U.S. Bars Lab From Testing Electronic Voting

[cal04]

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.

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

[Canuckistanian]

1. Not sure what to make of this

What is the Election Assistance Commission? Is it truly an independent body?

And the fact that this took place almost 6 months ago is strange.

Still, anything that casts doubt on Black Boxes is a good thing.

[VegasWolf]

2. Fantastic!! Glad they nailed these assholes! Watch the Showtime special "Hacking Democracy". nt

[midnight]

3. This is another reason to have paper ballots.

Easier to recount, and cheaper is the rumor I hear. I wish I could give credit to the person who brought that info. to DU., but I have not developed a system for saving good stuff yet.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. ITA's independence was called into question years ago

Now, almost four years later, they say what we were saying in 2003.

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.

[hvn_nbr_2]

5. One key phrase from the part of the article that you quoted:

longstanding worries about lax inspections in the secretive world of voting-machine testing
A tell-tale sign that the NYT has changed its mind on e-voting. Big media don't refer to the "secretive world" of anything they're pushing.

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. It's getting better and better, isn't it? Give me those heart pills, quick!

[TrogL]

7. U.S. Bars Lab From Testing Electronic Voting

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/washington/04voting.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

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.

Kewl!

[IndianaGreen]

8. We should switch to paper ballots!

If it is electronic, it can be hacked!

[ashling]

10. But what about that paper eating bacteria

over on the science board?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x26221

Damned if you do , and ... well, just plain damned!

[Double T]

9. The 'old' lever voting machines in NY work just fine..........

Why would the state government piss away $200 million+ to replace something that works just fine with something that is questionable at best, specially when NY State is running a deficit????

[cap]

11. This is good news folks: Ciber is part of the R. Doug Lewis cabal

I knew the name sounded familiar. This part of the black box voting machine mess.

The Election Center, run by an individual named R. Doug Lewis, also organized and trains state election officials, and, through NASED (National Association of State Election Directors) selects the certifiers of the voting machine.

Ciber is one of a series of four software certifiers for voting machines, each of whom dropped certification duties after a short time, each of whom hired Shawn Southworth to do the certification. Who chose Shawn Southworth? NASED, under the guidance of R. Doug Lewis.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a background check on Shawn?

[Peace Patriot]

12. This is OUTRAGEOUS! The Bush-appointed EAC SHUT DOWN one of the

main secret industry "testers" of electronic voting machines LAST SUMMER--just prior to the mostly hotly contested Congressional elections in our history, and DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY--and are only revealing it now--that is, CONFIRMING it, "in recent interviews." Meaning what? Somebody got the goods on them and they were forced to fess up?

And how many of those questionably "tested" machines, without "quality controls," were used in the '06 elections? And what is the relationship between those voting machines and Democrats--especially antiwar Democrats--who lost, despite polls saying they were winning? Hm? TruthIsAll says we should have won 40-50 seats, not just 30. (See www.TruthIsAll.net.) We know of at least one--FL-13--that was egregiously wrong, with the Repub worm "winning" by 300 or so votes, with EIGHTEEN THOUSAND VOTES 'disappeared' by the rightwing nutballs at ES&S. How many other races--closer, not so dramatic--were thrown to Bushites and warmongers?

And why won't ES&S disclose its software in FL-13? And who is this judge (Gary) who said they didn't have to--that this corporation's "right" to TRADE SECRET vote counting trumps the rights of 18,000 voters? And why wasn't this "flaw" in ES&S's software CAUGHT PRIOR TO the election? Were THESE machines among those that Ciber Inc. failed to "test" properly?

Jeez, this abiding SECRECY is driving me crazy--and it is more than likely destroying our democracy!

NO. MORE. SECRECY. ANYWHERE. IN. OUR. ELECTION. SYSTEM!

Throw Diebold, ES&S and all election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW! --and the EAC with them! --and the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" of 2002! Throw it all out and start over!

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

Some of today's DU threads on these outrages...

(on this NYT article) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x463798

(see OP and post #4) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x463815

(from Christine Jennings--FL-13) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3040884 (She needs donations to continue this struggle!)