RAW STORY: GOP Expert Suggests Diebold Tampered with 2002 Election

[AtLiberty]

GOP cyber-security expert suggests Diebold tampered with 2002 election

Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

Published: Friday July 18, 2008

A leading cyber-security expert and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says he has fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections.

*snip*

Spoonamore received the Diebold patch from a whistleblower close to the office of Cathy Cox, Georgia’s then-Secretary of State. In discussions with RAW STORY, the whistleblower -- who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation -- said that he became suspicious of Diebold's actions in Georgia for two reasons. The first red flag went up when the computer patch was installed in person by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich, who flew in from Texas and applied it in just two counties, DeKalb and Fulton, both Democratic strongholds. The source states that Cox was not privy to these changes until after the election and that she became particularly concerned over the patch being installed in just those two counties.

The whistleblower said another flag went up when it became apparent that the patch installed by Urosevich had failed to fix a problem with the computer clock, which employees from Diebold and the Georgia Secretary of State’s office had been told the patch was designed specifically to address.

Some critics of electronic voting raised questions about the 2002 Georgia race even at the time. Incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who was five percentage points ahead of Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss in polls taken a week before the vote, lost 53% to 46%. Incumbent Democratic Governor Roy Barnes, who led challenger Sonny Perdue in the polls by eleven points, lost 51% to 46%. However, because the Diebold machines used throughout the state provided no paper trail, it was impossible to ask for a recount in either case.

Concerned by the electoral outcome, the whistleblower approached Spoonamore because of his qualifications and asked him to examine the Diebold patch...

http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Cybersecurity_expert_raises_allegations_of_2004_0717.html

[hobbit709]

1. Surprise, surprise!

Can you think of any election involving Diebold that you believe was honest?

[applegrove]

2. Or it could be GOP operatives stirring the pot hoping Dem supporters will

start fighting with each other over diebold.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Weird thing just happened. I clicked "Reply" in the dupe OP to ask for the DU

and Raw Story urls, and it took me here, but I still don't have the DU url to see if there are other comments.

Georgia/Cleland 02 is THE alarm bell that should have gone off in DNC headquarters and in Democratic Congressional offices as well. Funny thing how it didn't. In fact, the Dems in Congress had just voted overwhelmingly for 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote counting, with the code owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, and with virtually no audit/recount controls, and furthermore gave it a $3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle to help it along. No 'unfunded mandate,' this.

What's. wrong. with. this. picture?

[Pab Sungenis]

4. In related news....

Republican operative suggests water may be wet.

[L. Coyote]

5. October 13, 2003 = Did E-Vote Firm Patch Election?

Georgia 2002 stood out with the surprising defeat of Bush's big war opponent, Sen. Max Cleland. From 2003:

Did E-Vote Firm Patch Election?
Kim Zetter Email 10.13.03
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/10/60563

Diebold Election Systems has had a tumultuous year, and it doesn't look like it's getting any better.

Last January the electronic voting machine maker faced public embarrassment when voting activists revealed the company's insecure FTP server was making its software source code available for everyone to see.

Then researchers and auditors who examined code for the company's touch-screen voting system released two separate reports stating that the software was full of serious security flaws.

Now a former worker in Diebold's Georgia warehouse says the company installed patches on its machines before the state's 2002 gubernatorial election that were never certified by independent testing authorities or cleared with Georgia election officials.

If the charges are true, Diebold could be in violation of federal and state election-certification rules........

I've seen the taped interview with the Diebold whistleblower, a very interesting watch. The "robgeorgia" patch was used in the two predominently Dem counties. Rolling Stone ran the Diebold worker's admission that machine software was illegally altered in 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties on the day of the election.


Georgia Dem votes. DeKalb county is near 75% Dem voters.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. "on the day of the election"?

You might want to double-check that part.

(The pie chart is kind of funky, too. What exactly is "Dem Vote"?)

[L. Coyote]

7. The software used on the day of the election was NOT approved by the SoS

office. That is fact as presented by the whistleblower. I've seen the video of his interview myself. I do not think this is a contention, just a historic fact recognized by the State of Georgia, Diebold, and all of us.

The "funky" pie chart clearly illustrate where the Dem votes in Georgia are located, by counties. Over half the state-wide Dem vote is in the two Atlanta-metro counties where the patch was installed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. we seem to be talking past each other

You wrote that "machine software was illegally altered in 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties on the day of the election." Maybe it's a regional thing, but to me "altered... on the day of the election" isn't the same as "software used on the day of the election was NOT approved." Not that the latter is OK. I'm just trying to get the facts straight.

I will ask again: what is a "Dem vote"? Certainly Cleland didn't get over half his votes in these two counties -- not even close.

[Wilms]

9. What OTOH said.

I didn't think the machines were networked. If the aren't it would be difficult to change software "the day of".

Maybe it wasn't the best sentence. Perhaps it could have been written to say, "On the day of the election the software being used was other than that approved by the SoS"...or somethin'? :shrug:

Oh. And that pie chart stinks! LOL! It's really not that clear unless I'm even dumber than I thought. :(