

DTH

Did I say coup?

However, I note you none of the other detractors in this thread with you. They have yet to take up the challenge. Wonder why?

Despite your efforts to create one?

:shrug:

DTH

PS: Perhaps you should re-read my comments, I explicitly indicated that you did not use the word coup, and that that was just my take on your dismissive comments. I hear that's still allowed, on discussion boards.

It was I who was attempting to discuss the Diebold responses to the Hopkins Heros......

and let me see.....

It was YOU who tried to make it about Bev Harris, but I am the one trying to create controversy where there is none, right?

OK, that's a cute trick of switching the semantics!

Since when is an honest disagreement a personal
vendetta ? It is the opinion of many on this board
that any security problems should definitely be fixed
but at the same time that the story has been rather
radically overhyped. How is that in any way a personal
vendetta ? I have no animus toward Ms. Harris who for all
I know is a nice person. In fact if she's ever giving one of
her voting talks in the Philly area I'd probably make time to
go see it.

But my problem with this whole issue is that it has been used
by some (not particulary Ms. Harris) to suggest that elections
in the Fall of 2002 had been stolen and there has been nothing
presented by anyone to suggest that. Also the near apocalyptic
fervor of some of the BBVers has led to an us aaginst them
mentality that the issue does not warrant.

Now if you question the story you're a defender or employee of Diebold
or conducting a "personal vendetta" against Ms. Harris.

That is completely ridiculous.

Sheesh.

Yet again, you demonstrate the tactic. You come into a thread that does not in any way discuss Bev Harris' findings and try to make it about Bev Harris.

That's known as "diversion tactics." In every instance of a BBV thread on DU, the same people, with the same agenda (to slander Bev Harris) attempt to divert the discussion of negligence and intent on the part of Diebold to a personal discussion about Bev Harris.

Bev Harris is not mentioned in the Diebold reponse. Can we discuss the original purpose of this thread which does not now, nor has it ever, include Bev Harris.

Are you incapable of a discussion that doesn't include her name?

Here on DU, in many people's minds, Ms. Harris is indelibly linked to the issue of voting machines? As opposed to a "tactic"?

:shrug:

DTH

Did you not, DEMActivist, so who is making it personal ?

I have no interest in defending Diebold but that's
precisely the us vs. them mentality that I spoke about.

So you're response to the issue of whether the story matches
the hype is to cry victim and claim that it's a personal
attack on a particular person which, of course, it's quite
obviously not.

You have yet to address the Diebold admissions.

Would you care to?

to my objections to this story.

Would you care to apologize for your absurd
comments about a "personal vendetta" ?

No sir, many here can see the personal vendetta. Are you upset that your behavior is public knowledge?

And if the Diebold admissions are irrelevant, why are you in this thread? That IS the topic, after all.

on edit:
Let me refresh your memory of the rules at DU.

Stay on topic. Don't jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent in order to bring up your pet issue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

I don't even know Ms. Harris except from her posts here.

How could I (or anyone for that matter) have a personal
vendetta on such a basis.

Statements like that make it very difficult to take anything
you say seriously.

Sorry, birdman, I won't let you make this personal.

Please stay on topic.

Either you have a story about vote fraud or you have
a story about computer security.


Obviously you have the latter.

And when people quite reasonably question the relevance of the
story you try to cry (well scream) victim.


Diebold has no relevance here.

Does Ms. Harris know what you're posting on her behalf
because she should be aware that some of her advocates
are a serious embarrassment to the cause.

quit editorializing and quoting what others have written. And by the way, are you saying that Diebold's official responses in this thread are indefensible?

Bev

I'm telling you my strong impression, based on someone who has followed these events with some passing interest.

You have claimed that your work is so important and explosive that appropriate analogy can be made to the Pentagon Papers. You have claimed that your work is so important and explosive that you fear for your life.

I absolutely hope that you're right (that the work is that important and explosive, I mean, not that your life is in danger, I certainly hope that that is not the case). I absolutely hope it's that big.

But merely pointing out the intuitive, namely that software has certain flaws, is not sufficient to meet this standard of importance, IMO.

And by the way, are you saying that Diebold's official responses in this thread are indefensible?

Hell yes, Deibold's negligent programming and subsequent, uncaring attitude toward fixing existing problems are indeed indefensible.

But you have claimed (or your supporters have) that Diebold is being malicious, and others (and perhaps you, I can't recall with certainty) have claimed there is an actual vote-rigging conspiracy here. Based on what I've seen, that has yet to be established, IMO.

DTH

In the 2003 elections, 48 hours before the elections, there were (depending on which pollster you depend on) there were either 13, or 16 races too close to call. In all races Democrats were ahead. In all races, without a public event or occurance which might have accounted for the swing, all Republicans won. Lou Harris says it is the first time pollsters have ever encountered such a massive and unified swing. Coupled with volumnious reports from VotewatchUS of problems in the last election ranging from multiple reports from voters in Florida who tried to vote all Democrat on the new machines and had their vote show up all Republican (one woman reported election officials moving her to four differet machines before they found one which would accept her all Democratic vote while the other machines continued to be used by voters) to elections being overturned on recount, and with the well documented election fraud in Florida in the 2000 election, and I would be hard put to find an explaination other than vote rigging. How about you? Especially since the reports of vote problems favoring Democrats were very few and far between. Also, before you start with the "Forida machines are ES&S, not Diebold" business, research the two companies interlocked Boards of Directors, and original funding sources for the companies, and the political donations made by the companies and their individual executives and board members, and I think you will find there is a more than coincidental connection between the companies.

They said those of us Vietnam vets who claimed the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fabrication to facilitate widening of the war in Vietnam conspiracy theorists until the papers were declassified proving it to have been a set up. When I used to claim the CIA was using prisoners from the Long Binh jail in Saigon to tend the Montangard tribesmen's opium fields so they would fight the VC and NVA for us, I was called a conspiracy nut, but the papers eventually surfaced to prove it. When people claimed before the Iraq invasion that the claims about uranium purchases were bogus, we were labeled conspiracy theorists. Now the argument is who is responsible for the bogus claims.

The fact of the matter is, friend, if it happens to be true it ain't a conspiracy theory. Prove to me to me there isn't a conspiracy to rig the vote in the US. despite the circumstantial evidence.

Provide a believable alternate explanation to the above cited occurances in the last election, or quit implying people concerned with protecting the the integrity of the vote, the one right upon which all other American rights are based, conspiracy theorists because it puts you in the Bush camp (they obviously have no respect for the voting franchise of the American people; witness Florida 2000) whether or not you actually reside there.

If we BBV'rs are a "bit touchy" perhaps it is that we get tired of being accused of being nuts and or liars by people who haven't taken the trouble to do the basic research and acquaint themselves with examples from history.

Gordon25

Prove to me to me there isn't a conspiracy to rig the vote in the US. despite the circumstantial evidence.

That is the reason why many conspiracy theorists are able to continue clinging to their beliefs.

The right-wing effort in Florida was absolutely despicable. Palast's (and others') groundbreaking efforts in this area were fantastic.

I'm nowhere near convinced, however, of impropriety in the 2002 elections. And yes, I've read the "evidence," and it still comes down to a case of a weak Democratic campaign forced to play defense in the Thugs' long suit. I also avidly followed the polls in 2002. They were not all in our favor, and some were based on turnout models that turned out to be incorrect (and many failed to account for the new GOTV effort of the Thugs). Also, the national mood of jingoism that the Thugs and the media helped foster was a big problem as well.

IMO, of course.

DTH

All this is STILL, mind you, off topic, but I'm personally tired of seeing this canard thrown around:

And yes, I've read the "evidence," and it still comes down to a case of a weak Democratic campaign forced to play defense in the Thugs' long suit. I also avidly followed the polls in 2002. They were not all in our favor, and some were based on turnout models that turned out to be incorrect (and many failed to account for the new GOTV effort of the Thugs). Also, the national mood of jingoism that the Thugs and the media helped foster was a big problem as well.

Much of what you say is either arguable or true. BUT here are both some polling information that WAS in our favor:


http://www.bartcop.com/111102fraud.htm

Diebold Magic?
****Poll by Atlanta Journal Constitution/WSB-TV of 800 likely voters on Nov. 1 For Georgia Governor

Roy Barnes (D) 51% up 11
Sonny Perdue (R) 40%

** "Official Results" from the 'Diebold Electronic Voting Machines' on Nov. 5

Roy Barnes (D) 46%
Sonny Perdue (R) 51% up 5 - that's a 16-point pro-Bush swing - was it magic?

----------------------------------

****Poll by Atlanta Journal Constitution Nov. 1 for Georgia Senate

Max Cleland (D) 49% up 5
Saxby Chambliss (R) 44%

**"Official Results" from the 'Diebold Electronic Voting Machines'

Max Cleland (D) 46%
Saxby Chambliss 53% up 7 - that's a 13-point pro-Bush swing - was it magic?

----------------------------------

****Poll by MSNBC/Zogby on Nov. 3 for Colorado Senate

Tom Strickland (D) 53% up 9
Wayne Allard (R) 44%

** "Official Results"

Tom Strickland (D) 46%
Wayne Allard (R) 51% up 5 - that's a 14-point pro-Bush swing - was it magic?

---------------------------------

****Minneapolis Star-Tribune Poll on Nov. 3 for Minnesota Senate

Walter Mondale (D) 46% up 5
Norm Coleman (R) 41%

** "Official Results"

Norm Coleman (R) 50%
Walter Mondale (D) 47% up 3 that's an 8-point pro-Bush swing - was it magic?

Did they let this one stay close because they knew MN loved Mondale?

--------------------------------

****Poll by St. Louis Dispatch/Zogby on Nov. 3 for Illinois Governor

Rod Blagojevich (D) 52% up 7
Jim Ryan (R) 45%

**"Official Results"

Rod Blagojevich (D) 43%
Jim Ryan (R) 44% up 1 that's an 8-point pro-Bush swing - was it magic?

---------------------------------

****Poll by Concord, NH Monitor on Nov. 3 for New Hampshire Senate

Jeanne Shaheen (D) 47% up 1
John E. Sununu (R) 46%

**"Official Results"

Jeanne Shaheen (D) 47%
John E. Sununu (R) 51% up 4 that's a 5-point pro-Bush swing - was it magic?

----

Also, here's Cathy Cox coming clean about Voter Turnout in 2002, the same voter turnout that was used to attribute these stunning Georgia upsets in 2002:


http://www.sos.state.ga.us/pressrel/022503.htm
ATLANTA …New data released today by Secretary of State Cathy Cox shows little change in the demographic composition of the group of Georgians who voted in the 2002 and 1998 gubernatorial General Elections.

The new Credit for Voting Report (CFVR) reveals that the portion of the electorate that was African-American was nearly unchanged (falling only slightly) between the two elections, the white component fell by a similarly small percentage and the group categorized as “other,” (which is a self-designated grouping including Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific-Islander, etc.) grew by over half a percentage point.

In the 1998 gubernatorial election African-Americans comprised 22.86 % of those who cast ballots. Four years later that percentage was down only slightly, to 22.60 %. In the 1998 election white voters represented 76.08 % of the electorate; last November the white percentage fell by .35 %, to 75.73 %. The only group to gain a percentage share of the electorate was the “other” voter category, which increased from 1.03 % in 1998 to 1.67 % last year.

In the aftermath of the historic electoral results last November a number of political analysts suggested that turnout variations among different demographic segments played a significant role in those victories. Because of problems with the collection and analysis of Voter News Service exit polling data, results for the 2002 election were never released by the networks and other news organizations – making the CFVR an even more critical measurement of voter participation. Unlike exit polling, however, the CFVR only reflects who voted, not how they voted.

snip (a fascinating chart of who voted in both 1998 and 2002 by both raw numbers and by percentage broken out according to sex and racial demographics -- showing virtually no change in most categories percentage-wise)

Some other key points from the CFVR comparative analysis:

* Between 1998 and 2002, overall active voter registration fell by 142,682 citizens. This reduction in the voter roll, even as Georgia’s population showed strong growth during the period, is the result of list maintenance efforts established by NVRA (the federal “motor voter” law).

* White males, white females and black males all showed reductions in voter registration between 1998 and 2002. Only black females and “other” voters showed increases.

* While the size of the voter roll decreased, the number of Georgians who cast ballots increased -- by over 218,000. Hence, “turnout” (number of those against the base of those registered) grew by nearly eight percent.

* Voter registration and participation by black males continues to lag far behind that of black females. Indeed, the lower overall voter participation by African-Americans compared to whites is attributable to this factor. Black females continue to register and vote at rates similar to white males and females.

* In 2002 as in the past, voter participation increased significantly with age. The highest percentage turnout was among registrants 60 – 64, with nearly 71 % turnout. The turnout percentage of young adults 18 – 24 was nearly 50 points lower.

-----

I'm not a statistician or anything close, but I absolutely fail to see, when looking at the chart at the link, as well as the comments made by the SoS's office, how these stunning upsets in our two key races in GA could be accounted for in ANY reasonable way. None of the changes in voter make-up account for even 1% of the total voting electorate.

Also, I live in rural Georgia. Purdue's win was attributed to voter turnout (apparently NOT!) and anger over the Confederate flag flap caused by Gov. Barnes. But the funny thing is, here I am in rural Georgia and I neither heard nor saw ANY campaigning by anyone on the flag issue. Period. I did see two, maybe three letters to the editor on the subject in my local paper well prior to the election and in fact before the campaign season, but none of those suggested voting the bastard out. The attribution of Purdue's win to this issue made me going: :wtf:

And it still does. Nothing I've posted here is "proof" of anything, but it is a set of indicators that makes you go "hmmmmm, maybe we should look a little -- or a lot! -- deeper" especially in light of some of the other things about these confarned machines.

Eloriel

The burden of proof is on the makers and programmers of the machines that are used to count our votes. We shouldn't be having to do the hula to get some gd answers and transparent voting procedures.
To even suggest that all is well, or that anyone researching the machines has to prove *diddly* just proves to me that you do not want fair voting. Why, and how much some of the naysayers get paid is a few of the questions I have.

The burden of proof is on the makers of the machines, NOT the citizens of the United States.

To even suggest that all is well, or that anyone researching the machines has to prove *diddly* just proves to me that you do not want fair voting.

I do want fair voting. I am concerned about the security flaws. I say as much in other posts here.

Why, and how much some of the naysayers get paid is a few of the questions I have.

Oh please. Aside from a couple of low-post-count folks (at least one of whom has asked legitimate questions), most of the other skeptics are established Democrats and loyal members of this discussion board. Dismissing them as propagandists or shills for Diebold serves only to discredit you and your side of the argument, IMO. It displays a level of paranoia that is usually reserved for the more "tinfoil-hatted" wing of our movement, and it also implies an unwillingness to have a fair and honest debate on the actual issues.

DTH

I'll say it again, the burden of proof lies with the manufacturer and programmers of the voting machines. That's as fair and honest as it's going to get.

People investigating this issue are going to be grilled by the right-wing no matter what. Accordingly, people on the left who take the time to familiarize themselves with the issue and ask probing questions should be welcomed and embraced, IMO, not demonized or dismissed as disruptors.

I'm quite supportive of the goals of the BBV folks. I'm just not anywhere near convinced (yet) about the level of malice or existence of conspiracy.

And if you have a tough time convincing folks like me, how are you ever going to convince moderates and independents, much less Thugs?

DTH

I notice you never address my mantra: the burden of proof is on the manufacturers and programmers, not the investigators.

As I'm not a programmer. But many others have asked many questions.

I get that you and the other BBV supporters believe you have answered these questions.

My impression is that the skeptics are not satisfied with your answers, however.

Obviously, YMMV.

DTH

Can you tell me what the following would prove to you?

If Diebold represented to the certifiers and the states that they use the Windows Operating System "out of the box" with no modifications, off the shelf (COTS), and we can PROVE they actually altered the COTS Windows software would you consider that "intent?"

And what "intent" would you discern from that?

I guess I'd have to see the actual rep and warranty, and also the type and level (and timing) of modification.

But yes, that would certainly be suspicious, and would warrant even greater scrutiny.

DTH

the FEC regulations prohibit COTS software modifications, and Diebold represented complete adherence to FEC regulations, then modified the COTS software you would call that what?

So if Dr. Britian Williams says:

"A patch to the underlying operation system - Windows - can slip through without scrutiny." Beverly Harris, Black Box Voting: Ballot-Tampering in the 21st Century, <http://www.blackboxvoting.com> March 3, 2003.

This comment assumes that the State of Georgia allows changes and/or upgrades to the Microsoft operating system. This is not the case.

The vendor, Diebold, submits to the ITA a specific version of the operating system and a specific version of the election software. This specific version of the operating system and the election software undergoes ITA testing and State Certification testing. The State Certification is for this specific version of the Microsoft operating system and the Diebold election system. After State Certification any change to either the Microsoft operating system or the Diebold election system voids the State Certification.

If a change to either the Microsoft operating system or the Diebold election system becomes desirable or necessary, this change voids the State Certification. The revised system then must then go back through the entire ITA Qualification and State Certification process.
-----------------------------------
You would respond how?

reports that they specifically represented that Windows was used "as is" and "off the shelf"

Bev

I've had the same version of OS for years, though I've applied every patch as it's become available. It's still conceivable that all the parties are telling the truth here.

what part of this Dr. Britian Williams April 23, 2003 statement you don't understand?

If a change to either the Microsoft operating system or the Diebold election system becomes desirable or necessary, this change voids the State Certification. The revised system then must then go back through the entire ITA Qualification and State Certification process.

"Negligence does not equal intent."

This seems to be the crux of the argument for a lot of naysayers. What I call the, "Honest mistake" defense.

Negligence in the security and accuracy in our vote count, which is ultimately what the American experiment in governance is all about, is simply unacceptable either as a fact or as an excuse.

Please explain how the unneccesary inclusion of a utility to allow modification of the time date stamps, thus allowing an erasable audit trail contravening the most basic programming security practices, is "negligence."

Gordon25

Negligence in the security and accuracy in our vote count, which is ultimately what the American experiment in governance is all about, is simply unacceptable either as a fact or as an excuse.

No argument there. I am absolutely supportive of a paper audit trail, and of more secure voting systems.

My point is that there is a difference between business-as-usual corporate America negligence, and the broader, more sweeping claims often made here. That is where I personally perceive the biggest disagreement between the side represented by Bev Harris and her supporters, and the side represented by the skeptics.

DTH

you are attributing things OTHER PEOPLE have said to Bev Harris. What part of this do you not understand? Bev Harris does not control what other people say and do.

Deal with the FACTS as presented here. Can you have a discussion about voting machines without using Bev Harris' name?

This is Diebold's response to the Hopkins Heros. Can you respond to that issue?

That her work was analogous to the Pentagon Papers, and that her life was in danger.

I'm also pretty sure she's claimed Diebold has acted maliciously and intentionally.

As I've said several times now, those are the main points of contention between Ms. Harris and the skeptics, IMO.

DTH

You misquoted and exaggerated, and then put in your own interpretation.

Back to the ISSUE: Diebold rebuttals -- why do you keep hijacking this thread, which is about the Diebold rebuttals, trying to talk about other things? Start your own thread about your issues with "Bev Harris" if you want. This thread is about the Diebold issues.

What I do see here, when you are on topic, is this:

You agree that Diebold has acted negligently.
You agree that Diebold's answers aren't adequate.
You agree that making a statement that they used Windows exactly as is, off the shelf, when actually they made significant modifications, is "suspicious."

We're getting there.

Bev

You misquoted and exaggerated, and then put in your own interpretation.

We'll have to disagree, then. I saw your thread about how you were going to check in once-a-day because you were concerned about being killed. I saw your thread about the Pentagon Papers.

Feel free to quote the original material, if you are so inclined. I'd be very interested to see how I'm supposedly exaggerating or misinterpreting your positions.

I'd also be interested in knowing, for the record, whether you believe this is deliberate malice by Diebold. I'd also be interested in knowing, for the record, whether you believe there is a conspiracy to rig votes.

I would be amazed and impressed if you gave me a straight answer on this.

Back to the ISSUE: Diebold rebuttals -- why do you keep hijacking this thread, which is about the Diebold rebuttals, trying to talk about other things?

Because last I checked, talking about matters related to a thread topic was still allowed here. (Last I checked, even talking about matters UNrelated to a thread topic was still allowed here, too.)

Start your own thread about your issues with "Bev Harris" if you want. This thread is about the Diebold issues.

You appear to be quite fond of doing this, but please don't tell me what to do. I'm not really interested in starting a thread on this. I'm happy to continue the various discussions in this thread, however.

What I do see here, when you are on topic, is this:
You agree that Diebold has acted negligently.
You agree that Diebold's answers aren't adequate.
You agree that making a statement that they used Windows exactly as is, off the shelf, when actually they made significant modifications, is "suspicious."
We're getting there.

Again, I would note that few if any people on the "skeptic" side that I am aware of would dispute any of the above. The controversy arises more from the bolder claims that some have made, and also from the arguably overhyped nature of this issue.

DTH

I'd also be interested in knowing, for the record, whether you believe this is deliberate malice by Diebold.

I consider lies about using "off the shelf" Windows when in fact it was significantly modified, and about not connecting the machines to anything when in fact they are connected in multiple ways, to be a form of malice.

I'd also be interested in knowing, for the record, whether you believe there is a conspiracy to rig votes.

As for a conspiracy to rig votes, the bizarre resistance to a paper trail certainly gives the appearance of trying to hide something. But, by definition, "conspiracy" takes more than one person. Some of the modifications I saw to the program appear to make it possible for just one person to rig votes, therefore, it would not be a conspiracy, but would be malicious.

There would have to be, at a minimum, negligence, to get that code through the certification process. If that involves collusion, I think it would be described in the press as racketeering, which is a form of conspiracy.

- You agree that Diebold has acted negligently.
- You agree that Diebold's answers aren't adequate.
-You agree that making a statement that they used Windows exactly as is, off the shelf, when actually they made significant modifications, is "suspicious."

I would note that few if any people on the "skeptic" side that I am aware of would dispute any of the above.

Good. We are truly getting there.

Bev Harris

I greatly appreciate your straight answer, and I again commend you for your work, which I do think is important, even if we may disagree on certain particulars. I do think that we (not just you and I, but even most sensible DUers, even most skeptics) are in agreement on the basic fundamentals.

DTH

Thanks for the agreement, but you ignored the most important part of my post.

Please explain how the unneccesary inclusion of a utility to allow modification of the time date stamps, thus allowing an erasable audit trail contravening the most basic programming security practices, is "negligence."

Gordon25

I didn't ignore what you said. I agreed with most of what you said. There's a big difference, you know.

As for the time stamp thing, I don't know; I'm not afraid to admit when I'm ignorant. Is it related to time zones? Please, educate me.

DTH

The time date stamp utility, as I understand it, is a software program fundamentally unrelated to the actual vote counting code, which is included as a sub-routine which allows anyone entering one of the back doors to access the vote total tables to be able to make alterations to the vote count data and "cover his tracks". My understanding is that the actual votecounting code puts a "time/date stamp" on every entry into and change made to the vote count program and/or data. The intention is to provide an "audit trail" of any access made to the vote totals. The inclusion of a utility which allows you to access the critical parts of the vote counting program and then erase the time/date stamp that marked your presence, and make other alterations in the vote totals or code, all without leaving behind any evidence, kind of makes proving vote fraud hard, but certainly seems to imply intent. The question is, what intent.

The fact that it seems to have no other function would certainly raise the question: why did they put it in, if not to facilitate vote count rigging?

If I am technically wrong in any way here I expect someone will correct it. But I believe I am correct in my overview of what it is.

Now. Please explain how the inclusions of such a routine is simple sloppy security.

Gordon25

but it does warrant correction, and an adequate explanation.

I don't care what Diebold's defense is. They were paid to do a job that they can no longer prove they did--and that is accurately count votes. The best they can do is say they THINK they're honest.

they can't even make that claim....

Programmer's comments in the code prove they knew major problems existed and were working furiously to correct them.

Just some of the numerous examples:
http://blackboxvoting.org/theyknew.htm

That's why "patches" are released to fix the lingering problems.

It's Diebold's lack of effort to acknowledge the problems and fix them that piss me off the most.

DTH

what a development process is like.

What I would LIKE you to address are the specific issues addressed in those comments.

Do you realize they are acknowledging that if a pollworker shut off a Touchscreen without using the proper shut down procedures, turning the machine back on causes all the stored votes to be re-set to zero? A simple "power on" wipes out all the votes.

Do you find that acceptable?

Which I've stated or implied all throughout this thread.

DTH

now, if an election were conducted using that same software, would you call that negligence? Would you go so far as to call it criminal negligence?

Again, as I've stated all throughout this thread, multiple times.

I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say "criminal" (or "gross") negligence. I suppose that would depend on the circumstances of Diebold's state-of-mind, and also on how many reported instances there have been of power-offs causing loss of data.

DTH

the caution: "Please don't use these machines if there are threats of thunderstorms in your area -- unless you use a battery backup for each machine giving you time to power down appropriately," perhaps? Which I'm pretty sure wasn't in there. Just a wild-assed guess on that.

I just bought one of those battery backups with software, btw, and I love it. $60. Let's see, 22K machines x $60 (+ $54 million already spent, of course). I'm sure they could get a "volume discount" on the battery backups, but if not, it would be $1,320,000.

Eloriel

Only needs to "pull the plug" -- literally, to swing the vote?

I'd call that criminal negligence, if we can prove Diebold knows of the problem.

-- on edit fixed a typo

The easy way to cancel a complete set of votes.

And, hey, if the republican poll worker sends all the Democratic voters to one machine - then unplugs it without using the "Ender Card" - poof! Gone! Disappeared votes.

but it does warrant correction, and an adequate explanation.

This is self-evident. I say as much in earlier posts.

It appears that some here are construing disagreement where none actually exists.

DTH

The Jack-in-a-Box down the street from my house killed several kids after serving ecoli-laced burgers a few years ago. As a result, it's the cleanest burger place in town today, but the thought of eating there still turns my stomach. A terrible product association technique, not what the company's PR people would have wished, but my own gut level reaction nonetheless.

I'm having the same reaction to Diebold, aided and abetted by its defenders on this board. I'm just an ordinary non-techie citizen who already believes new technology often causes more headaches than it solves. I don't trust the new touch tone computer voting machines. Bev and others have proven to my satisfaction that Diebold's machines are flawed. Diebold will never regain my trust. I will always have nagging doubts about the veracity of their machine counts. That's not Bev's fault.

Evidence suggests Diebold is either incompetent or criminal. Probably both. This is what has been "branded" in my mind.