Election Supervisor Issues Hopkins Heroes A Diebold Challenge

[althecat]

This was an idea suggested a few days ago in the forum here... seems like someone was listening. It is a daft idea... but still interesting....

http://216.15.229.16/news/full_story.cfm?story_id=14394

Thursday, July 31, 2003
Davis confident in voting process
Administrator challenges report on machines

James Rada
Times-News Staffwriter

CUMBERLAND — Here’s an open offer from Allegany County Elections Administrator Kitty Davis to Aviel Rubin, the lead researcher of a Johns Hopkins University study that found “significant security flaws” in the electronic voting system being used by the county.

“I would challenge him to come and try any of the things he said could be done on my machines and us not be able to tell something is wrong. We wouldn’t even need to do all the checks with the election judges,” said Davis.

The report released last week accused the Diebold electronic voting system of a variety of problems including: no verifiable audit trail, being vulnerable to manipulation from a group or foreign government, susceptible to use of bogus voter access cards and ballot alterations by poll workers.

“To the best of my knowledge, you could probably manipulate any system. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done. I’m just saying it couldn’t go undetected. I’m not saying I’m confident in the system, but I am confident in the process,” said Davis.

Diebold posted a company response to the report saying the software was “analyzed while it was running on a device on which it was never intended to run, on an operating system for which it was not designed, and with minimal knowledge of the overall structures and processes in which the terminal software is embedded.”

The findings were based on a July study of the computer code used in the voting system. The code was posted anonymously on the Internet earlier this year.

[w4rma]

1. Some people are such idiots

:eyes:

[ShaneGR]

10. Why? I think this is a good thing

Don't see anything wrong with challenging the findings and actually allowing someone to come and try to do it. In fact, I think it's great.

[arcos]

2. Will he accept? n/t

[Junkdrawer]

3. The problem is always how does Rubin know the version he...

examined (and the version probably used in the last election) is the version on the challenge machine. eg: Diebold fixes the holes, puts the new version on a machine, and then swears that's the version used in the last election.

[dmr]

8. I was just going to post the same thing

It would be best if they could pull a county name out of a hat. This would avoid the appearance of a 'set-up'. Am I too suspicious?

[revcarol]

4. Check me here..Supervisor says this would not go

UNDETECTED, but what good would detecting do after the fact. The election would be over, and one would never know if all the fiddling was detected, just the obvious...

[revcarol]

5. And further, is the supervisor saying that any and all

machines would be re-examined after they had been certified, and that any and all manipulations would be discovered BEFORE the election?

[sendero]

6. exactly...

... as if we trust *her*.

What a bullsh*t challenge.

[jagguy]

11. this is critical to election folks

they are or at least should not be totally confident of any system as any system can be rigged. It is their job to have safeguards around the system that insure that they can detect any tampering. If it's found they can invalidate the entire election and do it again. It's this threat that is intended to make fraud not worth the effort.

[ShimokitaJer]

7. election count irregularities

Do they mean the tampering will be detected like all the evidence of election result irregularities Bev has been gathering? I think the strength of the argument against these machines is that it has uncovered both flaws in the system and evidence of flaws in the process. Florida and Georgia give plenty of evidence that the process demands greater accountability, which these machines can not provide. Of course, all Diebold cares about is protecting Diebold, but I think we can use their defense of the process as an argument for reform of both the machines and the process... which is all we really wanted in the first place.

[RedEagle]

9. Sworn Statements...

....gee, could you get this official and Diebold to both swear, under oath, signed, witnessed statements, the whole nine yards, that those machines have the indentical code Rubin looked at?

The challenge is only valid if the code is identical. What this official is trying to imply is that inspite of the bad code and bad security, it's secure. (?)

Rubin and gang have to look at the code- all of it, before this challenge could have any validity.

Otherwise, yep, looks like a set-up.

Make'em sign paper and be responsible to the extent it will cost them something if they rigged it or Rubin and gang prove it's not secure. Have some forensic expert go over the machine, with officials and Rubin present, to detect any tampering/changes since the Diebold fiasco hit the fans.

If they won't agree to that, you know something's up.

Never let them dictate the conditions and rules. ;)

[tomp]

12. i would like the reaearcher to address the challenge.

they don't have to accept it, but a response would be nice, to put them in their place.

[DagmarK]

13. Up the ante! Let Rubin go to Diebold and check EVERYTHING!!!!!

Period. End of story. Diebold can open their doors to experts.....or they can't be trusted.

Or better yet......let's create a panel of experts in this country, include a few UN election oversight dudes, and a few people from the US Justice Dept (egad!~) And just take a real good look at what Diebold is feeding democracy!