Blackbox voting on Wired

this news is not going to go away.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59874,00.html

Jacobsen confirmed that the source code Rubin's team examined was last used in November 2002 general elections in Georgia, Maryland and in counties in California and Kansas.


Within a half-hour of examining the code, Rubin's team found its first red flag. The password was embedded in the source code. "You learn (not to do) that in security 101," said Tadayoshi Kohno, one of the report's co-authors. "The designers didn't follow standard engineering processes."

First they admit "kinks" in the system. Bwaaaahaaaahaaa

NOW they're admitting the code examined (so far) WAS the code used in 2002:

Jacobsen confirmed that the source code Rubin's team examined was last used in November 2002 general elections in Georgia, Maryland and in counties in California and Kansas.

UNFREAKINBELIEVABLE.

Eloriel

I hope they do their job.

Were they supposed to lie? Would you be happier if they did?

Also there's nothing especially new reported in this story, unless you count the part about the Holt bill being "unlikely to get out of the Committee on House Administration."

JC

"That was old software and was never used in any election."

I sent a blast to 10,000 members of the press that called them on that:

1) NASED certifies software by version number
2) The version number is in the source code
3) The NASED version numbers matched the version numbers in the source code studied by the Hopkins Heroes

Within an hour of sending the press release they removed the item from their web page.

Are they expected to lie? Yes.
They lied and said it was never used in any election.
They lied and said they had no indication that patches were ever applied to the 22,000 machines in Georgia
They lied and said the voting system doesn't hook up to the Internet.

They are therefore now expected to lie.

Bev Harris

They now apparently say it was used in Georgia and Kansas and I forget where else. Are they seriously to be condemned for correcting their earlier statement?

JC

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Salon.com, Diebold Election Systems, denies that a program patch was ever applied to the Georgia voting machines: "We have analyzed that situation and have no indication of that happening at all."

Michael Barnes, of the Georgia Secretary of State Elections Division:
"That FTP site did not affect us in any way shape or form because we did not do any file transferring from it. None of the servers ever connected so no one could have transferred files from it. No files were transferred relating to state elections."

Dr. Brit Williams, Head of Security Kennesaw State Election Center:
"...Georgia's patch was checked before it was installed and did not affect the tallying of votes."

Clifford Tatum, Georgia Elections Division, Assistant Director - Legal Affairs
"....we have determined that no records exist regarding a change to software used by the voting system."

Kara Sinkule, Georgia Secretary of State
"We were aware of the Diebold FTP site, but Georgia never used it (our model didn't require us to.)"

Patched software and FTP sites...

Michael Barnes, of the Georgia Secretary of State Elections Division said, "That FTP site did not affect us in any way, shape or form because we did not do any file transferring from it. None of the servers ever connected so no one could have transferred files from it. No files were transferred relating to state elections."

Dr. Williams of Georgia's 21st Century Voting Commission, is quoted in the Washington Post as saying that the terminals could not be reprogrammed by inserting a cartridge.

Kara Sinkule of the Secretary of State office in Georgia also has claimed, "We were aware of the Diebold FTP site, but Georgia never used it (our model didn't require us to)." The Diebold manual, however, on page 322, specifically instructs users to upgrade the software from the FTP site.

Diebold Systems, for its part, flatly denies (in Salon) that any program patch was ever applied to the Georgia voting machines.

So there we have it. A patch was created that was checked at KSU. (There is no documentation to indicate this. According to Clifford D. Tatum, Assistant Director at Legal Affairs in the State Election Commission, "No records exist regarding a change in software used by the voting system.") The patch was installed on the voting machines but it wasn't accessed through the FTP site because, according to Sinkule, that model didn't need to use the FTP site (even though the Diebold manual says it does); and it wasn't (according to Dr. Williams) put on the machines with a "cartridge" because you can't reprogram them that way. Exactly how it was done remains unclear. Sinkule says that the patch "was not to the voting software" anyway, even though it was named GEMS.exe.

And Diebold? Diebold says, "Patch? What patch? There wasn't any patch."

posts in the loooooong thread - starting with #337:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=112500&mesg_id=126769&page=

I suppose I'd call for reinforcements in your position too. :thumbsup:

JC

My system is functioning too slow for the length of that.

I should repost and debate tinfoil, but I am too busy tonight (shouldn't be here now).

I have the final book chapter to finish.

Bev

You can take this off-board if you'd like.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I suppose I'd bail if I were in your position too...

"While stressing that more studies will have to be conducted to find out just how vulnerable these are, "there is a sense that in the past (critics of computerized machines) were part of the black box crowd and conspiracy theorists," Albowicz said. "No one is saying that now."

all the Wired report talked about were possibilities. We've got people who believe the hacks were real and that certification procedures weren't followed. Sorry, but that ain't there ...

as is your wont: They admitted that what "the report" discussed WAS used on the machines in Georgia, CA, KS, MD.

That is VERY big news. That means as new revelations come out, they can't hide behind "but that wasn't used in the 2002 elections" excuse. It is VERY big news.

But go ahead. Critique the rest of the article instead, as a diversionary tactic. No one here is fooled.

Eloriel

next she'll be saying "well, they agree with me. That's what I was saying 3 weeks ago."

All too familiar and predictable.

did you see anything in the article that even suggested deliberate misconduct by Diebold? That was, after all, the purpose of the exercise ... not just to find the vulnerabilities in the system.

I give credit to those who are continuing the debate - but it wasn't advanced by the rash accusations raised in public. There are proper ways to investigate, even public officials, and this debacle is a continuing disgrace.

"Penelope Bonsall, director of the Federal Election Commission's Office of Election Administration, said the president has named the commission's four members, but they have not been officially nominated. Congress is now in recess and won't be able to approve the commission until it returns in September."

We need to check them out!!!

"Penelope Bonsall, director of the Federal Election Commission's Office of Election Administration, said the president has named the commission's four members, but they have not been officially nominated. Congress is now in recess and won't be able to approve the commission until it returns in September."

We need to check them out!!!

nothing yet.

Flash! FEC's Penelope Refuses Radio "Face-Off" with Condit

June 8, 2000 NA (Network America) e-wire



Flash! FEC's Penelope Refuses Radio "Face-Off" with Condit

Earlier tonight, on Thursday night between 7 PM and 8 PM EST, June 8, your writer appeared on The Dave vonKleist and Joyce Riley Radio program.Joyce Riley is the intrepid medical expert and investigator who, despite heavy censorship and disinformation from the fedgov and the Big Media, has brought Gulf War Syndrome effectively and convincingly to the public mind, with the those occupying the fedgov propaganda posts now in full retreat.

Dave vonKleist is equally unstoppable in waging war for truth on this and other fronts. More on this dynamic duo can be found at gulfwarvets.com - also you can listen to them on the internet through the Genesis Communication Network (go to gcnlive.com for full into).

In the midst of a fast moving, hard hitting hour on "votescam vs. honest elections, Dave vonKleist" dropped this bombshell, very indicative of the overall situation faced by citizens:Dave said that in preparing for our votescam show he had contacted Penelope Bonsall, the official spokesman for the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

It was Penelope who appeared on the famous and infamous 1988 Dan Rather/CBS Evening News 5 minute report on votescam. Readers may remember that this report, which was aired in the last 5 minutes of the CBS Evening News on the Monday night (election eve) before the Bush-Dukakis presidential election, is the ONLY report that has ever appeared on the Big TV Media on the votescam subject.

Penelope Bonsall appeared to state that there were so many election venues that it was nearly impossible that a Presidential Election could be fixed (notice the "nearly"). Someday soon we will get a full word-for-word transcript of that 1988 5-minute CBS report up on the internet. If new readers want to review some information about Penelope Bonsall's public act, go to lewisnews.com, find the Citizens for a Fair Vote Count Section on the left hand side of the Home page, and then choose the article "No Access to Source Codes for Election Officials!"

Here is summary/teaser for that article: "No one other than voting-machine vendors can examine the 'source-codes' or computer-programming instructions that tell the computer exactly how to count your votes on election day; not the voters, not the candidates, not the elections officials!..." This article first appeared as our June 3, 2000 e-wire, also in the archives at topica.com in the Network America section. With that background, here's the flash: Dave vonKleist revealed on the radio show that he had talked to the Federal Election Commission's foremost and official spokesman, Penelope Bonsall in preparation for the show. She said she would be glad to come on the show. Next he asked her if she would come on against your writer (Jim Condit Jr., Director of Citizens for a Fair Vote Count) for some back and forth questioning and discussion. Penelope said that she should NOT appear on the program at the same time as this writer.

Quite frankly, this is quite the norm. Here is a person - Penelope -- who's ENTIRE job is to (purportedly) serve the American people with information on why the Federal Elections Commission is doing an honest job and running fair, verifiable elections. This is what she is PAID to do, remember. Yet she will not come on the air opposite me or anyone else who might ask her any probing questions. One of the questions I would ask her, or anyone else in officialdom, is: Have YOU or any one else at the Federal Elections Commission (or any other official agency) ever looked at or analyzed any of the software that instructs our nations computers want to do on election day? The answer, of course, would be "No" - which then would nullify in advance any of her other comments, as well as make her look like she was comfortable with totalitarian vote counts - that is, votes counted in secret with Americans who want to get in to see what's happening faced with a sign reading, "DO NOT ENTER." (And if by chance she said that she had examined source code, then that would be important news, as well as lead to a whole other series of interesting questions.)


more.... http://www.votefraud.org/News/2000/6/060800.html

Not really a Republican profile. So with all this potential for fraud who’s to say a few of these folks that are identifying all the holes in the programs don’t take matters into their own hands? Mind you I’m not suggesting they do this, but wouldn’t it be a riot if there were a free-for-all of good hackers fighting bad hackers on Election Day? Ultimately that is what it will take for this to be taken seriously, is that if it doesn’t benefit only the Republicans.

So at least some repugs think outside the box.
Q.e.d.

to do exactly that. And we've had some good laughs on the subject.

But WE'RE not crooks. Ya know? We want the system FIXED the right way: to honor and accurately COUNT the votes that are actually cast by The People, with considerable assurance that there can be no vote rigging.

Eloriel