| Author |
Message |
    
Jim March
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 32
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 4 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 3:07 am: | 
|
This is a set now consisting of five interconnected documents all pointing at the same thing: fraud was committed during the federal certification process ("NASED number") for the Diebold touchscreen product line.
The fraud specifically involves Windows CE and hence is relevent to the TS and TSx product lines.
One file discusses possible NASED involvement in covering up misconduct.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/wincefraudwalkthrough.pdf – an overview of Diebold's Windows CE-related fraud. This is the same four-page document presented to the Pima County Board of Supes but with minor cleanup and a whole new one-page appendix A added with additional evidence that this was deliberate on Diebold's part. Before we found that (again, appendix A) an argument could be made that Diebold might have declared the customized Windows CE code and Wyle ignored it. This is a specific statement that Diebold withheld the CE customizations from the test labs. Along with the Lee declaration, this in my opinion is the front-runner to putting Diebold flat out of the elections industry. Five pages.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/rrlee-wincedeclaration.pdf – the declaration of Dr. Richard Lee. Same as previously distributed, no changes. This document must always be attached to the "Walkthrough" article above. Three pages.
http://www.equalccw.com/19202v2006.pdf - it's an ultra-condensed version of the "Walkthrough" file above, submitted to the California Secretary of State's site as an official request under California Election Code 19202. One page. Needs the Lee declaration in support.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/thenasedblues.pdf – covers the possibility of NASED involvement in covering up the madness documented here and in items 1 and 2 of this list. ALL new. It's not "airtight" but like the rest it's "probable cause" for somebody with subpoena powers to sort out the truth: a gutsy district attorney could do it, a state AG would be better, or a very gutsy Federal prosecutor. The California SecState's office might be able to do it too, so go Bowen!  Four pages.
http://www.equalccw.com/dieboldsinsandsecrecy.pdf - a more general listing (with links to evidence) of Diebold misconduct and cover-ups. 12 pages, but some big graphics. Over 9meg file size.
---------
Conclusion: there is a legal principle that "fraud vitiates everything it touches". "Vitiates" is an old word meaning something close to "sexually corrupts", an unusually vicious term for the courts to use. The idea is that once fraud is used to obtain a document, the document is invalid for all time from the point the fraud begins.
In this case the fraud predates the actual certification.
Understand that some physical items have a specific legal definition. A good example is a motorcycle helmet or a child's car safety seat. Both need approval and certification. If they don't have that, they legally aren't that object and if you use an illegal version you can get a ticket for not having one at all.
Voting machines are the same way: black and white, no gray area, it's a voting machine or it isn't.
If the Federal cert is no good, then in the 37 states that require NASED cert first the Diebold touchscreens literally don't legally qualify for the term "voting machine". |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3207
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 7:47 am: |
|
Great documents, Jim. This is invaluable work. The potential of NASED complicity must be addressed, as its actions are pretty difficult to explain away.
On another subject, Jim, I'd value your feedback about how far the technical vulnerabilities go. See my comment here and the responses that follow. If you or folks who know the technology could respond I'd be grateful. (My question has to do with how much damage can be done by manipulating one voting machine--how far up the chain can the impact go, depending on the nature of the malicious code that is introduced?) |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 808
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 5:17 am: |
|
Vitiates means literally 'takes all the life out of'; particularly appropriate in these instances. |
Alan Brau
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Alan_brau
Post Number: 47
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 9:00 am: |
|
Is PA one of the 37 states that requires NASED certification? |
Jim March
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 34
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Lemme check...huh. That's odd. I have a listing state by state on this subject that has always worked pretty good despite being written BY DIEBOLD :D - it's part of the stash Bev downloaded Jan. '03.
But Pennsylvania is missing.
I'll upload it here.
I have Dr. Shamos' EMail addy, I'll feed him these docs and ask him at the same time. For now I'm not sure. |
Alan Brau
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Alan_brau
Post Number: 48
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 7:07 am: |
|
Seems rather odd that PA is missing.
Thanks, Jim. Your help is much appreciated.
Al |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 552
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 8:38 am: |
|
Alan & Jim,
So as not to misinterpret or encourage misinterpretation on anyone's part, here is the language from the PA Election Code:
"Section 1105-A. Examination and Approval of Electronic Voting Systems by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.--(a) Any person or corporation owning, manufacturing or selling, or being interested in the manufacture or sale of, any electronic voting system, may request the Secretary of the Commonwealth to examine such system if the voting system has been examined and approved by a federally recognized independent testing authority and if it meets any voting system performance and test standards established by the Federal government. The costs of the examination shall be paid by the person requesting the examination in an amount set by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Any ten or more persons, being qualified registered electors of this Commonwealth, may, at any time, request the Secretary of the Commonwealth to reexamine any electronic voting system theretofore examined and approved by him. Before any reexamination, the person, persons, or corporation, requesting such reexamination, shall pay to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth a reexamination fee of four hundred fifty dollars ($450). The Secretary of the Commonwealth may, at any time, in his discretion, reexamine any such system therefore examined and approved by him. The Secretary of the Commonwealth may issue directives or instructions for implementation of electronic voting procedures and for the operation of electronic voting systems."
Sounds to me like the say-so of Wyle and Ciber, or Systest, is enough. NASED is not really required. But that's just my take on it. I could be wrong. |
John Washburn
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Johnwashburn
Post Number: 172
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:04 am: |
|
Actually Kurt the law you cited states a voting system must be examined by an ITA and meet the 2002 VVSG. The operative clause would be:
...and if [the voting system] meets any voting system performance and test standards established by the Federal government.
This is a position held by Dr Shamos himself. See: page 4 of his report on the AccuVote Scanner from January of this year.
The only room to wiggle (that I see) is to retroactively define the 2002 VVSG as neither a performance standard nor a test standard. That would be a tough sell.
(Message edited by johnwashburn on August 22, 2006) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 554
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
John,
I agree if the 2002 VVSG is from "the Federal government". Is it? The "V" that stands for voluntary might also prove to be a problem.
In 2004, Kimberly Shoup-Yeahl (a family member of ownership of AVS) suggested to me at that time that AVS would like to skip 2002 VVSG and proceed directly to 2005 VVSG standards. I don't know if that ever happened, but it was AVS's clear intent at that time. |
Jim March
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 36
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:12 am: |
|
Ah. Yeah, this clarifies matters.
It also means the "ITA examination" could easily be rendered invalid if Diebold deliberately withheld information necessary for a full approval.
It's not quite the same legal situation as a "NASED number required" state such as Calif and AZ but it's very close, almost certainly close enough for the same basic legal tactics to work.
Here's what I sent Dr. Shamos last night - I would hope to hear from him by maybe tomorrow night or so?
Subject: Some new info on the Diebold Federal certifications
Dr. Shamos,
As you are no doubt aware, concerns have been raised for years about Diebold's Federal touchscreen certifications ("NASED numbers") in light of possible customizations to Windows CE. Bev Harris and myself have been talking about this since 2003, Doug Jones considerably longer. CE is unique among Windows variants in that it needs customization for the specific hardware and in that sense cannot possibly be defined as "COTS", esp. under the FEC2002 standards. And since MS distributes the source code to CE to the public and vendors, it has always been possible for Diebold to make the CE source code available to Wyle or whichever lab was supposed to check it.
The issue died down in 2004 when NASED began listing CE as a specifically certified component in the certification listings at:
http://nased.org/NASED%20Qualified%20Voting%20Systems%20031706.pdf
What we should have realized at the time was that something can be "NASED certified" as "COTS", which means it was functionally tested but not given source code review. We now know that NASED basically gave the activist community a meaningless pacifier to shut us up, because data available in 2006 (including direct testimony by Wyle and a copy of the TSx certification report) says that Windows CE was treated as COTS. We have obtained a declaration from a reputable professional (Dr. Richard Lee PhD of Massachusetts) who builds CE systems for a living and is a published author in the field documenting the degree of customization needed.
Worst of all, now that we've gone back and looked we've found a document with Diebold letterhead all over it from Jan. '03 listing CE positively as a "COTS" product. It wasn't a case of CE being "overlooked" somehow by Diebold and/or the labs; Diebold made a positive misrepresentation on the subject in a document that at a minimum went to the California SecState's office where we've found it in a public records response.
I've put together a five-page outline of the information available on CE to date:
http://www.equalccw.com/wincefraudwalkthrough.pdf - five pages
I also have Dr. Lee's declaration online:
http://www.equalccw.com/rrlee-wincedeclaration.pdf - three pages
I have also made a start at outlining whether or not NASED knew of this and possibly engaged in a coverup of shoddy (at best) federal certification practices:
http://www.equalccw.com/thenasedblues.pdf - four pages
(I believe the case against NASED is at this point weaker than the case against Diebold, but is nonetheless worthy of further investigation by somebody with subpoena powers. Your state AG would be perfect...?)
Dr. Shamos, it's my understanding that you're an attorney as well as a computer scientist. You would then be aware of the phrase "fraud vitiates everything it touches". The concept I'm getting at here is that rather than viewing Diebold's sins as worthy of de-certification, if they obtained their NASED numbers for the touchscreens on the basis of fraud, the TS/TSx NASED numbers are completely invalid -=right now=-.
If that's the case...Houston, we have a problem? The Diebold touchscreens wouldn't legally qualify for the term "voting machine" in most states.
Could you please inform me as to whether or not Pennsylvania is a "NASED required" state - in other words does PA require Federal certification prior to state and does the lack or loss of Federal cert impact the current status of the state certification the way it would in, say, California?
Thank you for your kind attention,
Jim March - jmarch@prodigy.net - 916-370-0347 |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 555
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:12 am: |
|
John,
I can't get the link to work.
(Never mind, it works now after your edit.)
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on August 22, 2006) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 556
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 10:33 am: |
|
John,
We have a problem here. Clearly what Shamos put in that document would IMPLY that a NASED number was required, but the APPARENT absence of the AVS WinVote from the NASED list while it IS PA certified would suggest that whoever did the WinVote cert in PA felt differently.
That cert was done by M. Glenn Newkirk, President, InfoSENTRY Services, Inc., not Michael Shamos. |
John Washburn
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Johnwashburn
Post Number: 173
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
Kurt: An excellent point about NASED not being the Federal Government. This is far better wiggle room than my "the 2002 VVSG are not standards" approach.
I do not think though I have misrepresented the Position of Dr. Shamos. Does this mean differing certification standards were used by different PA examiners? |
Jim March
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 37
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
An update: Shamos says he can't talk about stuff like this due to pending litigation. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 560
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Gotta love the litigation pending excuse, eh?
I believe that differing interpretations of state statute may well ahve been used by Newkirk and Shamos. I'm left wondering why Newkirk did the AVS WinVote certification examination. Did they know Shmos would have a problem with the lack of a NASED number?
Don't get me wrong. The AVS WinVote is a machine I like a lot, personally. Maybe it's because I understood its functions immediately since it really is basically a miniaturized Shouptronic in style of its software. Knowing the Shouptronic as well as I did, the WinVote was "familiar".
But all that's not the point. There is apparently a disagreement among PA examiners / certifiers on the practical need for a NASED number, and that's troubling. Given the language of the statute, it's hardly a huge surprise.
There is a common denominator though. The examiners role is advisory. Ultimately, it's Cortes' call. |
Alan Brau
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Alan_brau
Post Number: 49
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 7:00 am: |
|
It's odd that Shamos cannot discuss the technical aspects of voting machines currently in use in PA, due to "pending litigation".
He is not named in the law suit.
Does he give any other reason for withholding this information? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 564
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 7:37 am: |
|
Alan,
It's a lead pipe cinch that Shamos is on the witness list, and will be deposed because he did most of the examinations. |
Alan Brau
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Alan_brau
Post Number: 50
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 9:10 am: |
|
Kurt,
Why should being a witness in a pending case require that he stop functioning in his professional capacity? Dr. Shamos is the principal consultant for the state of PA for computerized voting machines. There are millions of PA voters who depend on his advice and recommendations.
The law suit might take months or years to resolve. I would hope that he will not remain silent for that long. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 567
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
Alan,
I think you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole. He DIRECTLY gives advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, not millions of PA voters. I know all the arguments about the sovereignty of the people. Yadda, yadda. That's all nice and good for pontificating, and building cool sounding political diatribes, but he has a special obligation in these cases. He has publicly said things of aid, comfort, and support to both sides in a current litigation. He needs to drop back 15 and punt for a while. He is potentially a witness for BOTH sides, depending on what the issues are. |
Jim March
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 44
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 12:34 am: |
|
I think it's disappointing that Shamos feels the need to shut up about this, but...I can accept that for now.
However, once the suit is over, I'd like to do a public records query to PA and see if he reported my materials further up the food chain, or sat on them.
Because his status in any lawsuit damned well should NOT prevent his doing his job, which should include giving notice of something as significant as this CE situation.
----------------------
In other news:
I took a closer look at California law tying the state certification of voting machines to the Federal ITA system. That discussion is buried some distance down at:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/36425.html?1156403896
Find it by searching for the term "19251" (no quotes) - the discussion is in a couple of posts of mine.
The interesting upshot is that it appears a voting system can have a valid NASED number in California and yet be illegal if it doesn't meet the specs in the latest FEC-published performance manual, currently the Voting Systems Standards 2002 edition. Customized CE declared COTS violates said manual bigtime...so does the Accubasic/interpreter mess for that matter. |
Alan Brau
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Alan_brau
Post Number: 51
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 7:44 pm: |
|
"but he has a special obligation in these cases"
-Kurt
To whom? |
Jim March
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 152
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 8:24 pm: |
|
An update after all this time.
The 19202 request has been thus far ignored. I'm going to point it out to that new guy they got over there, wazzizname...oh yeah, LOWELL FINLEY...
 |
State-by-state certification rules
