Ultimate Proof: E-voting Certification Actually LETHAL to Democracy

Point One: The "Hursti hack" on Diebold electronic voting machines, (subsequently confirmed by a formal study from California), shows that access to a single memory/results card from an election allows a person to easily change the overall election result *without leaving evidence*. No subsequent investigation by elections officials, if they ever did one, would catch this because there would be no evidence.

MEANING: THIS IS THE NEUTRON BOMB OF ELECTION FRAUD. A DOOMSDAY WEAPON AGAINST DEMOCRACY.

Point Two: Approximately thirty different states, "independent testing authorities" and federal officials PURPORTED to inspect the software of Diebold in which this flaw was found. They all "approved" it for use in their respective jurisdictions. All THIRTY (30) FAILED to find the DOOMSDAY WEAPON ON DEMOCRACY.

Point Three: If you think that certification has any credibility whatsoever, you got more problems in your head than I know how to deal with.

REQUEST: Can someone post a list of the "certification" guys that missed the doomsday weapon on democracy so that we can all write to them and THANK THEM for being intrepid Guardians and Defenders of Democracy? And for making fun of election protection activists? And for making themselves so superior that they look down on activists working their butts off to make a contribution to their country?

I've always said that certification was meaningless, kind of like getting a driver's license says nothing about whether or not one will be commit vehicular homicide tomorrow, much less have a lifetime of safe driving. But in this case, they issued the driver's license and told us all to 'pay no mind' to the guys behind the curtain of software secrecy, and behind that curtain of secrecy, indisputably in the case of Diebold, lies (sic) the doomsday weapon against democracy.

We should demand an explanation not as to why they missed this, but as to WHY WE SHOULD HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE WHATSOEVER IN THEIR "CERTIFICATIONS" AT ANY TIME NOW OR IN THE FUTURE GIVEN THAT THEY DIDN'T CATCH THIS???

IN THE FUTURE, HOW DO WE KNOW THEY'RE NOT BLOWING IT AGAIN? OR worse yet, lying to us when the either know or have reason to believe it's risky?

Now, when someone CERTIFIES something as safe and suitable for use in elections, and then it turns out to contain a doomsday weapon against democracy within it, what do we call that?

Fraud? Well, activists weren't fooled, though others were.

Just what do we call this?

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002619.htm




I called their number this afternoon. They don't have any plans to file suit or join with the one filed already. She said she thinks they can work this out. I told her this is what they did in Ohoi and Florida, and hoped she would be able to get this fixed, but I had less confidence than she did given the GOP history of Blackwell and Harris.

The L of WV letter in part:

We must object. Our procedures should guard against inappropriate elimination of legitimate voters from the system. It is not enough to allow them to cast a provisional ballot if they make it to the polls. Being excluded from the registration list means that they will not receive a sample ballot or a ballot pamphlet, they will not receive notice of the location of their polling places, and they will not be permitted to request an absentee ballot.

We hope that a resolution to this problem can be reached quickly. We urge you to find alternatives to the current rules (data standards and match criteria) for processing registrations. If possible, that would be done by administrative procedures available to you. However, if it proves that legislation is needed, the LWVC would support that approach.

Under HAVA, it is intended that information provided by other databases, such as DMV data, will supplement the information provided by voters when they register or re-register, thereby helping to correct an application so it can be processed and accepted, if the applicant is eligible, instead of rejected.

It is a well-known problem that mistakes are made in database administration and management. Applicants transpose or forget numbers and letters, and make other noncritical errors as well. Officials likewise inadvertently make data entry errors. Databases themselves maintain these errors over time, compounding problems if databases are compared and matched with each other.

A well-run system will use the wide variety of information that is available from a number of sources to make corrections in order to maintain an accurate system. If, for example, the applicant transposes digits in his or her driver’s license number, as evidenced by the driver’s license record, a correction is made and the application is processed.

The corollary is that a failure to match the applicant or his/her data with another database must not result in the rejection of the applicant. This is important for a variety of reasons. First, matching is not an eligibility requirement under HAVA or state law. Second, the database information is likely to have significant errors. The Social Security Administration acknowledges that its data is not foolproof, data entry and other errors in DMV and voter registration agencies are well known, and simple matching mistakes—from the use of different forms of names to transposed or missing numbers—are significant. Third, the absence of information does not suggest a problem. Only positive information of a disqualifying characteristic should result in the rejection of a voter in a database matching system. Rejection must be based on a positive match of the identity of the voter, and a positive match with a disqualifying characteristic.

In the voter registration context, the failure to find a match does not provide information that the voter is ineligible. If there is no match, the voter registration application should be processed on its own terms.

Because they have come for California.

so if we get busy, we'll get a lot done

They can have California when they pry it out of my cold dead hands. :mad:

McPherson's office decided to go to all the trouble of muzzling their phone answerer and taking my info and having Mr. Smooth Liar call me back.

Why bother?

Bruce has been nothing if not cavalier with CA voters. What gives? The lie isn't surprising as much as the care. This database must be an important move in the CA chess game?

and if those databases happen to show that X thousand people "already voted", somebody will have the presence of mind to add X thousand votes to the pile so that the math all balances out.

besides you know these things can happen. Even happened th Ahhhhnold, remember his problem voting? Hasta la vista, glitch baby

Democracy in America is a myth, as is capitalism, free speech, free markets and free press. The masses have a need to believe these things exist. Those in power perpetuate illusions that these things exist as a way to maintain the status quo. But people can see the difference between Democracy and fascism. Some find it difficult to admit to themselves that they have been fooled and so they continue believing these myths are real. This is largely what I mean when I talk about ruthless honesty. We must help the masses to see not so much where they are being lied to, but rather where they are lying to themselves.

but sometimes it's easier to lie to yourself. *sigh* This is going to be an uphill climb.

The New deal.

Project For The New American Century.

Brainwashing.

Something from out of the Third Reich?

Faulty.

Worthless.

A mind fuck.

Psychologically Abusive.

I keep thinking of the phrase "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, etc.

Is there a new Kenmore washer behind curtain #3?

Oh, never mind.

Is it legal term?

definition depends on whether criminal, defamation or other law involved

amazingly, we'll all convert to Republicanism in the next 10 years. We'll be living in a one Party state through the miracle of electronic voting. Government will be permanently broke and we'll have no way to fix it.

I'm sure the Bushbots will think they've won, though.

democracy. We are not conspiracy theorists; we are those who reveal the secret vote counting conspiracy. We are the realists.

ticket to cheap feelings of superiority and political correctness 100% of the time.

when "agreements to accomplish illegal results" are conspiracies, and they happen a thousand times a day.

Still, it's simpler to just judge by objective actions instead of getting into whether people "agreed" or not. If they're damaging democracy, the damage is the same whether they're doing it on purpose or not.

But, Dick, surely it isn't even on the board...hold on, my siblings are calling for a huddle...OK, Richard, no, what? YES! we'll say "incompetence".

Doesn't incompetence imply ineptitude/ignorance?
Isn't this more a matter of malfeasance, since the certification was done in violation of both State and Federal laws?

Just plain idiots.

Of course, it does seem there was a conspiracy... a conspiracy by some idiots who thought they could slip it past us.

They really thought no one would pay attention and begin to ask questions?

Idiots.

Too, I'd say there is grounds for a lawsuit. These certifiable idiots need to be taken down for their idiotic certifications. If allowed to do such shoddy work in the future there's no telling what kinda crap will come out of their offices next. Time to shut them down and bleed them of their funds.

The Noble Guild of Trojan Horse Inspectors. Our motto: "Looks good to us; the parts we understand at least."


All the credibility of the guy wearing the t-shirt that says, "Official Bikini Inspector".

GLITCH ....... 38% !!

Folks, if you read the fact pattern again, it's obvious that if a doomsday device on democracy is available within the software or through it, that is a mere glitch. Nothing to worry about at all.

On edit: AS IS the fact that there are 101% total answers in this poll, not 100. This is not due to rounding errors, it's a phantom vote. Just another glitch. not to worry.

You should've said "they", "what do THEY call it"

You glitched it up! Cheater! You cheated, cheater!! :D

Dawson is a big "Duty"-head.

Right down to the extra 1%.:-)

exactly right in your post; well said.

this on?

I did try. It takes their brand 'W' and encases it with the sum of their existence. Fraud embodied. Simple truth, they are fraWd.

K & R

M
peach
W

(The W is exactly upsidedown to make the M for MPeach.)

sometimes, even often, great ideas or products don't take off just because they don't have a big marketing budget behind them.

Everybody loves peaches. Plus, we could throw the rotten ones.

Land Shark wrote:

I don't know about a list, but if you want to blame the head honcho at the time, it was probably this guy, Thomas R. Wilkey, who is now the Exec Director if the EAC:
http://www.eac.gov/executive_director.asp?format=none

Here's his bio:
http://www.eac.gov/docs/Wilkey%20bio.pdf

Oddly enough, he hails from the great state of NY, one of the only ones in the union to resist the implementation of HAVA and whose primary method of voting is still 40+ year-old mechanical lever machines.

Now, I'm not suggesting that he's the only one responsible, nor that everything he's done in his career has been bad for elections, but I think the decision to allow the interpreted code was probably made on his watch:

Hardware & Firmware: Wyle Laboratories

Software: SYSTEST LABS, LLC, and CIBER, INC.

http://www.nased.org/ITA%20Information/NASEDITAProcess.pdf


The Dirty Little Secrets of Voting System Testing Labs

By Avi Rubin

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=595&Itemid=26


Nation’s voting machines tested in secret

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5762054

So I'm left wondering how so called "certifiers" failed to notice exactly how the code inside long used Diebold's Optical Scan system works... The Diebold touchscreens also have serious memory card and buffer overflow vulnerabilities which the Berekeley University exainers found by looking at just a small portion of the source code. Hursti's revelations in his original report (published by Black Box Voting) seems to have geuinely surprised experienced computer experts (including the ones who authored the Berkeley Report)... So what is going on? Why did it take Harri (with zero access to source code) to find these nightmare security holes?

and some of the insiders don't want to disclose their "trade secrets", meaning their insider ways to change election results, for the right price or under the proper circumstances (correction of previous "error" for example)

:hi:

Interesting to be here finally after hearing a lot about this place on my travels around America. :)

While it's not the fault of the ITA's that the EAC VVSG Reliability spec allows almost 10% of e-voting systems to fail in any 15-hour Election Day, they shouldn't have certified plenty of systems that have proved, either in state testing (as in CA) or actual use, to be unable to meet even that weak spec.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x420339