READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For December 29, 2005"
(6 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 12/29/2005 @ 10:09 pm PT...
John: Excellent job on keeping on top of the latest developments, these vendors ALL need to be in court period.
ES&S hacking tests should commence immediately to determine if they have the same level of security holes, and I've also started a complete action-alert center to make Congress move its collective gears on this damn issue.
Join the resistance, and please keep doing what you're doing John!!! This is a hard fight, and we're going to win that war all the way to the last Judge or corrupt lawless-society member.
PS: Keep on top of action alerts...
Action alerts by date, by catergory
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 12/29/2005 @ 11:22 pm PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 12/30/2005 @ 5:12 am PT...
John, you mention "banned 'interpreted' code, so I am trying to find the source for that ban.
The new federal entity that seems to have been created by HAVA (link here) would seem to be the administrator of federal regulations.
On that site it is said that "HAVA mandates that EAC [Election Assistance Commission] assume responsibility for the accreditation of testing labs and the certification of voting systems (link here, emphasis added).
The testing was not previously done by an independent, federal, entity. The article also says that "Currently, the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) oversees the qualification process for voting systems, working with independent testing authorities (ITA) accredited by NASED."
And goes on to say that "NASED is currently working with EAC to transfer this process, which will be completed in 2005."
What caught my eye was the statement HAVA uses the word “certification” not “qualification” to describe the process.
What is the significance of the use of these terms?
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 12/30/2005 @ 7:23 am PT...
Regarding the Volusia County poll tapes post above --- I had hoped to get them all up this week, when it was quiet. Gave everyone the week off.
Well, that didn't work. Everyone and their brother has been showing up, kids, Kathleen, Jim, Harri, husband, phone ringing nonstop.
We'll have an article on the poll tapes when they are all up. Most of the best ones are yet to come. And there's more than poll tapes. We'd love to have some number puzzle people look at some of the hand written charts found in the trash by Susan Pynchon and Ellen Brodsky.
The Volusia materials led directly to the Hursti study. Why? Because anomalies in poll tapes were combined with a ridiculous number of extra memory cards. Volusia still strongly points to dinking around with local races. This is a county where the supervisor of elections was once reprimanded by a judge for letting the sheriff's deputies sit in her office and "enhance" the sheriff's ballots.
However, there are some oddities that made us wonder if something else was going on. People from out of state showed up to help in Volusia County before, during and after the election, and some out of state license plates were at the warehouse early in the morning --- yet this county is too small to have any effect on a presidential election. Florida had a spread of nearly 400,000 votes. Volusia only has about 170,000 voters, who trended Democrat.
Something happened. We knew we were unlikely to find out exactly WHAT happened. So this led us to look at what kind of hack uses memory cards and occasionally produces anomalies on poll tapes.
Done correctly, memory card tampering will leave NO telltale signs. However, done clumsily, i.e. having a programming typo here and there, the poll tapes will have sporadic anomalies.
I really hope we can have the whole Volusia article up by mid-next week, describing in plain English what the implications are. In and of itself, Volusia proves only that "something" can be done with memory cards and poll tapes and that election procedures aren't always followed.
It is what Volusia led to that is more dramatic. Because Volusia's records were filled with anomalies, of the type that led to examination of what's on the memory cards, which led to the discovery that prohibited interpreted code is used, which will, we think, lead to nationwide decertification of Diebold AND OTHER manufacturer's products, Volusia was a catalyst for very important things indeed.
It is of critical importance that interpreted code, prohibited by FEC standards, come under the gun in an unforgiving way. You want to see the TSx go bye-bye too? First person to get us an early-January exam of a TSx wins the nationwide decertification award. Needs to be a pedigreed machine, with permission, like the Leon County situation. Go ply your persuasive skills with your contacts! We know where the TSx smoking gun is, just need to prove it on a voting system with a pedigree with full documentation of the examination. Contact Black Box Voting (425) 793-1030 or email@example.com if you can help this happen.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 12/30/2005 @ 10:12 am PT...
You say "interpreted code, prohibited by FEC standards" and John points out another criteria "the Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) of 1990 and 2002 specifically prohibit" interpreted code.
The FEC is not the EAC and "voluntary" is not mandatory, and certification is contrasted with qualification.
So the bottom line is that some of the language being used is citing different laws and agencies, and also using the term "prohibited" but from a "voluntary" set of regs. Implying it is not mandatory.
Who is in charge, FEC ... EAC ... or both?
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 12/30/2005 @ 3:24 pm PT...
Bev: We need to get all the machines under examination, and just remove them point blank for the interpreted code....
Clearly there was enough problems in these races it should require court subpoenas...