Why I don't think Diebold is criminally negligable

[ShaneGR]

First off, I want to give props to Bev Harris and her game for uncoverning the whole of the software problems involving Diebold machines. Excellent work on your part and I'm sure, with further pressure, Diebold will be forced to fully fix these problems.

But, I simply don't feel the overall conspiracy theory of massive voter fraud has been even close to proven. As of now, I've seen barely any investigative work into who owns Diebold, who designed the software, and the relationship their salespeople have with election officials. In light of that, I have a hard time believing this has anything to do with anything more than ignorant programmers who don't fully understand elections.

Thoughts?

[Rose Siding]

1. If you're really interested

here are articles that address some of the issues you haven't seen-

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=Stories_Archive&sa=show_all

[punpirate]

2. I don't think there have been...

... charges of criminal negligence from people here, yet. I assume that's what you mean by "negligable."

There are still a bunch of details to explore, as you say, but most of those depend on information which is not in the public record or in the public domain. There are limits to what can be done through the web, or in interviews with interested parties.

But, getting state and local election officials off the dime may produce more information, and, let's face it--there _have been_ some very screwy election results when these machines have been used to count the votes. Determining if fraud was involved in them is another matter, and is going to depend greatly on whether or not local and state prosecutors have enough evidence to launch an investigation.

The important thing, right now, is to bring as much sunlight to the electronic voting machine issue as is possible. The more people know about it, the better.

Cheers.

[1monster]

3. What is not to understand about elections?

When backdoors are built in that allow just about anyone who can get his/her hands on the code to change data, then that is not just a programmer error.

Data should not be able to be changed by anyone, not high elections officials, not some internet hacker...

There should have been fail safes built into the programs. AND a verifiable paper trail/point of service verification that could be back checked in the case of computer glitches.

Not thinking to put those into the program might be programmer error or just plain thoughtlessness. (Maybe) Writing the software so that anyone with a code can change data after the fact is not an error or an accident.

[Walt Starr]

4. Of course not

Even if there is absolute proof that Saxby Chambliss was elected via voter fraud through Diebold machines, it does not indicate criminal liability becasue stealing an election for a Republican is no longer a crime in this country, it's mandatory.

[DrBB]

5. That would be "negligent"?

Hm. Confusing title. And more confusing comment:

I simply don't feel the overall conspiracy theory of massive voter fraud has been even close to proven.

But that's a whole separate question--whether fraud has actually occured certainly remains to be proven. But the fact that their software is, professionally speaking, complete amateur shit that never should have been certified--i.e., they have been "negligent"--I think is almost beyond question at this point. None of their defenses hold up against that one.

[lcordero]

6. I think differently because---

I do not trust this mis-administration under any circumstances. 94,000 people got robbed in the last election so our elections were underminded. Every action that has been done is meant to abuse the people. The people have been abused with the Patriot Act, the creation of Homeland Security, with a mugging and raping of two nations based on lies, with less education for their children, I can go on and on.
The diebold machine was meant to be abused from the get-go.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sam sarrha]

14. in the last election uncertified programmer patched , with an uncertified

patch ...reprogramed over 80,000 voting machines "just before" the election. there was no copy of the patch to be investigated later. senator Hagel used machines that counted 80% of his votes in last 2 elections, one in which he won over an Immensely popular war hero. he happens to hold significant investment in the company and i believe was the CEO of the soft ware company for those machines.. he also failed to adequately report that to the ethics committee.. but it was OK.... surf, 'senator hagel voting machines' for the details.

[ShaneGR]

15. Got a problem?

I'm simply saying that just because the programmers were dumb doesn't mean they purposely rigged elections.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enraged_Ape]

8. I don't think Diebold is criminally negligable either

I actually think that they are criminally substantial, and I suspect that they are substantially criminal as well.

[The Night Owl]

10. Heh...

That was punny!

:)

[The Night Owl]

9. Actually...

As far as I know, no one in the know is charging that Diebold conspired to commit "massive voter fraud". Even so, my understanding of the law tells me that Diebold could be charged with fraud if they knowingly sold systems that do not work as advertised and/or are not as secure as advertised.

As to Diebold fixing the problems with their machines, everything I have read so far indicates that the security problems with their software are probably not fixable.

BBV experts, correct me if I am wrong.

[meow2u3]

11. The real reason no one is charging Diebold with conspiracy

Those in the know are in cahoots with Diebold, and allegedly are part and parcel of the conspiracy to commit nationwide grand-scale election fraud, so Repukes can appear to "win by a landslide."

The true intent of the voters would never be determined because of black box election fraud.

[sam sarrha]

13. Do you mean people like Senator Hagel??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

surf. 'senator Hagel voting machines' ..watch out for the rip tide..

[punpirate]

17. Their fallback position will be...

... that both the hardware and software was certified by independent testing agencies authorized by the association of state election officials. And, that's a whole `nother issue.

Cheers.

[Rose Siding]

18. You mean if they admitted they knew the system had "kinks"?

like this:

Representatives from Diebold, which sells both systems, told the council that Boston was better off with the optical scanners. John Silvestro, president of the company, said the optical scanning system reduces lines at polling places and helps preserve the integrity of elections by leaving a paper "audit trail." He also said the touch-screen system would cost the city about six times as much money, and that companies like his are still working the kinks out of the touch-screen machines, a newer technology.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/214/metro/Menino_OK_s_new_voting_machines+.shtml

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BevHarris]

19. So it's all over and you have pronounced the score, is that it?

"for uncoverning the whole of the software problems involving Diebold machines."

Read the Hopkins report. They uncovered -- what -- 27 serious flaws and they wrote that they have only examined a tiny portion of the files. There is much more to come. In no way have "the whole of the software problems" been exposed, even now, but what has been exposed demonstrates that FEC standards have been violated about half a dozen ways and that the machines should be decertified until the problems are corrected.

Diebold will be forced to fully fix these problems.
Since these problems got through our (extremely flawed) certification process, 1) we must insist that after Diebold corrects each problem, they submit it for public scrutiny and not just rely on the same old certifiers and 2) What evidence do we have that they ever fixed the problems or recertified even using the flawed certification process?

Also, Diebold must be asked to explain:
1) Why they lied to certifiers about using Windows "off the shelf" without changes, when they changed the Windows source code
2) Why they lied to the public about remote access, when their own manuals detail Internet connections and drawings of the connection of GEMS to the web server, with instructions in the manual to set web updates to every 5 minutes, every 10 minutes, or whatever is desired

Diebold should also be required to put in a voter-verified paper trail now, since they have to revamp the system anyway.

I have a hard time believing this has anything to do with anything more than ignorant programmers who don't fully understand elections.

There is nothing accidental about putting in a triple set of books. Disabling the security functions on the audit log is not "ignorant." The terms "reckless" and "gross negligence" would better describe it. Failing to correct known security flaws for half a decade (as per voting examiner Dr. Doug Jones) is not "ignorant" it is more aptly termed "decertifiable."

Diebold is not 10 percent through the scrutiny that's coming, and you haven't heard it all yet.

This is a drip-drip story, with each step painstakingly researched. I find it very interesting that people are coming forth on DU this weekend to declare the story "over" and pronounce its limitations based on three weeks worth of news stories.

All I know is, I spend several hours a day in interviews with news media who are doing new investigative pieces, and I spend more hours with programmers who are examining the remote access functions with a fine-toothed comb. There is more to come, from all quarters.

Bev Harris

[DEMActivist]

20. Take the "Defend Diebold's Admissions" Challenge

Why is it that all the detractors can't take "Bev" and "paranoid" and "publicity stunt" out of their posts and deal with the FACTS as presented by Diebold???????

on edit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=120832&mesg_id=120832