Can someone explain to me in plain english about the Diebold software?

[Carni]

I know that most electronic voting machines have no paper trail and that they are made by Diebold.

I have read assorted literature about how it would be easy to hack these machines--my question is how would one go about PROVING they were hacked?

Would there be a forensic trail in the machines themselves?

HAVE the machines been examined (and if they were would anyone be able to tell if they were hacked?)

Has Diebold allowed their software to be openly examined?
(I have heard conflicting reports on this)

There was no conclusive "proof" of out and out fraud yesterday, just IMO serious irregularities that could prove fraudulent (I have not read the Conyers report however)

I guess my point is -- without a whistleblower (or several whistleblowers)with concrete proof that they had a hand in the hacking, how could the fraudsters even get caught?

I know nothing about hacking, or code, so I am trying to understand how it can ever be proven that the voting machines were hacked.

I did find it alarming that most Reps yesterday didn't present hacking as a possibility--is it because they can't prove it, or is it because they don't feel that was the way the GOP cheated?

Maybe this isn't the forum to ask this (I mean maybe this should be posted in the lounge or general discussion--if so move it please)

[AllegroRondo]

1. Proving it is difficult

Its not as simple as looking at the code and being able to see if it was hacked. The most you could show by viewing the code is that it would be very easy to get into the machine illegally and change around data.

The only way to prove that they were hacked would be if you could get verified data from the machines at different times during and after the election. Then you could show (for example) that candidate A had 100 votes at 3PM but only 87 votes at 4PM.

As far as I know, Diebold has not allowed the software to be examined. But certain parts of the software were inadvertantly left on publicly accessable servers for a short time, where anyone could see it (and copy it).

[Carni]

2. An even dumber question then

What you mention here:

"The only way to prove that they were hacked would be if you could get verified data from the machines at different times during and after the election."

Was that type of data open to the examiners on the ground in Ohio?

My second thought based on what you said (and how can I put this and make sense because I really have no idea what I am talking about)

Is it possible that all the data could have been replaced in the machines? I mean to say...let's say at the end of the day all the original data is wiped out and replaced with new data so that there wouldn't be any alarm flags in the tallies (based on time etc)

Or would that be so massive a project (if possible) that there would be no way it could be pulled off?

You know I would be curious to know if ATM machines have ever been hacked and anyone prosecuted for it? (just because it's the same company I guess) I wonder searches on that would yield anything useful?

[AllegroRondo]

8. some answers

As far as I know, this data was not available during the election.

It is very possible that data could have been changed or replaced with no trail. Data is kept in a file similar to an Access database, anyone with basic knowledge similar to this could go in and switch numbers around. I believe there was even a video released on the web showing someone doing so in under 30 seconds.

As far as ATMs, I do have some experience in that field (bank networks). ATM networks are extremely secure. Even though they operate on similar data formats to the internet, they have absolutely no connections to the internet or outside computers. There are also multiple redundancies built in (several recordings of every transaction in several places).

[MarkusQ]

3. In plain english...

Diebold is only one of three (possibly more) companies that make un-auditable electronic voting machines.

Hacking such a machine might leave a forensic trail in the machines, but there is no guarantee that it would. It depends on the skill of the cracker*, the degree of the complicity of the manufacturer, etc.

*I use the term "cracker" or "black hat" instead of "hacker"; a "hacker" is a person skilled in a certain style of programming; a "cracker"/"black hat" is a criminal who uses such skills to commit crimes. It is a minor point, but the misuse of hacker is galling to some people,
in the same way that many of you prefer the term "Democratic Party" to "Democratic Party."

To my knowledge, the only machines that have been examined were the ones that were found to have switched straight Democratic party votes to third parties and the ones that threw out excess votes (after about three thousand). In both cases, it turned out that the original programming, and not a black hat, was responsible.

Diebold has not allowed their software to be openly examined. Some of it was leaked, and they let some people examine some of it, but 1) they did not let independent observers examine it, and 2) could not have, since much of it was written by others and even they don't have access to the source.

Read the Conyers report.

The fraudsters can be caught the same way any criminal is caught: by keeping up the pressure, collecting clues, and not stamping "case closed" over it.

You state that you "know nothing about hacking, or code," and I suspect that is the case with almost all of our elected officials. To them, it is magic and they don't question what the magicians tell them. Blind trust in black-box systems (in every field from voting to health care) is a major problem facing our society.

--MarkusQ

[Carni]

5. Thanks for this info

I also think you have an excellent point about our Reps being as in the dark as I am about this topic (that in fact may be the key)

I am pretty good at researching and dirt digging but I couldn't even begin to contribute to this project because I had no idea what I was reading, or what it meant!

[rwork]

4. I think

it is just as worrisome that Diebold will hack their own machines.

[Berserker]

6. Diebold Hack

Not to hard to understand.
How to hack Diebold
REQUIREMENTS: Windows-based PC with 150megs free disk space and 128megs RAM (minimum). You also need MS-Access2000 or a later variant in order to severely circumvent the passwords and security - the whole point here is that MS-Access is basically a "hack tool" and once used, there's NO security on this "high security voting product" whatsoever!

[scottxyz]

10. This website should be entered into the evidence Conyers has

This website clearly shows how to hack vote totals on the Diebold vote-tallying machinery, which was used in Ohio and many other states I believe.

This website should be entered as an exhibit in the evidence compiled by Conyers indicating election fraud.

[insane_cratic_gal]

7. Try this it should help

http://www.votergate.tv/

I believe it's actually shown how it can be done.

Proving it is another legal battle all together. All suits and cases to view the software of any Electronic voting company has been denied due to their Propitary software clad agreements. The SOS has a copy legal document (or the basics of it) on file. That forbids even them from viewing it. These are the people who orders it.

Honestly I if your the SOS, you've been elected by the people. who therefor repersent the goverment. There shouldn't be this sort of law that forbids independent counsel from viewing the tabulator, E-voting software, registeration software. From being tested in a National Independent counsel and testing facility.

Networks, and other types of software are given access to attempting hacking to be sure there is no vunerabilites within a system. Why can't that be brought before a test group? If National Secruity is a big issue. Then so SHOULD the intergrity of our voting system.

There are only 37 states that actually endorse ITA Independent Testing Authority. But from what I have been reading, it's more like a 20 min demostration with a few Q&A's POST Power on self test (or piece of shit test)

Qualification tests to be performed by independent testing authorities (ITAs) designated by the National Association of State Election Directors;
Certification tests to be performed by the State; and
Acceptance tests to be performed by the jurisdiction acquiring the system

BUT

At some point this independent Testing Authority was Hijacked by the EAC Election Assistance Commision. WHY? WHY was it taken out of the hands of an Independent NASED and put into EAC?

Here is a interesting Tidbit that made my stomach drop. Written by the ITA director. Now the EAC.


HAVA was signed into law on October 12, 2002. The Commission was to have been created by February 26, 2003. However, The President did not submit his proposed nominees to the Senate until October 3, 2003. Senate Committee Hearings on the President’s nominees to the HAVA Commission were held on October 27, 2003. The nominations had not yet come to the floor for Senate approval as of November 23, 2004. None of the HAVA Committees and Boards has been established.  Thus, the Technical Guidelines and compliance standards will not be available by the time that state implementation plans are due on January 1, 2004.
In order to qualify for HAVA funding and to comply with HAVA requirements, states have been contracting to purchase voting systems that can not possibly be HAVA compliant, (he goes on to say)

Prompted by aggressive lobbying on the part of manufacturers and vendors, and the advocacy of The Election Center, a one-man organization based in Texas, which operates as the self-appointed “Secretariat” to the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) the states’ response to the Help America Vote Act has been to replace older voting systems with computerized electronic voting systems, also know as Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines. Many election officials including Secretaries of States have been persuaded that there are no problems, and that what problems remain can be overcome via policies, procedures and guidelines they can implement at the local level. This is not accurate.

What do you all think about that!

[Carni]

12. I can't believe what I am reading!

In terms of circumstantial evidence that certainly speaks volumes!

What's really disgusting is the repukes will just claim it's typical for things to take that long (or they will blame it on the Dems)

[insane_cratic_gal]

17. try this too

I was mistaken about who wrote but the head of the EAC does state some important stuff.. Mainly these machines were not certified by HAVA.

it's 19 pages but very informative. I can't get anyone else to read it today .. lol too busy agruing about this or that to pay attention.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:x6w3b04hKvgJ:www.ballotintegrity.org/Electronic%2520Voting%2520Critical%2520Issues.doc+Brian+Hancock,+the+ITA+Secretariat+&hl=en

maybe it will help you in your request

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[noamnety]

11. I want proof it WASN'T hacked

The system right now is like having a salvation army kettle out on a street corner, with no lid, and with nobody supervising it. Bypassers come along and drop money in it, but we don't know how much because there are no receipts. The kettle sits out all night, by morning, we really don't know if anyone took money out, we are just supposed to have faith that everything that people put in is still there, and nobody dipped their hand in, even though we know they could have without us detecting it.

Can we prove nobody stole anything? Nope, not without video or a verifiable audit trail of some sort. But that doesn't mean I have any reason to have faith in the system. To have faith, I would have to believe that every person who could have had access - from random hackers to partisan government officials to company officials that promised to deliver the votes to Bush - is pure at heart. At the risk of sounding cynical, it's hard for me to believe that when some of them are convicted felons who have done time for computer fraud.

We wouldn't leave a kettle out for anyone to dip their hand into, because donations to charities are too important. What does that say about the value we put on our election process?

[Carni]

13. I agree completely

And thanks everyone for the info!

Not having much experience in this area, I at least now have a basic grasp of how this could have been done.

There is really no doubt in my mind that there was fraud and it appears that the cleanest way to do it (I mean the way with the least risk of being caught) would be to commit the crime by way of the E-voting machines.

I tend to think it happened all over the country (which would explain how the Pres with the worst approval rating in however many years managed to *win* the popular vote)

[tandem5]

14. The voters know who they thought they chose - that's a people trail nt

[tex-wyo-dem]

15. I suggested in another thread that...

in order to educate the general population and our elected officials on this very subject, we (or someone with background in this area) needs to write a synopsis in layman's terms that is easily digestable.

Let's face it, our laymakers are, in large part, lawyers and not engineers and depend on experts to feed them such information so that they can make an informed decision. I think that if even a few of them really appreciated the scope of this problem they would be pushing election reform laws big time.

Simply put, the very bedrock of our democracy is currently dependant upon software and hardware developed by a handful of unaudited companies.

[Andy_Stephenson]

16. Here are some answers

I know that most electronic voting machines have no paper trail and that they are made by Diebold.

Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Hart Intercivic...all make BALLOT free machines. When talking use the right term Paper Ballot not Paper Trail.

I have read assorted literature about how it would be easy to hack these machines--my question is how would one go about PROVING they were hacked?

The software is such that if it were "hacked" you would never be able to tell. The audit log can be manipulated so there is not evidence of tampering.

Would there be a forensic trail in the machines themselves?

No

HAVE the machines been examined (and if they were would anyone be able to tell if they were hacked?)

No

Has Diebold allowed their software to be openly examined?
(I have heard conflicting reports on this)

No they have not...the only software that has been examined is the software found by Bev Harris.

There was no conclusive "proof" of out and out fraud yesterday, just IMO serious irregularities that could prove fraudulent (I have not read the Conyers report however)

There was out and out fraud. I found fraud...I have seen the evidence fraud was rampant in the election. Don't buy into the "no fraud" argument.

I guess my point is -- without a whistleblower (or several whistleblowers)with concrete proof that they had a hand in the hacking, how could the fraudsters even get caught?

They may not say anything right now...but there will come a time

I know nothing about hacking, or code, so I am trying to understand how it can ever be proven that the voting machines were hacked.

It can be done...I am not a code expert...but on the Diebold system it could prove to be very difficult to prove.

I did find it alarming that most Reps yesterday didn't present hacking as a possibility--is it because they can't prove it, or is it because they don't feel that was the way the GOP cheated?

I have my own theory and if you PM me I will tell you offline from this thread.

Maybe this isn't the forum to ask this (I mean maybe this should be posted in the lounge or general discussion--if so move it please)

Right forum./..right time