Diebold is cheating the world out of its votes!

Friends, we are in dire need of help. With companies such as Diebold operating in such a reckless manner with regards to our electoral E-voting systems, it would appear that whomever controls the e-voting system companies, controls the votes (as if that in itself was news). Check out the stories, and the links...

"It is an uncommon day when the nation's second-largest provider of voting systems concedes that its flagship products in California have significant security flaws and that it supplied hundreds of poorly designed electronic-voting devices that disenfranchised voters in the March presidential primary. "

"Diebold Election Services Inc. president Bob Urosevich admitted this and more, and apologized 'for any embarrassment.'"

"We were caught. We apologize for that," Urosevich said of the mass failures of devices needed to call up digital ballots.

Tri-Valley Herald Online

Its flagship voting products have signifigant security flaws???

Attorneys for Diebold Election Systems Inc. warned in late November that its use of uncertified vote-counting software in Alameda County violated California election law and broke its $12.7 million contract with Alameda County.

Oakland Tribune Online

Yet more reason the votes should be counted by hand. Regardless of how long it takes. Though I feel it in my heart that if Bush wins in November, this will be why.

Now that just makes me wonder....here in Texas where the winner of congressional districts was just rigged by Republican in our state congress last summer...I just wonder what the name on that voting machine was here in my county. Our congressman, Ciro Rodriques is now involved in a lawsuit because of voting fraud and manipulation of the votes in the recount coming out of Webb County (Laredo).

More fuel to add to the fire. If Bush kicks up the winner this coming fall....more than half of the country will be yelling voting fraud. Do you really think we will just sit and take it a second time?

I don't think so.

__

Just remember, folks - and this has been pointed out several times now - the man that runs Diebold's electronic voting machine division down in Texas is a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.

__

Diebold is mainly in the business of ATM's, so they can easily set the system up to produce a receipt or ticket that confirms your vote. There must be a paper trail for verification purposes. I see no valid reason to not provide some sort of confirmation statement.

Agreed. The criticisms that I have heard - and they are valid criticisms - could be fixd by any average first year engineering student. Here is what I have heard as far as criticisms:

* People were able to break into the machines through a simple dial-up modem

Why were they on a dial-up line to begin with, unless they were prototypes and the dial-up line was for remote troubleshooting? This is breaking one of the primary rules of computer security. The fist rule is physical security; put the machine behind a locked door.

* Able to access locally without even password protection

Self-explanatory

* No paper trail

See Bangin's response above

A properly designed system has every advantage over human counted votes, which are subject to corruption. Track every vote via a number, maybe SSN. Give a paper receipt to verify your vote. This would also eliminate the fraud that now exists of voters who are actually deceased, casting a vote, and other types of fraud.

Think about it. We now have systems in place that transfer TRILLIONS of dollars every single day without fraud or loss. Even the lottery system is an example. Making a failsafe voting system should be child's play.
_

Originally posted by jsobecky
__

Just remember, folks - and this has been pointed out several times now - the man that runs Diebold's electronic voting machine division down in Texas is a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.

__

So what? He may be a registered democrat, but he contributes money to Bush's campaign. Which is more relevant?

Originally posted by Cappa

So what? He may be a registered democrat, but he contributes money to Bush's campaign. Which is more relevant?

Prove it. Not that it makes a whit of difference, anyway.

While you're at it, why not trying to address the problems with the electronic voting machines, and how to resolve them? Offering solutions is much more productive than merely Bush-bashing.

_

My solution?

Whats wrong with scantrons?

They are used in schools, businesses, for anything from tests to surveys. No funny chads dangling. just fill in the bubble.

Pop in machine, get a reciept. Thus, u have TWO paper trails to follow.

I dont see what the problem is there.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Prove it. Not that it makes a whit of difference, anyway.

pah... Proven. Happy?

Quote:
Walden O'Dell, chief executive of North Canton-based Diebold Inc., confirmed in an interview with Plain Dealer editors that he has been a top fund-raiser for the Republican president, but said he intends to lower his political profile and "try to be more sensitive" in light of the national criticism he has faced.
...
Despite his regrets, O'Dell said he will not stop supporting Bush's campaign. He said he went to Bush's fund-raising event at the invitation of the campaign.

While you're at it, why not trying to address the problems with the electronic voting machines, and how to resolve them? Offering solutions is much more productive than merely Bush-bashing.

I do distinctly remember posting what my opinion was. Which was, to count the votes by hand, one at a time, regardless of how long it takes.

Originally posted by Cappa

pah... Proven. Happy?

Quote:
Walden O'Dell, chief executive of North Canton-based Diebold Inc., confirmed in an interview with Plain Dealer editors that he has been a top fund-raiser for the Republican president, but said he intends to lower his political profile and "try to be more sensitive" in light of the national criticism he has faced.
...
Despite his regrets, O'Dell said he will not stop supporting Bush's campaign. He said he went to Bush's fund-raising event at the invitation of the campaign.

__________

From the very same article that you quoted, this supports exactly what I said, and I still pose the same question to you: Prove it.
*****************************
Quote:

O'Dell was quick to point out that he has done nothing illegal. He also said he has no daily involvement with Diebold's election-systems division, which is based in Texas - and run by a registered Democrat.

End quote.
*****************************

In other words, ODell is the company CEO. He is a Republican. He does not run the election-systems division.

I have said numerous times in ATS that many people have no reading comprehension skills. This is not an attack against you.

But on several occasions, I have stooped to name calling incidents because the other person has no reading comprehension, misreads, jumps to conclusions, and then blames me. My fault for responding to those tactics. It gets frustrating after a while.

Thought ya'all might find this informing and up to speed
tut tut

www.toostupidtobepresident.com...

Originally posted by jsobecky
In other words, ODell is the company CEO. He is a Republican. He does not run the election-systems division.

So who controls more of the company? The manager in charge of the voting operations (who takes his orders from whom?), or the company CEO?

And this is in no way stooping to any level, on either of our parts. I understand your point, and I hope you understand mine. The company CEO makes all the major decisions, and I'm sure that regardless of how much power over the voting system the manager in charge of voting ops has, there are other items that come into play. Such as, what section of the company creates the software for these machines, what data carriers are used to transfer the e-votes, so on and so forth. Those two items in themselves could leave enough open to change the outcome of the election.

If we are talking about some sort of conspiracy in regards to the votes (I know I am), of course there's going to be a system in place to serve 'plausable deniability' (i.e.- 'yes i own the company, but this guy is in charge of the voting machines-- and he's a reg. democrat').

===EDIT===

Diebold Election Systems

Quote:
Bob Urosevich, CEO of Diebold Election Systems is also the founder of ES&S, a competing voting machine company now owned by the McCarthy Group. Together these two companies are responsible for tallying around 80% of votes cast in the United States.

It is reputed that the software architecture common to both is a creation of Mr Urosevich's company I-Mark and is easily compromised, in part due to its reliance on Microsoft Access databases; and that the I-Mark and Microsoft software each represent a single point of failure of vote counting process, from which 80% of votes can be compromised via the exploit of a single line of code in either subsystem

What this is saying, for the less-initiated, is that a commonly-known hack can exploit a hole in the voting software via the MS Access database. This is information from the election systems sector of Diebold.

[Edited on 2004424 by Cappa]

Originally posted by Cappa

So who controls more of the company? The manager in charge of the voting operations (who takes his orders from whom?), or the company CEO?

And this is in no way stooping to any level, on either of our parts. I understand your point, and I hope you understand mine. The company CEO makes all the major decisions, and I'm sure that regardless of how much power over the voting system the manager in charge of voting ops has, there are other items that come into play. Such as, what section of the company creates the software for these machines, what data carriers are used to transfer the e-votes, so on and so forth. Those two items in themselves could leave enough open to change the outcome of the election.

If we are talking about some sort of conspiracy in regards to the votes (I know I am), of course there's going to be a system in place to serve 'plausable deniability' (i.e.- 'yes i own the company, but this guy is in charge of the voting machines-- and he's a reg. democrat').

===EDIT===

It is reputed that the software architecture common to both is a creation of Mr Urosevich's company I-Mark and is easily compromised, in part due to its reliance on Microsoft Access databases; and that the I-Mark and Microsoft software each represent a single point of failure of vote counting process, from which 80% of votes can be compromised via the exploit of a single line of code in either subsystem

What this is saying, for the less-initiated, is that a commonly-known hack can exploit a hole in the voting software via the MS Access database. This is information from the election systems sector of Diebold.

[Edited on 2004424 by Cappa]

___
You call it "plausable deniability" I call it CYA. And I agree with you here, as well as with the fact that the CEO will have final say over a division president.

I still stand by my assertion that the system can be made foolproof. Segmenting the process so that the initial ballot tallying section is quarantined from the data transfer service, which is quarantined from the final drain is the way to do this.

Use reputable software. Forget MS Access or whatever they are using. Provide paper trails at several points. And use the services of a professional audit service such as Pricewaterhouse Coopers.

A well designed system is nearly foolproof. The current systems in use are tinker toys.

Another point: I have absolutely no confidence in the current system of using human beings to control the voting process.

In my boyhood home town, I have seen precinct workers giving people rides to the voting booth. There were always a couple of bottles of booze under the front seat, to help out the "undecided" voter. This practice was common and still exists today.

Every big city has stories of voter fraud, such as votes being cast by John Doe. Or by John Sullivan, who just happens to be buried in the old church cemetery for twenty five years now.

I could give you many more examples of fraud. I'll take a well-designed automated system any day.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I still stand by my assertion that the system can be made foolproof. Segmenting the process so that the initial ballot tallying section is quarantined from the data transfer service, which is quarantined from the final drain is the way to do this.

Personally, I don't think ANYthing is foolproof. There's a common saying in hacking circles (and forgive me, all, b/c I will mess it up): Even if you put a PC, unplugged, in a block of cement, inside a safe, at the bottom of the ocean, it could still be hacked.

Use reputable software. Forget MS Access or whatever they are using. Provide paper trails at several points. And use the services of a professional audit service such as Pricewaterhouse Coopers.

Here's the main issue. If there is someone pulling the strings, in regards to this particular issue, then it would have to be someone with Bush's interest in mind.

Now with that said... If the scenario that ensues is that the votes are tinkered with and changed, we ask 'how was it done?' Though we might never know the absolute truth, all it would take, with the system in place today, is one man in the programming dept writing down a series of digits, separated by periods, and hand that number to another man. At that point, it would only take the talented hacker a matter of minutes/hours/days to edit the votes. And, done correctly, how would we really know if they were tampered with?

Perhaps Bush was testing the American public with the 2000 election, pushing his limits and feeling out the people to see if they'd stand for a blatant bending of the rules.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, depending on how much the rules were actually bent (given that the rules were bent), from Bush's POV, he might think he got away with the king of all gyps-- and that whatever he chose to do this coming election would work just as well.
(Sorry for the rambling.)

A well designed system is nearly foolproof. The current systems in use are tinker toys.

Massive nod.

*Nice argument, btw.

Assert all you like Bush has Diebold in his pocket and if that doesn't work Skull and Bones has Kerry behind the eight ball,
in short, why vote

Quote:
in short, why vote
___

And when 70% of the population adopts that attitude, the push will be to change the system to something "easier" or "more convenient". With your best interests in mind, of course. In other words, give them what they want, right?

To paraphrase someone: You can have my vote when you can pry my cold dead fingers from it.

Quote:
Here's the main issue. If there is someone pulling the strings, in regards to this particular issue, then it would have to be someone with Bush's interest in mind.
__
To accept that premise would mean that I don't believe that Kerry would be capable of the same thing, maybe with another company. I don't accept that premise.

_

Originally posted by jsobecky
Quote:
Here's the main issue. If there is someone pulling the strings, in regards to this particular issue, then it would have to be someone with Bush's interest in mind.
__
To accept that premise would mean that I don't believe that Kerry would be capable of the same thing, maybe with another company. I don't accept that premise.

_

For "Bush", read "President". That's more along what I meant to say-- Kerry simply doesn't have the power, because he's not (yet) President. I'm sure Kerry could be capable of same, if he became President. It's just that, at this given point in time, I believe Bush has got the market cornered on the vote-altering game.

I know I'll get nailed for this, and people will say that at my age I should have learned by now, but I have more than a little faith in the American people's good intentions and honesty.

I'm not a conspiracy nut by nature. I don't believe in shape-shifting reptilian beings that live underground and plot some New World Order. I always ask myself: Why would they do this? And, if they are so damn powerful, why don't they just take over, and stop all this sinister plotting?

So for the entire country to be snookered by a vast vote-rigging conspiracy is not possible, in my eyes when a properly designed system is in place. Just think of how many people would need to be involved and kept quiet. And it takes only one average Joe to bring down the house of cards.

I've worked with computers since 1970. The first one I worked with, a PDP-8, I thought was the most boring thing under the christmas tree. I ended up working with computers - on every level - for over 30 years. They put a lot of dinners on my table, put my kids through college, sent me around the world, and to places I'd rather forget about. I've worked for the military, for the government, for NSA, for the private sector. I know what computers can do, and how to build them and control them. I am very aware of computer security.

When I hear stories about hijacking the voting process through computer fraud, I know that theoretically it could happen. I also know that preventing it from happening is much easier to do.

The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance". Sometime I think people (not intended for you) interpret that to mean "Leave reason at the door" or "Anything goes". I probably don't belong in this forum, when I think about it.

_