Study Raises Concerns as States Rush to Buy Electronic Voting Machines

[kainah]

Study raises concerns as states rush to buy electronic voting machines
BY ERIKA D. SMITH
Akron Beacon Journal

AKRON, Ohio - It was just an obscure Internet portal tucked in one corner of the Web. With a black background and blue writing, it wasn't much to look at - on the surface anyway.

Truth is, the Global Election Systems' Web site was a Pandora's box of controversy just waiting to happen. And it did happen - exposing Global's new owner, Green, Ohio-based Diebold Inc., to a new level of scrutiny. Now Diebold, and perhaps the whole electronic-voting industry, could pay the price.

And it all started with a simple Web site.

That site, which Diebold took over with Global in 2002, contained thousands of sensitive files on the hardware and proprietary software of Diebold's touch-screen voting system, said Bev Harris, a publicist turned e-voting opponent.

snip...

But Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell has said he won't select just one vendor. "The Johns Hopkins study raises questions that need answers, not just from Diebold, but from all electronic-voting vendors," he said.

Blackwell had planned to announce his selection on Friday, but a judge issued a temporary restraining order after Sequoia Voting Systems charged that Ohio had unfairly eliminated the company from the selection process.

more....

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6545045.htm

Yeah, Bev!!!

[ibegurpard]

1. Excellent!

:toast:

[kentuck]

2. Wow ! Is the word finally getting out !

Thanks Bev ! :)

[Bushfire]

3. Good find

but I was not happy to see Doug Lewis get the last word:

"Should Americans trust the results of federal-level tests on voting systems?

With critics like Dill and Rubin, that's easy to answer, said Doug Lewis, executive director of the Federal Election Commission.

"They want their view to win out, no matter if its fact or fiction," he said.

For legislators and voters, Lewis is a bit more hopeful. "At some point in this society, you have to trust the institutions that are in charge of it," he said."

A lot of in depth stuff was printed though, but if no paper trail exists there will always people who don't trust the machines & people like Doug Lewis.

[kainah]

4. Yes, but remember

Most people only read the first few paragraphs of a news story. So the fact that they put Bev up front and Doug Lewis at the end is actually the placement we want! To be "fair and balanced" (don't sue me, Faux!) you should include both sides.

[Bushfire]

5. I'll take your word for it

as I'm not a journalism student. I don't even like Doug Lewis even being quoted unless he is willing to answer questions from people on this board. He's slime, and hiding more than he is telling.

[DrBB]

6. Here's what I don't get

Anyone associated with Diebold or with state gov'ts that have spent millions on a Diebold system has a deep and abiding stake in saying the systems are sound.

Avi Rubin, on the other hand, has absolutely no stake in it one way or the other. If it was secure, he'd say so. He has every incentive to tell the truth and only the flimsiest of incentives to exaggerate or mislead. His professional reputation--his most valuable asset--is basically all he's staking here, and it depends on his findings being verified by other professionals of his caliber or better.

Yet somehow, according to this Doug Lewis item, we're supposed to nod our heads and say, oh yeah, those damn intellectuals, can't trust 'em. And we ARE supposed to trust, instead, the people who have an enormous stake, financial and otherwise, in saying the machines are sound even if they're swiss cheese.

This pattern gets repeated again and again--it's not just e-voting--it's global warming, energy policy, conservation, whatever. I mean sometimes, yeah, scientists are out to make a name for themselves, but by and large they get nowhere if they go out on a limb on something and their peers--who are also interested in making a name--call them on it. There just really is no percentage in it, and no reason whatever not to believe that these guys are simply calling it as they see it.

But Lewis utters this smarmy, self-satisfied guck with every confidence that Right Minded People will nod soberly and say, Yup, that's the way it is with these darned academics, ya just can't trust 'em. And the appalling thing is, his confidence is probably justified.

edit: dropped a clause

[kainah]

7. oh, you must be one of those people who doesn't understand about

pointy-headed intellectuals..... And the elites who are trying to ruin this country. </sarcasm>

That's a perennial problem with me, trying to understand how the mindset of the right-wing works. I get hung up on why people think the best people to run government are those who hate government. :shrug:

[Eloriel]

8. MY GOD -- he has nothing whatsoever to do with the FEC - what a horrid

error. He's Exec Dir of the self-styled, home-grown Election Center, headquartered in Houston. Bev will have a cat.

Eloriel

[mightywurlitzer]

9. kick

[leftchick]

10. I am glad at least some SoSs are taking this seriously....

Elaine Marshal in NC has yet to answer any of my emails or letters.. :grr:

[ixion]

11. IMO, Bev is NOT an e-voting opponent

that sounds like spin. Bev has always advocating an auditable voting trail, not a ban on e-voting. :eyes: