WTF!!! Diebold was ALREADY tested in CA by Hursti (this Tuesday)?!!!

Please tell me if I'm reading this incorrectly!
It sure looks like Harri Hursti performed a hack test this Tuesday in CA for the SoS!
Diebold demanded secrecy for any tests on their crap. That's probably why we haven't heard any breaking news about it!

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/1,69893-1.html


I looked on B*v's website to see if she had anything to report about another Hursti test. Nothing.
WTF is up with this?! Just compliance with Diebold's demands that their failures be kept secret?!

Maybe a secret test, just like Diebold counts our votes, in secret?

Why no publicity?! This is a BIG f'ing deal!

that McPherson would permit. They were supposed to be conducted in secret, per Diebold's demands.
Maybe that's why we aren't hearing anything?

:grr:

I have a hard time believing that explanation. BBV was very vocal about not accepting the Diebold conditions, and about how inappropriate it is that they should even have been put forward. In fact, I remember one of the recent BBV announcements revealed that terms sent to them by McP, turned out to have originated at Diebold as evidenced by the "properties" function of the Word doc. Check their site for more on that.

Anyway, it just doesn't seem plausible that they would cave to a secret test. It is not in their interest, or anyone's. And if the test did occur, regardless of the outcome, McP's decision about the ITA makes no sense. Actually, it makes no sense that this article refers to such a huge event without reporting further, and nobody else mentions it.

We should contact the writer and find out if this is a mistake. If it is not, then more investigation is clearly called for. Diebold should get no benefit of the doubt. Frankly, Diebold is a treasonous entity that should not even have the right of existence anymore. I don't support the death penalty for humans, but the corporate person named Diebold has it coming. We should get ahold of their corporate charter and figure out how to have it revoked.

</rant> - I don't usually do that, huh?

How much do you know about B*v? She's pretty famous for her misdeeds around here.
Her qui tam settlement screwed California:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=378552&mesg_id=379548



Secrecy was a condition demanded by Diebold, and agreed to by McPherson.

Sorry, I just don't trust B*v. I appreciate your rant though. This is a mystery. I've emailed Bowen's office about it and will post an update when I hear back.

I am neither attacking nor defending. I usually stay out of threads like this, and almost never speculate as I did above. You are right that she/they can't call all the shots.

What do we know about the type of request that was filed to generate the opportunity for the test hack? What rights/privileges did they obtain by virtue of their request being accepted or allowed?
What could they gain from allowing the test in secret?

Zetter still seems like the best next step. I've been looking for her contact but so far nothing but a broken link.

Here's a link to FindLaw re: CA's Election Code Section 19202

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/elec/19200-19213.html

That's the biggest question, IMO. If there is no glory or money in it, why would B*v be involved?

:shrug:

On Monday, (12/20), McPherson sends a letter to Diebold, announcing that they want the Feds to certify the voting machines.

On Tuesday, (12/21), Harri Hursti performs a private hack test for McPherson.

... So McPherson complied with the 19202 Request from BBV.org to have the machines tested the day AFTER he turned the decision of certification over to the Feds.

Bastard! :nuke:

You might want to check your post in that forum nick.

kick

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5674527

:shrug:

Which wouldn't be at all surprising.

My guess would be that Hursti went ahead with the demonstration without Bev's grandstanding and cameras.

I sent an email to someone in State Senator Bowen's office. She has been the most involved (in the CA Legislature) in trying to clean up elections.

I'll post what I hear back.

:shrug:

We're much more effective working in the background, quietly bringing the election officials around to our side than screaming it from the mountaintops.

At some point, we have to decide elections officials hold all the power and don't intend to come to the mountaintop and admit they made a mistake. They have to have an "honorable" way to admit mistakes without looking like fools - else it remains us or them.

Do you really expect Bruce McPherson to come out publicly and say "Kevin Shelley was right. These machines should never have been certified."? Surely, you must know that is never going to happen.

I commend Hursti for dealing with the issue - and not with the idea that we should make it our life's work to embarass election officials.

But if this is true, that Hursti did get to do his tests on these machines, the timing is *very* upsetting.

I see something happening, just beginning to form, which is very hopeful. Hear me out.......

Our biggest problem in convincing election officials is the stamp of approval of the "federal certification" lackeys........their response is always "these machines are federally certified by independent testing labs" and dismiss our concerns.

But, now, I'm seeing an attempt by several players in this issue to call into question the ITA process and the ITA testing. Avi Rubin just did it, the EAC is politely doing it, and now Bruce McPherson just set them (the ITAs) up in a no win situation.

If McPherson has Hursti's tests in the bag with the NEW software (remember, his tests were on OLD software in Florida) and the ITA certifies it anyway, the ITA is toast.

The EAC is supposed to take over assigning ITAs (and they just continued with the same ones) so, perhaps, some groups are seeing the larger picture and understand that the ITA process is where the true failure occurs - that they are in collusion with the vendors - and have set out to prove that point.

Perhaps it's a test of how "independent" the Independent Testing Authority is............

I believe Hursti would participate in such a set up willingly, because he strikes me as smart enough to see the larger picture of ITA dishonesty and the great harm it is doing.

I hope I'm right.

That's a very optimistic view.
My view is pessimistic ... due to prior conditioning.

I wish it would all fold like the house of cards that it is. B*v projected that would happen ... so I disregarded it ;)

But I do think it's more than optimism - actions by the people involved show it's more than blind faith.

ITAs dont actually test equipment to see if it works during an election.

FOr example--They test to see if equipment can-
-Survive voltage variations
-Survive temp variations
-Survive humidity variations
-Survive vibrations
-Survive dust

equipment is never tested by running a mock election.

But it is most definitely NOT TRUE for Ciber/SyTest (software tests).

I have the EXACT test criteria from the labs produced from Open Records Requests for Georgia.

While the Ciber section on Security is marked N/A, the other tests are, indeed, reported to have been done and "grading" recorded.

I am refering to the fact that NO ONE tests to see if the voting equipment works in an election. How do you do this?

Hold a mock election. Does any ITA do this? NO they dont. Right?

tell me something I dont know---


Again-- NO ITA has ever tested any voting system to see if it works in an election. It is simply not in the test protocals. Google the ITA reports posted at epic.org-- read them. They dont test to see if the equipment works during an election.

I just wanted to put that info out there again.

Also, I was uncomfortable hearing any aspect of Federal testing being discussed as though it had any validity.
I don't think that the EAC deserves our trust either. If you'd care to take a whack at them here, that would be appreciated too.

According to Bev Harris, this hack test by Harri Hursti, did NOT take place in California.

... No confirmation from any other source has been available.
The story at Wired.com has been scrubbed.

Maybe the following occurred ... and maybe not....

Hursti did the tests.
Secrecy was a condition of the tests.
Otherwise McPherson would *still* be in violation of CA Election Code 19202.

B*v's attorney letter of 12/9/05, to McPherson, warned him that he was in violation of their 19202 Request.
Will we ever hear anything more about McPherson's compliance/noncompliance with this Request?
That might be a clue.
... Bowen's office was going by the word of B*v only.

If true, it would be a cunning maneuver on the part of McPherson to comply with the 19202 Request, but only AFTER he turned the certification decision over to the ITAs.

Anyway, it's only a hunch ...



... And the story at Wired.com is back up. The excerpted paragraph is still there.