Slashdot Mirror


Diebold Folds In DMCA E-Voting Lawsuit

sunbird writes "Diebold has filed a responsive pleading (PDF) in the lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to challenge Diebold's practice of using the DMCA to suppress discussion of the critical flaws with electronic voting. Diebold states that it has "decided to withdraw its existing DMCA notifications and not to issue any further ones . . . ." Other recent developments include: this transcript of the court hearing on EFF's application for a preliminary injunction and Dennis Kucinich's linking to Diebold memos from his webpage at the U.S. House of Representatives. Stay tuned- the judge has scheduled a status conference for this Monday in the case."

15 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Re:DMCA - how can i abuse thee, let me count the w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yes, and this is a perfect example of what the EFF is there for!

  3. There was ir-repairable injury by jfern · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Thanks to Diebold, Florida was called for Bush. Bush pissed away $9 trillion of projected surpluses, got the whole world mad at us, lost 7.5 millions compared to what was needed to sustain current employment rates. I think we should sure Diebold for $10 trillion. That ought to get their attention.

  4. Too bad they folded. by flacco · · Score: 3, Interesting
    the best possible outcome would have been for this to go to court, for shoddy proprietary voting systems to appear on the evening news, and for the DMCA to be publicly humiliated for the piece of shit that it is.

    from the company's perspective, i'd FIRE the dimwit who championed this strategy.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  5. Denying the memos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not all good news. If diebold really went on claiming copyright over the memos, then it would in effect be suggesting that the memos were real. Now it can still claim that they are doctored, etc.

    Giving the EFF this concession is quite sneaky, as it helps them deal with the memos.

  6. this is not a win... by zeruch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...it means either Diebold has some other nefarious move up their sleeves, or (more likely) instead of doing what many other companies do -make a big spectacle of themselves- they are hoping to disappear into the woodwork during the upcoming election season so as to "help their benefactors" my 2 paranoid cents

  7. it's a win, a very big win by js7a · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's not a win unless the EFF wins the actual case.

    I think maybe you are confusing this with IBM's countersuit against SCO. In this case, there was no precident that could be set either way. (AFAIK, IANAL)

    What happened at the hearing was that the judge made it clear that he was going to provide declarative relief in favor of the plaintiff, although not an injunction on the question of the fair use of all 13,000 emails. It isn't always as crystal clear from the hearing what the judge will do, but check out this comment from the Judge:

    [page 4-5:] THE COURT: What if [plaintiffs] ... can show that they are suffering some type of collateral damage while the DMCA [process is] taking place? In other words, what OPG alleges here is that simply taking advantage of the safe harbor [provisions] isn't an adequate remedy ... for a number of reasons that they identify.... and I think I agree with them....

    You can see how he's not going to go for an injunction if you read the whole hearing transcript.

    One very importaint thing, it became clear that because of precidents set in the Scientology case, if Diebold had sued, the court was going to have to go through all the emails and decide on a case-by-case basis which of them are subject to fair-use protections and which aren't because they contain no public-interest material or contain an overwhelming abundance of "how-to/how-not-to" information with commercial value. From a technical perspective, of course, we have already seen how some of the source code with respect to weak encryption has some of the most importaint public-interest information. There is no way any judge would be savvy enough to catch that on the first go-round, and so this would have been a real money-loser for the good guys.

    So, I am very glad this didn't go to trial.

  8. Kucinich Blog on Election Activism by Henri+Poole · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is from the Kucinich Blog from June 20, 2003. Americans have become very sensitized to manipulation of the vote since the debacles in the 2000 presidential elections. All over america, people are expressing to me their concerns about honest elections, about election technologies, about the ownership of voting machine suppliers, about the potential for fraud...all of which can undermine our democracy. We need solutions. Here's what we can do: we can organize in every community across this country into citizen groups of individuals with technical expertise in computer programming, systems design, and working knowledge of elections. These precinct activists can begin immediately to create a template for securing the 2004 vote. The elements of such a program might include: taking action to gain access to inspect the technology, to learn what safeguards have been put in place to make sure that no coflicts of interests are involved, and to make sure there are no problems with the chain of custody. What I'm advocating is monitoring the vote. Maybe we should call it MTV2004...Monitor the vote 2004. Perhaps we could begin to post our ideas to the wiki www.civicactions.org. We will need to organize state by state or county by county. If anyone has any ideas, please go to the wiki and let's act collectively to ensure a fair election in 2004. (lifted from his Blog under his CC license).

    Just last week, he blasted the FBI for stripping away the constitution. All from a man who 25 years ago, on Dec 25, 1978, refused to sell Clevelands municipal electric company under threat of political death. He stood by his principles and sacrificed his career. After a few years and hundreds of millions in savings, the people brought him back. If there is ever a candidate for president who supports rights of netizens, and "we the people", this is him. Consider a Thanksgiving day gift .

    1. Re:Kucinich Blog on Election Activism by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Here's what we can do: we can organize in every community across this country into citizen groups of individuals with technical expertise in computer programming, systems design, and working knowledge of elections. These precinct activists can begin immediately to create a template for securing the 2004 vote. The elements of such a program might include: taking action to gain access to inspect the technology, to learn what safeguards have been put in place to make sure that no coflicts of interests are involved, and to make sure there are no problems with the chain of custody. What I'm advocating is monitoring the vote."

      Yeah! I know, we could get party members in each municipality to observe and inspect the voting machines while they're being set up. And then on election day, we could have representative of the parties present at each polling station to keep track of who came in. We could even have party representatives present when the machines are queried for their official vote talleys!

      In case you have difficulty seeing my sarcasm, this is exactly what has happened since at least the beginning of the Twentieth Century, and he as a politician should know this already since before the election each municipality mails him a letter spelling out where and when the machines will be established and inspected so that he can send his representatives to observe the process. The only new idea he has here is giving it a snazzy new catch-phrase name. And judging from your glowing response, the tactic is obviously working.

      "Just last week, he blasted the FBI for stripping away the constitution."

      You mean just like every other Democrat candidate so far? Not that that is anything new, since you get elected by showing the incumbent's administration in a negative light. Candidates for the presidency running against incumbents have been complaining about how their opponent's administration of the FBI has robbed us of our Blessed Constitutional Rights (/me genuflects) for as long as we've had an FBI.

      "If there is ever a candidate for president who supports rights of netizens, and "we the people", this is him."
      (A) dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

      --"Publius"
      Federalist number 1

  9. Re:hooray! [a bit too early to say] by waterbear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not a win unless the EFF wins the actual case.

    If the judge allows dismissal [...]

    Yes -- and I was just now trying to puzzle out just where the two recent papers leave this case (transcript of hearing for an injunction, and Diebold's new document, see links in the main article).

    Hopefully somebody with better insight into the procedure here will say more, but first it looks to me as if the parties had been waiting for the judge to decide, after a hearing, whether to grant an injunction against Diebold. (Was I the only one that found the hearing transcript obviously garbled in places, and the dialogue hard to decipher? I wonder how the judge manages to make use of such scrambled text?!)

    It looked as if Diebold tried to pre-empt the next step, and the upcoming decision, by filing the paper with its concessions -- as if Diebold privately reckoned after the hearing that it would likely be on the losing side.

    It looks as if the ball is now at least partly with EFF on what step to try next. The Diebold paper attempts to deal with the possibility that EFF might try to find a basis on which to persist in the suit for its 'test case' value, in spite of Diebold's concessions. Clearly Diebold hopes that its concessions took away enough of the 'sting' of injury caused by its DMCA activities, to leave the plaintiffs with nothing more to sue about, and to 'kill' the case before there is an adjudication that would likely make life harder in future for Diebold and other potential DMCA claimants.

    I would guess EFF is now busy in legal conference and research to see if the case really is effectively dead beyond recall. (Go EFF!) Maybe we can still hope they will identify a way to take the case forward to an adjudication that could be of value, as a precedent to limit the scope for mischievous abuse of the DMCA in future. But I suppose it is possible no way will be found.

  10. After the ATM story by lanalyst · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..about how Diebold cash dispensers were infected with the Nachi worm I think they were left with no choice.

  11. Re:hooray! by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's not a win unless the EFF wins the actual case.

    Screw the EFF case, the one that really matters is whether we get fair votes or not.

    Down in Florida they showed just what the GOP is capable of, forget the recount. Before the poll even took place the Republicans disqualified over 150,000 voters, mostly black on bogus grounds. One man was disqualified because of a conviction in 2007!

    The 'scrub' list was compilled by a GOP connected firm, despite the fact that their bid was $2.5 million rather than the $57 thousand one of the other companies bid. The list was compiled by matching the first four letters of the voters name, the date of birth and the race of the voter. This is how the poll was fixed, a white voter would not lose their vote because of a black convict still in jail in Texas.

    There were also tricks played with the voting machines, not just the mechanical chad ridden ones. The optical scanners can be configured to reject a ballot if an error is detected or to silently consume it. The error can be voter error or machine error.

    Well guess what? In the white areas the GOP configured the machines to give the voter another try if there was a problem. In the black areas the exact same machine was configured to silently eat the ballot. That is why the rates of miscounts were so much higher in the black areas (12%) than the white areas (1%). Easy when you know how.

    Click on my sig and read the Pallast article which gives the blow by blow account. And before you squeak "bias" - the inquiry vindicated every one of the NAACP allegations. Only by that time Katherine Harris and the GOP had got away with it.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  12. corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The most important link
    in the whole article.

    The Diebold employee Ken Clark admits that numerous state counties had requested the .mdb files to not have passwords.

  13. Re:Speech and Debate clause is limited by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    But see Gravel vs. US, which is more on point. That's the Pentagon Papers case. Hutchinson is a defamation case. The question in Hutchinson was whether a member of Congress has unlimited right to defame or libel anyone, and the Supreme Court ruled that the member does not. The question in Gravel relates to the release of protected information to influence public debate.

    The current Supreme Court might well decide Gravel differently.

    Has this ever come up before in an intellectual property context? And has it come up recently, since the expansion in intellectual property rights in the last decade?

  14. Re:Speech and Debate clause is limited by sunbird · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yes, but in Gravel the Pentagon Papers were read into the public record at a subcommittee meeting. Later, the same Senator privately published the materials. The court found that the former was protected, not the latter:
    The grand jury, therefore, if relevant to its investigation into the possible violations of the criminal law, . . . may require from [the Senator's aide] answers to questions relating to his or the Senator's arrangements, if any, with respect to republication or with respect to third-party conduct under valid investigation by the grand jury, as long as the questions do not implicate legislative action of the Senator.

    408 U.S. at 628.

    Thus, the Supremes held that information about private publication of the papers was not protected, but any "legislative actions," such as reading the text into the subcommittee's record, are fully protected.

    If Kucinch had read the Diebold memos into the record, he would be absolutely protected. But, posting it on a website is not protected, public interest or not.