Doing twelve things at once today, so no time for analysis at this point. I’ll just run CA Sec. of State Debra Bowen’s just released statement on her promised, unprecedented, first-of-its-kind in the nation, “top to bottom review” of all of California’s electronic voting systems.
The review will include “red team” hack testing for the first time ever. Done as standard operating procedure for similar security-sensitive, mission-critical commercial systems, this sort of penetration testing has never been performed on America’s voting systems. Until now.
The one page summary [PDF] of the plan states:
- [University of California] will provide specialists from its campuses, as well as experts from public and private universities and private sector companies throughout the United States to create three teams of experts to conduct the reviews.
- Each system will undergo a thorough document and source code review, red team penetration testing, and a review to determine whether it’s accessible to all voters.
- The review teams will provide an independent technical evaluation of the voting systems that the Secretary of State will use to carry out her statutory duty with respect to voting systems in determining whether the systems comply with current state and federal law.
There are links within her statement below where you can find more details. For example, the State’s review teams will include folks such as computer security expert “hacking” Harri Hursti, and blind technology expert Noel Runyan, who has been highly critical of unverifiable touch-screen DRE voting systems.
More on all of this, perhaps, later after I’ve had time to review the materials myself. But for now, see the statement below for some killer quotes from Bowen…
Review of California’s Voting Systems Scheduled To Begin Next Week
SACRAMENTO ““ Secretary of State Debra Bowen today unveiled the project plan that will be used to conduct her promised top-to-bottom review of the voting systems certified for use in California.
“California voters are entitled to have their votes counted exactly as they were cast,” said Secretary Bowen, the state’s chief elections officer. “This top-to-bottom review is designed with one goal in mind: to ensure that California’s voters cast their ballots on voting systems that are secure, accurate, reliable, and accessible.”
The Secretary of State is entering into an interagency agreement with the University of California to conduct the review ““ the first of its kind in the nation ““ that is scheduled to begin the week of May 14 and conclude in late July. UC will assemble three top-to-bottom review teams, drawing specialists from throughout the university system, as well as from public and private universities and private sector companies throughout the country. Each team will consist of approximately seven people and will conduct a review of documents and studies associated with each voting system, a review of the computer source code each machine relies on, and a red team penetration attack to see if the system’s security can be compromised.
“My goal is to get California to a place where voters, elections officials, candidates, and activists have confidence in the results of every election,” continued Bowen. “This kind of a comprehensive review is essential in getting us to that point. One of three things will happen to each voting system that’s being reviewed. The first possibility is that a system will be found to be secure, accurate, reliable and accessible as it stands, so voters can have confidence when they use it on Election Day. Second, a system may be required to use additional safeguards, such as an expanded post-election audit process. The third possibility is that a voting system can’t be made secure, accurate, reliable and accessible even with additional safeguards, so that system may be decertified, which means it could not be used for any election in 2008.”
Details on the project plan, the people who will be conducting the review, and other information can be found in the attached “Frequently Asked Questions” document or by clicking http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm.
One of the concerns people had with the draft criteria was that the vendors would be held to a new set of standards that would be impossible for them to meet by February 2008,” continued Bowen. “This final project plan makes it clear that the top-to-bottom review is going to determine whether the voting systems certified for use in California comply with existing state and federal laws that require them to be secure, accurate, reliable and accessible.”
In March, Secretary Bowen issued draft criteria and gathered public comments on her proposal. Those comments ““ over 125 in all ““ are posted on the Secretary of State’s website at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm. The Secretary of State welcomes further comments from the public about the review while it’s underway and she will continue to provide updates on the website. Comments may be submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office by e-mail to votingsystems@sos.ca.gov or by mail to Secretary Debra Bowen, 1500 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, ATTN: Voting Systems Review, 6th Floor.
“Democracy, by definition, is about free, fair and open elections,” concluded Bowen. “My goal is to have election results that are beyond question or doubt. Right now, far too many voters are wondering about the accuracy of California’s election results. We have three statewide elections next year, which makes it even more essential that our voting equipment be secure, accurate, reliable and accessible.”
(stats from Wayne Madsen)
May 8, 2007 — Neo-con election engineering: the “new math”:
France: Nicolas Sarkozy 53% Segolene Royal 47%
Mexico: Felipe Calderon 35.88% Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador 35.31%
USA: George W. Bush 50.7% John Kerry 48.3%
Peru: Alan Garcia 53.2% Ollanta Humala 46.8%
Costa Rica: Oscar Arias 40.5% Otton Solis 40.2%
Colombia: Alvaro Uribe 62% Carlos Gaviria/Horacio Serpa 34% (Only 43% of eligible voters cast ballots)
Italy: Romano Prodi 49.81% Silvio Berlusconi 49.74% (Karl Rove and other manipulators failed to take into account the votes of Italians voting abroad, pre-election polls showed Prodi leading 52% to 47%)
Scotland Alexander Salmond (SNP) 37% Jack McConnell (Labor) 36.2% (100,000 spoiled ballots in pro-SNP constituencies)
Wales Rhodri Morgan (Labor) 43.3% Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru)/Michael German (Liberal Democrat) 35%
Canada: Stephen Harper 36.2% Paul Martin (Liberal) 30.17%/Jack Layton (NDP) 17.44%
Greece: Kostas Karamanlis 45.4% George Papandreou 40.5%
Denmark: Andres Fogh Rasmussen and right 52.5% Mogens Lykketoft and left 43.4%
USA: George W. Bush 47.9% Al Gore 48.4%
Florida: George W. Bush 48.850% Al Gore 48.841%
Virginia: Bob McDonnell (R.) 49.96% Creigh Deeds (D.) 49.95% (Attorney General)
Solution: Destroy the machines and the companies that produce and sell them.
It’s nice to see people like Felten involved, assuming he’s actually on board this time around. This is certainly the most credible review of voting machine security in a while.
I’m a bit concerned about whether, and how, the results will be handled, but Bowen’s actions so far make me optimistic.
Late Vote Anomalies
http://www.geocities.com/electi....htm#LateVotes
How does one explain these discrepancies in the recorded 2004 vote shares? A total of 121.06 million voted for Bush and Kerry. Bush won 51.5% of the initial 115.81mm; Kerry won 54.6% of the final 5.26mm. The vote-rigging ended before the final 5 million votes were recorded since Bush had already “won” the electoral vote and led by 3.5mm in the popular vote. A false impression was created that Bush was winning the popular vote. But the state and national exit polls indicated he was losing.
After the final 5mm votes were recorded, the Bush “mandate” declined by 0.5 million to a final 62-59mm. The probability of this discrepancy occurring due to chance is virtually ZERO.
Kerry exceeded his initial vote share in 38 states, including 15 of 19 battleground states. Corresponding state vote discrepancies were significant in the East but near zero in the Far West, strongly suggesting election fraud in early-reporting, vote-rich battleground states.
Give me legal (allowed) private access to a box — any box with the cover off and I can destroy the box in one second.
Debra Bowen!
“That is what I am talking about!”
I’d like to think that the new OH SOS Brunner would benefit from this study. She seems to be of the same mind as Bowen.
Go Debra!
Wonder if the machine-makers might sue to prevent the testing? Given their prior activity and rhetoric, I’d consider it a strong possibility…