Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 7-29-2005: Mississippi, listen up: Ca... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 9:11 am: | 
|
Mississippi is on a mad tear to buy Diebold. Secretary of state Eric Clark is cramming no-paper-trail Diebold TSx machines down the throats of Mississippi county clerks, who, it appears, will have to go to court to see the contract for their own expenditure. Civil rights groups like the Mississippi NAACP are alarmed by the decision for a statewide buy on the Diebold TSx touch-screen.
From today's paper: "State rejects e-voting system - Counties scramble to replace Diebold machines" The state is California and the e-voting system is the Diebold TSx.
"There was a failure rate of about 10 percent, and that's not good enough for the voters of California and not good enough for me," said California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.
The California news article is linked downstream in this article. For Mississippi, here is a synopsis of four questions submitted on July 26 to Mississippi Asst. Secretary of State for Elections, John W. Eads by BBV investigator Kathleen Wynne.
Questions To Secretary of State’s Office In Connection With Impending Purchase of Diebold Touchscreen Voting Machines
1. It has been reported to Black Box Voting that Secretary of State Eric Clark has been claiming to election officials throughout the State of Mississippi that it is not possible to “hack” into the Diebold Touchscreens. Is this true? If not, please clarify what, if anything, Secretary Clark is claiming about the security of these voting machines to election officials and to the citizens of Mississippi.
2. It has been reported to Black Box Voting that when election officials ask tough questions to Diebold or to Secretary of State Clark, or his representatives, they are “scorned” by both the Diebold and the Secretary State’s Office. Is this true? If not, could you please clarify what kind of response election officials are receiving, or should be receiving?
3. Have all election officials been given a copy of the contract? Does this contract also include the Service Contract conditions? If not, when will election officials receive a copy of said contract for their review and consideration?
4. It has been reported to Black Box Voting that Secretary Clark has assured election officials that if they are sued, they are not to be concerned, as the State will pay the legal fees involved in such a lawsuit. Is this true? If not, will the State assist the counties in any capacity, if they are ever sued, and under what conditions?
=========================================
Note that OHIO is also on the Diebold TSx bandwagon. Ohio activists: Now is the time to ask some tough questions of Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and Cuyahoga County -- your elections board is hot to trot over the TSx, so ask them why it's good enough for Cleveland when it's NOT good enough for California.
=========================================
More on California decision
http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_2898218
By Ian Hoffman, Oakland Tribune:
State rejects e-voting system
Counties scramble to replace Diebold machines
After possibly the most extensive testing ever on a voting system, California has rejected Diebold's flagship electronic voting machine because of printer jams and screen freezes, sending local elections officials scrambling for other means of voting.
"There was a failure rate of about 10 percent, and that's not good enough for the voters of California and not good enough for me," said Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.
If the machines had been used in an actual election, the result could have been frustrated poll workers and long lines for thousands of voters, said elections officials and voter advocates on Thursday.
"We certainly can't take any kind of risk like that with this kind of device on California voters," McPherson said.
Rejection of the TSx by California, the nation's largest voting system market, could influence local elections officials from Utah to Mississippi and Ohio, home of Diebold corporate headquarters, where dozens of counties are poised to purchase the latest Diebold touchscreen.
State elections officials in Ohio say they still have confidence in the machines.
"Absolutely," said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for the Ohio Secretary of State's Office.
But McPherson's decision did send California counties from San Diego to Alameda to Humboldt hunting for potential alternatives to their plans to use the TSx...
Yes, it is a muddle. Black Box Voting has called for a moratorium on new spending on voting machines. The national "Independent Testing Authority" (ITA) certification system has proven to be a joke, and the machines are proving out to exhibit one flaw after the next.
What's needed to enforce the moratorium on new spending: Extend the HAVA deadline until AFTER the 2006 elections.
Black Box Voting has been providing armloads of ammunition for voting integrity advocates. Here's something we posted last night that you can make good use of:
"The Diebold excuses" - internal documents showing the "talking points" they keep coming up with when their products keep showing up as demonstrably deficient.
Download the original "damage control" Diebold planning documents here: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/8580.html
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and thinking you'll get a different result. The above documents are from a year ago. Nothing has changed with this company. Diebold started asking for "another 30 days" back in 2003! And now -- in 2005 -- again, they are asking for "another 30 days."
What Diebold wants is to run out the clock on HAVA implementation -- put election officials' backs against the wall to hurry up and buy. It's a classic sales trick. Impose a deadline. HAVA is like the K-Mart "blue light special" to urge election system shoppers to hurry over to aisle 6. It's time to put the brakes on this.
HAVA was lobbied in by industry groups trying to create -- in their own words! -- profit opportunities.
Many activists here have been asking "What should I do?"
1. Call for an extension of at least one year to the HAVA deadlines. These machines, and the certification system, and the procurement process, have proven to be far too buggy to risk the 2006 mid-term election on them!
2. Call for independent testing of the Diebold system everywhere it is used.
3. Call for the same independent testing of the other vendors: ES&S, Sequoia, Hart Intercivic, Populex (applying for certification in Wisconsin right now), and AccuPoll.
4. Be the media. Provide a steady stream of documentation to the media, but more importantly, to everyone you know and to your lists and groups. FOCUS ON DOCUMENTS, NAMES, VIDEOTAPES, MAINSTREAM NEWS ARTICLES AND COURT FILINGS/DECISIONS. The difference between non-credible Internet stories and real journalism is using real documents, real names, real video footage. Avoid sites where "reporters" use only screen names. To "Be the Media" effectively, be credible. (You can use any of the documents or videotapes in the BBV Document Archive to make your case).
5. We encourage activism under your own real name. This lends credibility to the movement. If you are brave enough, advocate for election reform online and in e-mails under your own name. (If you would like to change your screen name into your own real name here, e-mail Bev@blackboxvoting.org to arrange it). This is a fight that will require courage. We should step up to the challenge by putting our own real names and faces on it whenever possible.
6. Mississippi officials and media: STOP IT COLD until you see the contract. Step 1: See the contract. Refuse to go to Step 2 until you have Step 1.
Election reform is not a spectator sport. If you aren't out in the field yet, suit up and get out there.
ANNOUNCEMENT: "THINK OUTSIDE THE BLACK BOX" THINK TANK
Black Box Voting is hosting an online think tank to brainstorm and implement "DELAY HAVA" actions. We are hosting it online so that activists do not need to invest travel expenditures, and also so that European and other foreign election integrity activists can weigh in, without worrying about time differences. It will be held for nine days, encompassing two consecutive weekends.
"Think Outside the Black Box" Think Tank I:
Date: Aug 27 through Sept. 5
Time: Available online 24 hours a day
Place: BlackBoxVoting.org -- Hitting the home page at any time from Aug. 27 through Sept. 5 will guide you into the Think Tank.
Purpose: Brainstorm, identify and launch actions to delay HAVA.
Who's invited: Everyone. Groups, activists, officials, experts, regular people.
We've been saying for a long time that it's time to involve THE PEOPLE in this concept of "We, the People." That means making it easy (any time of day), cheap (online), and inclusive.
Spread the word. Delay HAVA implementation until Jan. 2007. Think outside the Black Box.
|
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 101
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Kathleen, how is it that Diebold is allowed to keep asking for '30 days'? What laws govern this?
And here in San Diego, there is still the issue of the optical scan machines, procedures not being followed,etc. Can't stop now.
And who was doing the testing and why wan't it public? Good result(so far) but.....
(Message edited by ubetchaiam on July 29, 2005) |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Yes, yes yes. Ubetcha, I'm also worried about the politician's trick of giving with one hand while taking away with the other. In this case, giving us the decertification and taking away by doing some other damn fool thing.
There are actions we can take with this decision, though. We need to grab the ball and run with it.
This, and the Harri Hursti report, are solid examples of why we need to roll back HAVA purchasing (and take a whole bunch of other steps, like the grand jury actions you're instigating in San Diego.)
-- Bev |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 105
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
And something that isn't being mentioned is yours,Jim's,mine,and who know whose else request of McPherson to 'examine the machines'. Guess he met those requests, and I want to thank Jim and Bev,et al for leading the way.
From Bev -- Actually, he has not met the requests at all. He is not supposed to secretly conduct the tests requested by citizens, and his office indicated to Jim March that we would be allowed to come to the testing. It was supposed to happen mid-July, then we never heard any more about it. Needs a follow up, but I hear that Jim's a little busy at the moment.
|
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 108
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Simply put, the more code you have, the greater the ease by which it can be 'attacked'.
This is microsoft's problem; windows,et al has MILLIONS of lines of code and the time necessary to regression test all of the code is not consistent with 'getting a product out the door'. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
"the more code you have, the greater the ease by which it can be 'attacked'."
Yes. My father is a physicist, and though he knows very little about computer programming, he identified the fundamental problem with all forms of electronic voting machines early on -- each time you add a layer of complexity, you add both failure points and attack points. As you layer one level of complexity on the next, the number of failure/attack points doesn't increase linearly, they increase exponentially.
For those who don't care for math...
linear growth: 1,2,3,4,5,6
exponential growth: 1,2,4,16,256,65536
-- Bev |
johngideon
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: johngideon
Post Number: 95
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 7:35 pm: |
|
What is truly bothersome about this whole affair is that this is a system that was just federally qualified. I sent the following letter to the EAC, Brian Hancock, and the US Senators from Mississippi and Utah:
http://www.fresnobee.com/state_wire/story/10989235p-11753934c.html
This article is strikingly amazing in that it points out how bad a particular voting system (Diebold TSx 1.18.22) performed during certification testing in a state (California). This exact same voting system has been purchased by the state of Mississippi and is being forced on it's counties. This is probably the exact same voting system that is to be purchased by the state of Utah.
The one question on everyone's lips is; "How did this system get qualified?" The idea of the ITA qualification system should be to ensure that any voting system being sold to states and/or counties is accurate and works as it is supposed to. It is apparent that the ITA qualification system failed miserably in the case of this voting system. 96 machines were tested with a 10% failure rate. That is miserable results.
If this voting system is an exemplar for voting systems that have been ITA qualified and are being used across the country then we should all be very concerned. There is a problem that needs to be fixed and it needs to be fixed as soon as possible for the good of our democratic process.
(Copies sent to Senator's Cochran, Lott, Bennett, and Hatch via other means)
Information Manager, VotersUnite.org
|
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
John,
Ever since we interviewed Dr. Doug Jones in June, we've been warning people that the certification process was bogus. Ergo, the machines were too.
In that interview, Dr. Jones confirmed that the ITA and NASED were not qualified to test the security of any of these machines. That information alone should have raised people's ire against the certification process as a whole. Dr. Jones also said that the failure to properly test these machines was due to either ignorance or negligence on the certifier's part, which explains how these machines have been getting a passing grade (free pass is more like it) from the get-go.
This is why BBV has been calling for a moratorium on all new spending on voting systems, as well as an extension of the HAVA requirements until after the 2006 election.
Besides, according to Harri Hursti, even if the vendors agreed to pay the costs and "fix" the machines, it would be timely, because they would have to re-program and re-engineer the entire architecture of the software AND it would be a whole diffent ball game this time around, before we would allow these machines to count our votes -- if ever again.
So, what do we do in the meantime? I certainly don't want to continue to use these flawed machines.
Besides, election supervisors are starting to openly express their concerns about the reliability and accuracy of these machines and are asking for a delay too. I think they would support any efforts we make in obtaining a delay and might even be ready to think outside the black box in coming up with a solution.
Kathleen Wynne |
johngideon
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: johngideon
Post Number: 97
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Well, more to the story today.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_2909663
The original report of the testing was under-reported. Now they are reporting nearly 20% failure rate and changing the emphasis from the printer to "crashes". 19 machines had 21 blue screen crashes with error messages. 10 machines had 11 printer jams. One third of the machines had a problem. That's on a total of 96 machines tested. These results led to the following email to the EAC who did not respond to my first email.
To: HAVAinfo@eac.gov, bhancock@eac.gov, jlayson@eac.gov
Subject: California Test Failure Rate Twice Original Report
Today's news brings the word that the results of the California mock election/test of the Diebold TSx v. 1.18.22 w/vvpat printer were nearly twice what was reported last week. Also, the report changed the poor results from an emphasis on paper jams to an emphasis on "crashes".
This is an unbelievable revelation. These machines went through weeks of Independent Test Authority testing. The testing and paper work were reviewed by your panel of experts and yet, one in five machines crashed in a mock election.
I ask again, because I was not given the courtesy of a response to my first query; "How did this system get certified?". How can any voter feel comfortable using a voting machine that has the assurance of NASED and the EAC?
The ITA test system must be the "Good Housekeeping" of elections systems. We, the voter, must feel comfortable, when we go to the polls, that the machines we use for elections are going to work properly. It is apparent that we cannot rely on the present system if it fails as badly as this failure. The state of Mississippi has contracted with Diebold for these same machines. The state of Utah is planning on using these same machines. The state of Ohio is doing the same. These machines need to be recalled and states need to be warned not to buy them until the problems are fixed and they have been re-qualified.
I, and many others, look forward to hearing an answer to these questions.
Information Manager, VotersUnite.org
|
linda_franz
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: linda_franz
Post Number: 158
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
What bothers me more than the machines breaking down is that it's a separate issue from the machines not counting properly.
I don't want them just fixed to not break down.
We want accurate, open, human verifiable vote counting. Which goes beyond the voter verified paper ballot. |
johngideon
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: johngideon
Post Number: 98
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Well, Linda, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson may have helped everyone this afternoon.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=1623
"McPherson Toughens Up On Voting Machine Makers"
Note the new requirements. These are the toughest of any state:
Manufacturers of voting systems who want to do business in California are also required to ensure the following:
1) All systems certified by the Secretary of State’s Office shall comply with the standards and requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) [Public Law 107-22, 106th Congress], including all requirements, standards and regulations promulgated pursuant to authority derived from HAVA, as well as complying with all other applicable requirements and standards explicit in federal and state laws, and any requirements, standards and regulations deriving authority from federal and state laws.
2) Vendors applying for certification shall be required to affirmatively state and all voting system certification documents shall include the representation that the voting system complies with all applicable standards and requirements as provided for in 1.
3) Vendors applying for certification shall be responsible for the cost of any modifications, upgrades or improvements to a voting system represented as complying with the requirements as provided for in 1 in the event that the system is found to be out of compliance or otherwise inconsistent with any representation to the Secretary of State and counties.
4) HAVA funds or other state funds allocated to counties and used as payment to vendors for voting systems are for the purpose of purchasing voting systems, and necessary goods and services to deploy such voting systems, that comply with the requirements as provided for in 1.
Information Manager, VotersUnite.org
|
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 122
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
This is good BUT what about the systems that are already 'certified'? Is this to mean that those machines already 'certified' must now go back thru the ITA process to be certified to 2002 HAVA standards? |
well_win
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: well_win
Post Number: 5
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Very reassuring. California's last Secratry of State, an outspoken oppnent of fraud was forced to retire for refusing to spend HAVA funds for fraudualent machines. When Herr Groppennegger hired a replacement, I thought he'd ram Diebold where the sun doesn't shine. 54 honest electoral votes is a big victory. A few more scams in Misssippi, and even they'll wake up. |
johngideon
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: johngideon
Post Number: 107
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
I just got the test results from the test of the TSx GEMS 1.18.22 firmware v. 4.6.1. They tested a single machine. The printer worked so well that they had to hold it together with tape to keep the take-up canister from jumping off of the printer. The resulting problems caused loss of vvpat. The tape did not work so the finally had to have someone stand and hold it in place. This is why that machine was rejected and is what led to the mock-election with the 96 machines.
Information Manager, VotersUnite.org
|
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1279
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
READ THIS ONE, folks! Above is the machine that Mississippi forced county clerks to buy. Now, let's do the math on the taxpayer money gambled on this: 4,000 units x approx $2500 each (grabbing rough #s out of my head; more precise figures in this thread).
It's the "Price is Wrong" show -- who can guess the answer as to how deeply the taxpayers of America are getting gouged on this one?
-- Bev |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 506
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Bev,
I'm missing something. 4000 units @ $2500 = $10,000,000
Did Mississippi officials claim the total was going to be less? (Sorry I can't remember enough specifics from all the threads here. I looked at the other thread you mentioned but not closely enough or I must have missed something.)
Or was your point that this is $10,000,000 down the drain for crapola machines that don't work (except of course they're possibly great for rigging election results--especially since those printers are so "top-notch" that they fall apart on their own, fall apart when held together by tape, and can only stay together if a human being holds it together)?
I wasn't sure if your point was about a price being misrepresented or the fact that the whole thing is a big scam, or both.
(Message edited by catherine_a on August 13, 2005) |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 8:15 pm: |
|
$10,000,000 -- or whatever, most of the contract is a "secret" -- down the drain for crapola machines that don't work.
Yup. |
|
|
