Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

EVOTING EXPOSE TO LEAD NYT THURSDAY-Lab That Test Machines Barred By US

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 09:46 PM
Original message
EVOTING EXPOSE TO LEAD NYT THURSDAY-Lab That Test Machines Barred By US
Edited on Wed Jan-03-07 10:17 PM by kpete

MAJOR EVOTING EXPOSE TO LEAD NYT THURSDAY..

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

Lab that tests voting machines barred by US

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday January 3, 2007

A front page story in Thursday's New York Times explores the problems and fears of electronic voting, reporting that "elections have been complicated by machines that did not start, flipped votes from one candidate to another or had trouble tallying the votes."

The article written by Christopher Drew focuses on a laboratory that tests voting machines which was recently barred by the US.

Excerpts from Times article:



U.S. Bars Lab From Testing Electronic Voting

By CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: January 4, 2007

A laboratory that has tested most of the nation’s electronic voting systems has been temporarily barred from approving new machines after federal officials found that it was not following its quality-control procedures and could not document that it was conducting all the required tests.

Skip to next paragraph The company, Ciber Inc. of Greenwood Village, Colo., has also come under fire from analysts hired by New York State over its plans to test new voting machines for the state. New York could eventually spend $200 million to replace its aging lever devices.

Experts on voting systems say the Ciber problems underscore longstanding worries about lax inspections in the secretive world of voting-machine testing. The action by the federal Election Assistance Commission seems certain to fan growing concerns about the reliability and security of the devices.

The commission acted last summer, but the problem was not disclosed then. Officials at the commission and executives at Ciber confirmed the action in recent interviews.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/washington/04voting.html?hp&ex=1167886800&en=363e471aee8b4edc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Lab_that_tests_voting_machines_barred_0103.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great news! Everyone ready to deluge NYTs with thanks for article.
And sending heads-up on said article to congresscritters!

I hope this is the beginning of a series. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Imagine a bank that wouldn't let its ATMs be tested.
K,R, and onward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. And the legal requirement for gambling machines....
Yes, what you've underscored is the apathy of US voters, who aren't kicking and screaming about this!

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Nickel slots are more reliable than voting machines.
That's going to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'd rather vote on a slot machine
K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That's a great bumpersticker!
OK... it could be misinterpreted... :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. See below
I think there's a sticker in the making. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Hey my Bingo machines give receipts of all 66 boards in the machines
So my "My Bingo Machines are more reliable than Voting machines"

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I like that!
My BINGO machine is more reliable than my VOTING machine.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wasn't there was a documentry on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
11. NYT:U.S. Bars Lab From Testing Electronic Voting
A laboratory that has tested most of the nation’s electronic voting systems has been temporarily barred from approving new machines after federal officials found that it was not following its quality-control procedures and could not document that it was conducting all the required tests.
Skip to next paragraph

The company, Ciber Inc. of Greenwood Village, Colo., has also come under fire from analysts hired by New York State over its plans to test new voting machines for the state. New York could eventually spend $200 million to replace its aging lever devices.

Experts on voting systems say the Ciber problems underscore longstanding worries about lax inspections in the secretive world of voting-machine testing. The action by the federal Election Assistance Commission seems certain to fan growing concerns about the reliability and security of the devices.

The commission acted last summer, but the problem was not disclosed then. Officials at the commission and executives at Ciber confirmed the action in recent interviews.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/washington/04voting.html?hp&ex=1167886800&en=363e471aee8b4edc&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ellipsis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Interesting tidbit at the end of the NYT's article on the SARASOTA recount...
Edited on Wed Jan-03-07 11:26 PM by btmlndfrmr
<snip to end>


A recent appearance in Sarasota, Fla., by the SysTest Labs president, Brian T. Phillips, also raised eyebrows. After a Congressional election in the Sarasota area ended in a recount last month, the victorious Republican candidate hired Mr. Phillips as a consultant to monitor the state’s examination of whether there had been a malfunction in the voting machines.

Several critics questioned whether Mr. Phillips should have taken such work, either because of its partisan nature or because it represented such a public defense of the industry.

Mr. Phillips said he did not see any conflict because his laboratory had not tested the software used in Sarasota. And the project does not appear to have violated the ethics rules of the election commission.




Thanks for posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stargazer99 Donating Member (943 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. This is a perfect example why privitizing everything
is not the anwswer. Republicans need to smarten up about their policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFLer4edu Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. This should be a nice opener for hearings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. WOOFUCKINGHOO!!!
Finally!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
15. The "independence" of the ITAs was questioned years ago
An exec at Microvote pretty much admitted that the ITAs were a joke:

We've been somewhat loosely monitored by the states. There's a lot of trust that the vendors are out for the best interest of the local jurisdictions. The states basically look at the federal qualification testing as being kind of the ultimate testing ground. As a vendor working with these independent testing authorities, they do a good job of following the test plans afforded to them by the vendors. They don't really go outside of those test plans. In the state of Indiana – and I'm not criticizing by any means – we just don't have the technical expertise to take these test result plans that the independent testing authorities provide them and really go through them in detail. Maybe it's just the leap of faith that the states feel that the federal testing authorities have done an adequate job and that they will adopt that product pursuant to state compliance.

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/178-BBV-maker-admits-ITA-certification-a-sham.html

In December of last year, I wrote this about ITAs and the validity of their reports to the NC SBoE.


A report from an "independent testing authority" does not count since:

1) The ITA works for, and is paid by, the voting machine company, therefore is NOT "independent".

2) The ITAs are selected by The Election Center, a PRIVATE agency that was recently revealed to have been taking secret contributions from voting machine companies.

3) The ITAs refuse to reveal their testing methodology so we have no idea whether their testing meets the standards of NC law.

4) The report from the ITAs are secret and not revealed to the public.

Anyway you look at this, a report from a company not legally beholden to the voters of North Carolina is unacceptable.

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/26-NC-Board-of-Elections-has-sided-with-Diebold-against-the-voters.html


When I covered the secret ITAA meeting with the BBV industry in 2003, I reported this discussion:

Accenture (Mark) brought up the point that self-certification will be a “tough sell” to the public. We can’t win the PR battle if ITAA tries to do an ITA’s (independent testing authority) job.

“But I do think it is very important that the industry be more aggressive and more coordinated in the way that it gives input to the ITA (Independent Testing Authority) process and the people who control the ITA process. They’ve solicited that input in the past and I don’t feel the industry has done a particularly good job of providing that input. And this is something I feel this industry can be a real conduit for.”

ITAA agreed that they wouldn’t be involved in an ITA-like certification process. They would help to improve the process by “bringing in people to re-engineer it. But it shouldn’t be ITAA itself doing the certification.”

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/177-Secret-meeting-of-the-Black-Box-Yakuza.html

The industry has no business telling the ITA what its certification process should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
16. Reminds me of the testing lab
that corporations loved to use to get their chemicals approved for use. Someone finally noticed that the mice used to prove health safety were being born and giving birth on the same day! Of course the chemicals were absolutely safe.
Many of those chemicals have been grandfathered in without the required proper testing.

Sort of like how we ended up with the */Cheney nightmare!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
18. Wiley Labs, dont they do most /all
of the hardware testing? I dont recall Ciber doing much SW testing either......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
19. K&R. Great news. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC