Diebold reverses their reversal

[BevHarris]

Diebold position reversed (again)
Just got this e-mail from Diebold spokesman Joe Richardson:

"FYI... The following article, which originally contained incorrect information regarding software code used in an election, has since been corrected and updated with additional information. A link to the story is provided for your convenience."

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59874,00.html

At issue: Original story said that Diebold company spokesman Mike Jacobsen “confirmed that the source code Rubin's team examined was last used in November 2002 general elections in Georgia, Maryland and in counties in California and Kansas.”

(Note from Bev: I called and interviewed Louise Witt, who wrote the story. She said she was quite certain of her quote. I asked her if it could have been referring to the touch screens and not the source code. She said she was quite positive it was referring to the code itself.) And now, back to the ever-changing stories:

The new version says: "Diebold spokesmen said the code Rubin downloaded and examined was more than a year old. The code he obtained was "less than 5 percent" of the whole application, they said. In addition, the application Rubin examined "on the whole is not the same" as applications in machines used in elections in places like Georgia and Maryland, said John Kristoff, Diebold's director of communication and investor relations.

Diebold cannot determine whether the lines of code that raised concern for Rubin were used in machines in the field, Kristoff said."

* * * *
Well, now is this really such a mystery? The official NASED-certified versions of the Ballot Station programs are:
4.0.11 and 4.3
Version numbers in the source code examined by Rubin et al:
4.0.11 and 4.3

The records request (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ORA-Request-Georgia.pdf) submitted by the Georgia Libertarian Party may put this issue to rest: They asked the state of Georgia to formally state what version was used in its elections. That number can then be compared to the source code.

A word about the phrase "more than a year old": The November 2002 election is, as of this writing, 9 months old. The software put on this system was installed in June and July 2002, with updates in July, August, September and October. Only certified programs can be used. It takes some time to go through certification. It would be very difficult to use software less than a year old in an election held 9 months ago.

A word about the term "on the whole is not the same": The question is, was the BALLOT STATION software examined by Rubin et. al. the same as the BALLOT STATION software used in the election? It is not relevant what machines ran the code, since the evaluation is based on the source code itself, not the machines. In fact, you can read what source code does without ever putting it on any machine.

This is a yes-no question: Was the Ballot Station version used in the election version 4.0.11 or version 4.3 or a different version altogether? Was it certified? This is an easy question to solve: Version numbers are written into the source code. The version number either matches or it doesn't.

Parsing: "cannot determine whether the lines of code that raised concern for Rubin were used in machines..." is absurd. Machines run on a source code package. If Diebold is claiming that there were two sets of source code which both had the same version numbers in them, they should show evidence of that (and explain how that comports with their claim, as stated in the Georgia sales presentation, that they follow ISO 9000 procedures, which would prohibit parallel sets of code with the same version numbers).

If you believe these statements, you should trust the voting machines:
About the source code on the web: "The code was never used in any election."

About those patches: "We have no indication that that took place"

About connectivity: "The machines are never connected to the Internet."

About Diebold's ftp sites: Those files were old and the site wasn't being used very much.

[alfredo]

1. The more they struggle, the deeper the hook sinks.

Give em hell.

[Generic Other]

2. Isn't this how this company counts votes?

Here one moment, gone the next?

I don't see how activists and whistleblowers can ever win with the money and power companies like Diebold can throw at them. And the people who are in charge of the elections across the country don't want to admit having made errors, so they refuse to even deal with the problems.

One thing I have to wonder, if they brush all this stuff under the carpet and try to pretend Bev Harris never existed, what happens the next time they get some strangely anomalous results? If Diebold machines are involved in any questionable election counts, won't the fact that their methods had been tested be brought up again and again? I mean if all the little old Jewish grannies in Palm Beach elect Buchanan on touch screen, isn't it going to be as suspicious as a Butterfly ballot or hanging chads?

Seems like we'll be challenging vote totals all over the place in 2004. Why doesn't the company wish to correct this problem and get a clean bill of health so to speak?

[BevHarris]

3. LOL -- "is this how they count the votes?"

Now you see it, now you don't.

From the past couple days, my favorite thread titles to save for possible headlines:

"The Devil Went Down to Georgia..."
"Diebold reverses their reversal: Is this how they count the votes?"

[Generic Other]

6. Ooooh

You'll make my head swell!

:)

[Gordon25]

4. People who torture language this way...

... should be drawn and quoted, which I thought you did here rather nicely by the way. :nuke:

In they are this desperate now, I expect in their next press conference, in response to a question from a reporter about whether or not their software is secure, they will respond: "It depends on what the meaning of is is."

Seriously, as a writer all my life, I resent people abusing language that way. Listening to it, or reading it is, for me, like watching a puppy being beaten. Anyone guilty of such language abuse in public discourse should be sentenced to conduct all future public discourse in pig latin. :evilgrin:

Gordon25

[4dog]

5. minor correction...

"machines run on a source code package" - the source code is compiled to make the executable code. This does not change anything, just trying to contribute something more than a plain vanilla kick.

[shirlden]

7. A kick for Bev

n/t :kick:

[RedEagle]

8. A reversal of a reversal...

... isn't this getting to be a little like Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First?"

You'd think a record of Diebold's discourse on thier product would be enough to turn any potential client off.

Kick