The Truth will prevail, but only if we demand it from Congress!

9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004

SCROLL DOWN

Home ] 9-11 Inside Job ] Federal Reserve ] Hacking Elections ] Iraq War ] Fake War on Terror ] New World Order ] Media ] Peak Oil-Petro Euros ] Fascism in U.S. ] Editorials ] About Us ] Links ] Contact Us ]

 

Home
Up

 

BLACK BOX VOTING INVITED TO HACK DIEBOLD 
 
VOTING MACHINES
 
Nov 23, 2005: The California Secretary of State has invited Black 
Box Voting to hack away at some Diebold voting systems. The testing 
is set for Nov. 30, 2005.
 
Diebold Election Systems has been trying to re-certify its “TSx” touch-
screen machines in California. Diebold has added stronger passwords 
and encryption, but even the consultant hired by California to evaluate 
the system reported that the voting system remains vulnerable to 
alteration of vote results. (More on consultant report and 
vulnerabilities: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/14296.html)
 
This week, officials at the California Secretary of State's office 
invited Black Box Voting, a nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog group for 
elections, to try hacking into the Diebold system. A specific testing protocol was 
provided by Diebold and the California Secretary of State’s office. 
 
Though the opportunity was welcomed by Black Box Voting, negotiations 
remain on the procedures. Black Box Voting contends that the proposed 
testing violates California Election Code §19202, which governs the 
request for voting machine testing formally submitted to the state of 
California by Black Box Voting on June 16, 2005. Also, Black Box Voting 
identified areas of bias in the proposed procedures, which would 
violate normal scientific protocol and cause voters to lack confidence in the 
results.
 
At issue is Diebold’s insistence on being involved in setting up the 
testing procedures, and Diebold’s provision of hand-picked machines, using new 
voting systems not currently in use in California. 
 
LET'S LOOK AT WHAT'S AT STAKE FOR DIEBOLD:
 
Black Box Voting had formally requested replication of the work by 
experts Harri Hursti and Dr. Herbert Thompson. If Diebold does not survive the 
tests, the firm may face a nationwide product recall, rivaled in notoriety 
only by the exploding gas tank fiasco that afflicted the Ford Pinto. Diebold is 
dependent on a particular outcome. Failing this test might cost them their 
elections business altogether. 
 
Diebold’s stake in the outcome is compounded by financial problems in 
the Diebold ATM division, which produced a restatement of corporate profits 
and caused a significant collapse in stock prices. 
 
Though the formal request for replication of Black Box Voting security 
tests was made over five months ago, Diebold delayed the test required by 
§19202 for more than five months. Diebold is now “permitting” the testing only 
under conditions Diebold controls, using machines only Diebold provides.
 
THE PROPOSED PROCEDURES CONTAMINATE THE RESULTS
 
Black Box Voting has offered to resolve procedural defects in such a 
way as to “enhance public confidence” as required by §104 (c) in the 
California certification procedures. Instead of voting machines hand-
picked by the vendor which have never been used in elections, Black 
Box Voting wants to test a randomly selected voting system used in 
the last election -- the machines that elected the California governor 
and the president.
 
Black Box Voting also proposes selecting machines from county 
elections offices which have not shown a bias for Diebold, recommending 
Alameda County for the evaluation of the touch-screens and Placer, 
Modoc, Trinity or Santa Barbara County for evaluation of the optical 
scan system. Within these counties, Black Box Voting proposed random 
selection of the machine. The five counties suggested by Black Box 
Voting are the Diebold customers who did not take part in a pro-Diebold 
advertisement copied on back of the official flyer containing the 
agenda for the certification hearing. Sec. State’s office’s Bruce McDannold 
disavowed the flyer, saying his office had nothing to do with its 
distribution. 
 
The scientific method attempts to minimize bias by removing the 
influence of any party who profits from one outcome or another. In testing, those 
who design the system are not supposed to be the same as those who 
test the system.
 
Therefore, Black Box Voting is confident that the California Secretary 
of State will comply with these reasonable adjustments.