NASED May Respond to CA/ITA Report on Diebold's Interpreted Code

[Wilms]

And I'm not expecting anything we're gonna like, imagining, instead, them backing "security procedures" as sufficient remedy.

As you know, while the Independent Testing Authority (ITA) evaluates voting equipment, it's the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) along with the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) that issues the actual certification.

In this VoteTrustUSA article, the author, AJ Devies, refers to a conversation with Brian Hancock, ITA Secretariat for the EAC.

...I asked Mr. Hancock how Diebold's equipment had been certified in spite of the presence of interpreted code in its software architecture. Mr. Hancock claimed he had no clue how "this" (certification of DREs and op-scanners of past and present generations) got through Independent Testing Authority (ITA) testing.

With regard to the California testing and report, the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) is finishing up a response to the report. The NASED report will be available within the next week and will be posted on the NASED website. Mr. Hancock would not speculate about NASED's position on decertification of the Diebold equipment.

The author went on to ask about violations of the 2002 VVSG accessibility requirements.

I pressed some more about how the ITAs could recommend certification of DREs that fail Section 2.2.7.2 of the 2002 VVSS, particularly 2.2.7.2(f).

For a device with touchscreen or contact-sensitive controls, provide an input method using mechanically operated controls or keys that shall:


1) Be tactilely discernible without activating the controls or keys;
2) Be operatable with one hand and not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist;
3) Require a force less than 5 lbs (22.2 N) to operate; and
4) Provide no key repeat function;


At first Mr. Hancock said I would have to contact the ITAs for an answer to that question. I asked how to go about that since the ITAs do not make their reports available to the public under a FOIA request. He didn't know.

I asked if NASED could provide the ITA reports under a FOIA request. He didn't know.

I asked who could provide the reports if the agencies responsible for testing and certifying the DREs couldn't. He didn't know.

And HAVA accessibility requirements.

I then asked if the ITAs and/or NASED took HAVA 301(a)(1) into consideration when testing DREs or any other devices, such as the AutoMARK. He said, "No testing for disabled access is done by the ITAs." He also said, "Equipment is just certified to the 2002 standards, not HAVA 301(a)(1)."

The article ends

...I asked one more question: "So, the EAC, whose responsibility it is to ensure compliance with the voting standards, has not done their job, and is telling me to vote on equipment that is not compliant with HAVA, and has prohibited interpreted code in it? Isn't it illegal any way you slice it?"

He didn't have an answer.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1030&Itemid=26

[Stevepol]

1. K&R!

[JunkYardDogg]

2. Should be sufficient to get an injunction prohibiting their use

If this line of attack cannot be sufficient to get a court mandated injunction to prevent the use of the machines, nothing can

[Wilms]

3. Where the HECK have you been!

Good to see U, JYD. :hi:


And, yeah. I wonder every day.

Seems there's sufficient evidence these machines don't meet guidelines. So aren't the vendors, EAC, NASED, ITA's, SoS's and BoE's from states subscribing to the VVSG, potential targets, here in CA and nationally?

[JunkYardDogg]

4. It's been real tough

I've had to devote my time to trying to make a living
It's taking all I got to do that right now

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. do you know more about the accessibility politics?

Clearly there is some astroturf action -- people being paid to trumpet how DREs meet the needs of people with disabilities -- but I don't have a good feeling for who thinks what.

[rumpel]

6. They force states to comply with HAVA sue NY and they don't?

"Equipment is just certified to the 2002 standards, not HAVA 301(a)(1)."

what bull!

[Wilms]

7. You might say ""certified" to the 2002 standard".

Even when they "certify" equipment to the 2002 standard, it seems to not matter if the equipment doesn't meet to the 2002 standard, as evidenced by the presence of interpreted code, and the failure to meet Reliability standards.

Finally, there is equipment that has yet to be certified, perhaps not always a good thing, and perhaps caused as much by difficulty interpreting HAVA and vendor delays in submitting equipment.

I'd love to see the email that goes between the various entities.

[Wilms]

8. kick