BBV: Why are they afraid to provide the certification results?

[Andy_Stephenson]

Today I called Wylie, Ciber and Systest trying to obtain information retgarding the election software and machine certifications. At all three I was given the runaround but finally had confirmation that I should talk with Mr R. Doug Lewis. Seeing as how I had his cell phone number and a few minutes to burn I called him. I told Mr Lewis who I was and that I would appreciate any information he could give me regarding the certification process and if possible a page or two containg the information. Well, Mr Lewis said "I can't hear you...reception is bad...call me back" this was a load of crap! His signal was strong if it had been bad his voice would have been breaking up. I know mine is strong...I have a cell site literally on top of me here. So the question is...are the machines certified or not? At this point in time I would venture to say no...especially after the run around I got this morning.

Now to the BBV warriors. Add if you please.


Here is what I wanted to find out about.

AccuTouch machine
AccuTouch firmware, called Ballot Station
GEMS central count software
AccuVote Optical scan machine
Optical scan firmware or software

[DEMActivist]

1. Yep, that's his MO

When you ask difficult questions, you get:

LEWIS: And who are you?

CALLER: Oh, I'm just a voting citizen.

LEWIS: Click (disconnect).

[Andy_Stephenson]

2. But...isn't he required to provide me with that info?

Seems like certification should be open and available for all to see.

[DEMActivist]

3. Well, see...you'd certainly think so....

but, when our legislators make adherence to the FCC standards for voting equipment "voluntary," that means they don't HAVE to do anything.

Of course, one has to wonder if the certification documents were clean and available, why they wouldn't be HAPPY to answer that question, wouldn't one?

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. Voluntary?!?!?!?! WTF

"when our legislators make adherence to the FCC standards for voting equipment "voluntary," that means they don't HAVE to do anything."

Ludicrous!!! Beyond reason! What BULLSHIT!

[althecat]

4. Certification infor should be on his website... Or NASED's...

As it is his - Doug's - website..

http://www.electioncenter.org

Is just an embarassment..

I notice though that he has finally deleted the discussion board post that was asking him who he was. Took long enough...

http://electioncenter.proboards14.com/index.cgi?board=Gen&action=display&num=1059503416

"The topic you are trying to access is not on this board."

There were some very funny posts on that thread... you can view the top one here..

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0308/S00072.htm

[Andy_Stephenson]

6. You'd think they would have a sheet to fax

but nooooooo....nothing on the software and equipment used in 2002.

[Andy_Stephenson]

7. What is Mr Lewis' connection to

intel? I had a call from the grapevine...the vine said he is most likely intel...Can anyone confirm or deny?

[Gordon25]

8. There are no systems certified to 2002 standards

If you go back to the website
http://www.electioncenter.org/
and click on: Information on NASED systems; you'll see which systems have been certified to what standards. None of the systems have been certified compliant to 2002 standards. All listed systems are certified under the old 1990 standards which are widely acknowledged to be grossly inadequate. HAVA urges the adoption of 2002 standards as a "voluntary guideline". But it is being ignored.

Here is the data on the Diebold systems listed.
Diebold (Formerly
Global Election System)
 

Accu-Touch Electronic 
DRE Kiosk  (9-10-96)
DRE Touch Screen Portable
(12-5-97)

NASED # 010601A-1.0 (Kiosk) -1990
                 010601B-1.0 (Portable)-1990

A=Kiosk Release 1.0 (9-10-96)
B=Portable design tested
 (hardware ) 12-5-97 Rel. 1.0

Diebold (Formerly
Global Election System  )

Accu-Vote ES-2000 (Ballot Reader) Precinct Count

NASED #010701-1.94W  -1990

Firmware Rel. 1.94W  (12-28-99)

 
 
Diebold (Formerly
Global Election Systems)

 
 
Global Election Management System (GEMS)
 

 
 
NASED #N0306011114-1990
                  #N0306011715-1990
                  #N0306011717-1990

 
 
GEMS Version 1.11.14  (4/9/2001)
GEMS Version 1.17.15 (7/25/2001)
GEMS Version 1.17.17 (10/22/2001)

Diebold (Formerly
Global Election Systems)

AccuVote AVTS-R6  DRE Touchscreen

NASED #N010702-4.3.9-1990

Firmware Rel. 4.3.9 (7-2-02)

The certification process stinks worse than the software. R. Doug Lewis has somehow become the keeper of the key to vote counting in the US and seems to be accountable to no one.

Gordon25

[seemslikeadream]

9. Who is this keeper of the key?

Details Mr. Lewis, we want details. Where does all that patriotism come from?

[Andy_Stephenson]

10. Me thinks we won't be getting

any details very soon.

[BevHarris]

11. Whew. Ear to phone all afternoon -- good job, G&B&C

Okay, there is a page on the web site of The Election Center dated July 8 2002 which lists GEMS 1.17.17 as certified. By going to the wayback engine I found another from a couple years earlier.

It also has a note that says something like "these may not be the officially certified versions; if you want to know the official ones contact R. Doug Lewis."

That's why it pisses me off that he won't answer! The version on the web may or may not be the official version, depending on how much trouble they are in, I suppose. I can tell you this: in the Rob Georgia patch there is reference to version 1.18.9 and I found a reference in California to a 1.18 something. In Georgia I found a cache of a web page for that $500,000 Kennesaw Election Center deal that said they put in new systems and upgraded, I presume, GEMS.

What version was used in November 2002? What version was certified for use then? What version is certified now?

The entire strength of their argument that they should keep this source code secret is based on their "certification" process but we can't even get evidence of what was used vs. what was certified!!!

This is crazy.

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. Of course there is no certification

they like it like that. As far as source code being secret...well it all fits...no certification no source code...no problem. Move along...nothing to see here.

[PATRICK]

13. generally the process is being violated

Depending on your location there have been general and particular violations. When the process is stringently followed(a Diebold selling point) things happen but are "corrected". Of course, that is only in states or places run by fair or Democratic majorities. GOP and shady places let things slide, inhibit recounts etc. and cover for "problems" even when uncorrected they lead to questionable election results. The drums and whistles sucker external security in other words is no better than the Swiss cheese software code.

No one outside the location- the bigger the more inviolable(state)- is going to get answers or results very easily. No media, no Feds, no major party help is available, which is part of the general hands off attitude regarding vote fraud and election officials. To watch Janet Reno get stung by the very system she refused to step into in 2000(civil rights angle was hands off for "their own good") is not enjoyable irony. And where is she now?

The whole system is a mess of PR comforts, checks and measures on paper, impractical and unmonitored in practice according to locality, and bureaucrats alarmed that the slick no-fault wonder machines could cost them their jobs if they let their shield down.

[Andy_Stephenson]

14. Of course it is being violated.

but news today comes of the need for a paper trail.

[DEMActivist]

17. Sorry to burst your bubble, Patrick

But the state of Georgia was run by a Democratic majority when these machines were bought and put in place. In fact, a republican hadn't been elected Governor in 134 years in Georgia until the Democrats put these machines all over our state.

Nope, this one is as non-partisan as it gets. The Democrats are just as dirty as the pubs on this one - maybe worse - they're buying the machines that defeat them. How's that for stupid?????

[Andy_Stephenson]

18. If it weren't so serious...I would laugh

:eyes:

[Generic Other]

15. Just like his voting machines

Always the technical glitches. What a jerk.

[punpirate]

16. I missed this bit the first time around reading this account....

Same runaround from SysTest?

These were supposed to be the new guys on the block, and the expectation was that they would be less influenced by the manufacturers and Lewis.

Guess that expectation was unwarranted. If they're playing Lewis' game, they're no less suspicious than the others....

Cheers.