Slashdot Mirror


California AG Says He'll Sue Diebold

moby11 points to this Reuters story carried by Yahooo!; it begins "California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said on Tuesday he would sue electronic voting machine maker Diebold Inc. on charges it defrauded the state with false claims about its products."

60 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. Just hope he doesn't have the case in Florida... by jmcmunn · · Score: 5, Funny


    Or the jury will have to count their votes ten times.

  2. A YRO topic?? by bob+beta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought politics.slashdot.org was just set up for this non-online stuff.

    1. Re:A YRO topic?? by echeslack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I also think they placed it under the wrong topic, but I think this is just as much a general technology issue as it is about politics. I figure politics.slashdot.org is for actual politics. This is really about technology's role in politics, so it makes sense as general news on this sight. Not sure why it would be under yro though. But a lot of stuff gets put under IT that seems entirely unrelated to IT, so who knows.

    2. Re:A YRO topic?? by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Diebold eVoting machines and their various flaws are not really a political topic, rather a technical topic, now the conspiracy theories about handing the election to bush (regardless of merit) may be political, the machines and their (lack of) adoption and use is Tech related.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:A YRO topic?? by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful
      He did, in fact, say this, although it was in the context of a speech at a fundraiser dinner. I think it's inappropriate for the CEO of a company that makes voting machines to be so obviously partisan, and it certainly wasn't the wisest thing he could have said, but I don't read a massive conspiracy to defraud into it the way some people do.

      That said, while most of the problems with Diebold software can easily be explained by total incompetence and lack of regard for the importance of correct behavior (as opposed to the appearance of correct behavior), some thing are very hard to see as anything except a deliberate creation of a way to manipulate votes.

  3. And then what? by JakeThompson1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So they will sue Diebold, win, and use the money to buy more Diebold products? After all, they are probably engaged in some type of "e-vote upgrade" and have already sold their "old" optical/mechanical/etc. machines to "poorer" [not considering the CA budget deficit] states.

    Have they considered vendor lock-in?

    1. Re:And then what? by nharmon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, it would be fitting for Diebold to refuse to sell to California.

      This would be similiar to when governments began sueing Ford Motor company because their Crown Victoria police cars would explode after being hit in the rear by vehicles traveling at highway speeds. When the state filed charges, Ford stopped selling them cars.

      So, this begs the question,...is California still buying diebold machines? Because if they are, then this lawsuit is nothing about ensuring voting integrity.

    2. Re:And then what? by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Diebold machines have been ruleed illegal in the state.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  4. From TFA... by nuclear305 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has said Diebold deceived California with aggressive marketing that led to the installation of touch-screen voting systems that were not tested or approved nationally or in California."

    From the sounds of it, the person(s) involved with authorizing the installation gave in to Diebold's hype without bothering to give system a thourough inspection/review prior to making the decision. In addition to suing Diebold, maybe the AG should be looking for some heads to chop for making a bad situation[company pushing false claims] even worse[installation and failure of product]?

    1. Re:From TFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe Diebold should cowboy the fuck up and accept its responsibility as an aid to the democratic process of the United States of America instead of diddling about as an aid to the Republican Party.

    2. Re:From TFA... by nharmon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, since they didn't bother to test the machines, then the state shares in some of the blame.

      Mayber caveat emptor doesn't apply to the gov'ment?

    3. Re:From TFA... by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because we all know that Democrats never commit vote fraud. Just ask all the dead people at the polls in chicago ;->

    4. Re:From TFA... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason they are filing a lawsuit is because Diebold was apparently intentionally misleading in thier "aggressive" marketing of the product. Yes, the state should have done some independant verification of some things. The fact is that we have laws saying that you can't blatantly lie about your product.

      To reply:
      I've always used "guv'mint".

    5. Re:From TFA... by themaddone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Almost, but no.

      According to the website, http://caag.state.ca.us/ag/index.htm

      Under the state Constitution, the Attorney General is elected to a four-year term in the same statewide election as the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner. In 1990, voters imposed a two-term limit on these statewide offices.

      Meaning you can't draw a conclusion about the Governator's integrity, since he very likely wasn't involved in this decision at all.

    6. Re:From TFA... by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, since they didn't bother to test the machines, then the state shares in some of the blame.
      Well, no.

      The purchasor has no legal obligation to verify that claims made by the vendor are true. The obligation is entirely on the vendor. And if the vendor makes untrue claims, a court may award damages, or even find the vendor guilty of fraud.

      Mayber caveat emptor doesn't apply to the gov'ment?
      Caveat emptor is common sense, but it is not a legal principle.

      Caveat emptor says that if I buy second hand car, I would be wise to get an independent mechanic to check its condition. After all, everyone expects used care salesmen to be a bit shonky. But it I buy a brand new car, I shouldn't have to do this. I should be able to trust Ford / General Motors to design and build cars that are mechanically sound when they leave the showroom.

      In this particular case, it is not clear to me whether the State of California or individual voting districts (?) purchased the machines. Either way, the purchaser was entitled to believe Diebold's assertions about the products' fitness for use at face value. Given that Diebold does not disclose its source-code, the purchasors have little choice wrt voting integrity issues.

  5. Recoup some of our money by tonydiesel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good. With California (still) facing rather sizable budget deficits and having paid Diebold so much money to begin with, this seems like a good step. I'm worried about the 2004 election in our state, we don't have enough machines, volunteers or money to solve the problems. Since my taxes went toward paying for those machines in the first place, I'd be happy to see the state get some of my money back so it can put it towards the stuff it really needs.

    Too bad about the criminal case though, it may not be fair, but Diebold sure seem like a bunch of crooks to me!

  6. Upset? by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, the President of Diebold did claim in 2003 that his company was
    committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.
    I suppose the California officials are upset that Diebold didn't include their state in the obvious corruptions of an opaque and unmonitorable voting system.
  7. Sued "Out the Ying-Yang" by Performer+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is going to be entertaining. The developer memo that Diebold should "Charge them Out the Ying-Yang" for paper copies because it was a new feature will surely come back to haunt the company. Such a disgusting attempt to exploit the customer over product deficiencies will not sit well with a jury.

    I think the damages in this case may be "Out the Ying-Yang". That's a phrase that really grows on you when the shoe is on the other foot. Come on say it with me Diebold, "Out the Ying-Yang".

  8. more than that. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is not just the sale of the machine and things on the hype. Diebold also 'repaired' systems using unahthorized/unapproved/untested software and patches.

  9. Re:Just hope he doesn't have the case in Florida.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, hopefully before it gets there, the California administration will step in and sue this company into oblivion. With the company being "terminated", we have less of chance of a Bush/Gore fiasco raising its ugly head and saying "I'll be back".

    (Couldn't think of any retarded references to Junior, Predator, etc.)

  10. Backdoor by bluelarva · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might be also interested to know that their system has a HUGE security hole (backdoor).

    http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78

  11. Diebold needs to be bankrupted by ShatteredDream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Electronic voting is a guaranteed way to have a dictatorship. Once a closed source machine is in charge of counting your votes, as long as the number matches the participants, who could challenge it, it's a machine. Say good bye to minor parties if this becomes mainstream.

  12. Re:Is this the right way to go about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If Diebold were not an appropriately qualified organisation, California state would have determined that in testing trials and switched to another provider. They aren't the only organisation to provide this civic service.


    You're assuming that there is a company with a good voting machine package available and the ability to ramp up production quickly. From what I've read, the only reason most states are even looking at these machines are because they're being forced to do so by a stupid, reactionary federal law inspired by the 2000 FL problems. Here in Washington state, our government has been aggressively attacking the voting machine manufacturers because none of them make a good product but we have to buy at least one electronic voting machine per county by either 2006 or 2008 (I forget) or break federal law.

    This is a clear case of reactionary legislation mandating solutions worse than the problems.
  13. And now for the finger-pointing! by Brian_Warner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was wondering when the blamestorming was going to finally hit the Diebold fiasco. At what stage will people realise that with something as important as a voting machine, independently checking its secrity would be a good idea? Sure, Diebold is partially responsible, but so are the people that decided to pay for their flawed systems.

    1. Re:And now for the finger-pointing! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem was, at the time people were looking to pay for voting machines, there was not one mass produced machine with open source code.

      Not one.

      Do you even understand how government, especially local government, works?? You get the money once. It's a set sum, with an additional budget for maintenance and support. If you don't spend the money, it's gone. So you have to buy when you have it. You can't wait. You can't hope or wish. You have to pick a vendor and pay them and hope they do a good job, because the money won't be coming back if you wait too long.

      Diebold had machines. People bought them because Diebold made big promises and nobody else had a decent machine for a fair price. Meanwhile, Open Source lost yet another battle due to a complete lack of understanding of how things work. If an OSS solution had been ready when the evoting money came in, and that solution was cheaper and backed by a solid company with a reputation and support staff, it would have won.

      That didn't happen. Not because local government is stupid and doesn't understand open source, but because open source is nearsighted and reactionary and was not ready.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  14. Price on Democracy by weston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Out the Yin-Yang" indeed. It's hard to put a price on playing fast and loose with American democracy.

    For as much as modern pundits seem to throw around the term "treason" these days, I'm surprised the term hasn't been applied to Diebold.

    1. Re:Price on Democracy by Performer+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It'll only be treason after they orchestrate a coup, and even then only if they get caught failing. Until then it's just business :-)

      Seriously though, I'm not one of the hysterical anti-Diebold mob, but there are a number of troubling things about this company and these systems. That said there will always be issues with any system and people crying that the sky is falling, but in this case there's enough substance and evasion by Diebold to cause some serious concerns. The case for code auditing and an open software model seems to have a great deal of appeal. I can't help but think we're rushing into this in a compressed timeframe and installing expensive systems early that will leave a technological legacy for future elections and systems to deal with. You'd have hoped that someone with a clue would have sat down and started some reasonable standards process and a software engineering effort to go along with it. OK this has happened to a limited degree but it has been steamrollered by a drive to do this in haste with intense lobbying in some areas, now what was this lawsuit about again?.

  15. How about simply... by Nick+Driver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What false claim was that?
    How about simply that the product was supposed to work correctly as it was claimed to do before the sale.

    All technology vendors need to be foreced to quit hiding behind some software EULA that allows them to escape being held liable when their stuff don't work right. If it takes charging them with fraud, then so be it.

  16. Re:Is this the right way to go about it? by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Umm, what the fuck planet do you come from. Diebold claimed to have a product that fit the purposes of the state (a secure electronic voting system). They marketed the system as that. The system has been found NOT to be secure, and that they knew it wasn't secure. Claiming a produuct is fit for a purpse when you know it isn't is fraud. They shouldn't just be sued, there should be people in jail over this.

    As for not dragging a corporation through the courts because youy have a beef with their practices- thats THE FUCKING PURPOSE OF A COURT SYSTEM. If you think someone is breaking the law, you bring them to court and see if the judge agrees. You think when someone lies about there product and commits fraud, we shouldn't sue their asses for our money back? We sure as hell should.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  17. UK Elections by Paster+Of+Muppets · · Score: 4, Informative

    Similar story in the UK not so long ago, the Government wanted to use postal and telephone voting as a means of increasing turnout, but they were seen as open to fraud and abuse (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3602170.st m), including voter intimidation. What is wrong with making it compulsory for people to turn up to a voting station to cast their vote in person? I accept that some people cannot do this, for physical reasons (disabled, etc) or work (emergency services, etc), but if people are saying they're too busy to vote then why not reallocate a public holiday so they don't have to go to work that day? And if voting is compulsory, they cannot complain about who wins in the end. If you don't vote, don't complain!

    --
    Due to lack of disk space this user has been discontinued
  18. Problems? Whoooo Booooey! & LINKS! by Joe+'Nova' · · Score: 3, Interesting

    more proof of malfeasance(previous diebold owners running away with elections when behind in polls, etc...)
    Politicians
    Halfway down, see ctrl-f rigging
    convicted fellons working for them!
    i don't have an account :(
    Backdoor vote rigging?

    That is a starter list, I'll post more later, just mod the parent up(this one!)

    --
    This mind intentionally left blank.
    The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
  19. First to market: Corporate natural selection by Theovon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sometimes, competition and rush to market is so intense that companies simply CANNOT do a proper job. The reason? No one is going to do a proper job. If you wait and do things right, then a competitor will get their half-ass product to market before you, and then you lose. No one is the wiser until way down the road. Now, since everyone is doing the hack-and-slash job, the winner is whoever managed to cover their mistakes better or who had fewer visible mistakes (or marketed better, etc.). By the time people figure out that the chosen product is shite, the companies that might have done a good job are either long gone or on to other things.

    Only after this first wave of a new kind of product do companies "learn from the mistakes of the past" (translation: we can do it right this time because customers finally expect to wait on a proper product).

    Capitalism is wonderful, but as with anything run by humans, it has its challenges.

    Diebold is the sacrificial lamb in this case. There's no way that history could have turned out any other way. If it hadn't been Diebold, it would have been someone else doing the same crap job and then getting sued by CA. They were the lucky ones who got to market first and the unlucky ones who got caught at doing what they and all of their competitors were doing. As usual, some other company will soon come along and produce a slightly better machine, etc.

  20. Re:Is this the right way to go about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    > They don't deliberately insert loopholes into their electronic voting systems

    How would you know? It's closed-source, trade-secret code.

    > and it's only because of relentless pounding that a periodic vulnerability is found.

    If you actually bother to read the sordid history of Diebold's voting products, you'll see they've been bug-ridden and insecure from the get-go. Yay for our MS Access-backed product!

    "For a demonstration I suggest you fake it. Progam them both so they look the same, and then just do the upload fro [sic] the AV. That is what we did in the last AT/AV demo."

    Read the memos at any number of sites, like http://www.hacksonville.org/diebold/

  21. Re:Is this the right way to go about it? by cmowire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would you accept a pacemaker that was made by a "good company" that wasn't "necessarily adequately tested"?

    Is a voting machine any different than a pacemaker? If a pacemaker fails, you die. Consider that every election features some real whacko candidates. What if voting machines conspired to elect a whacko to presidental office? Do you really want to think how many people would be killed if we a madman in the Whitehouse?

    The problem is that Diebold assured the technically inept California voting folks that they were perfectly able to build a good system. And then lied. And have been knowingly breaking the law. And are trying to still profit from this by charging as much as possible for printers so that there is a verifiable paper record of the votes, to fix *their* decided security holes.

    I mean, really, do you *know* that they haven't been inserting loopholes? Of course not. There's a variety of ways that they can mess with the machines. We just don't know and, since each voter has neither the ability nor the knowlege to dissassemble their voting machine to ensure that it is properly recording votes, we *can't* know.

  22. Mo' LINKS! by Joe+'Nova' · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    This mind intentionally left blank.
    The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
  23. What He Really Oughta Said by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Or the jury will have to count their votes ten times.

    You misunderstand...

    "Lockyer determined sufficient evidence existed to go forward with a false claims lawsuit against Diebold," the statement said. The state's top lawyer earlier had dropped a criminal investigation of Diebold.

    It's an electon year, right? Even if he's not up for re-election, it's the natural behavior of a politician.

    To whit:

    Diebold Vice President Thomas Swidarski said in a statement that the company was pleased Lockyer dropped the probe. Despite Lockyer's decision to sue, the company is "confident that the state's decision to intervene will aid in a fair and dispassionate examination of the issues raised in the case," Swidarski said.

    What Swidarski really oughta said, "[the company] is confident that this is a political ploy and will amount to nothing."

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:What He Really Oughta Said by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "It's a publicity ploy...and since the ex-actor is now a politician, that means it's a political ploy."

      Not that the governor of California has anything to do with California's AG. California, like most states, chooses its attorney general by direct popular vote, in accordance with Article 5, Section 11 of the California Constitution.

      If you're going to criticize a government, it helps to know a little about how it works.

  24. Guess... by michael_cain · · Score: 3, Funny

    the California state government didn't get the memo: How do you tell when a vendor is lying? Their lips move.

  25. In related news... by starrsoft · · Score: 3, Funny

    Diebold CEO, Bob Urosevich, announced, "Like our motto says, 'We won't rest!' We will fight this lawsuit until we win! For us, it is do or die bold!"

    --
    Read my blog: HansMast.com
    1. Re:In related news... by starrsoft · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also, in a statement addressed directly to the California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Diebold Vice President Thomas Swidarski said , "It isn't our fault that you didn't make sure to Lockyer voting systems!"

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
  26. How can we tell people about electronic voting? by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has anybody tried talking to non-computer people about electronic voting? I've tried it a few times, even toning down things, but people often either don't understand what's at stake or assume I'm exagerrating.

    I think this is quite possibly the most important US domestic issue this year, and feel that the word needs to get out about this, so we can try to fix what we can before it's too late. Unfortunately, I haven't been successful thus far. Has anybody else had better luck?

    1. Re:How can we tell people about electronic voting? by sholden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      people ... assume I'm exagerrating.

      See "The boy who cried wolf".

      See "The Y2K bug will destroy civilisation so you better stock up on cans of food and bottled water and shotgun ammunition, and a bunker in the middle of nowhere would be good too..."

      Of course you personally probably didn't do the wolf crying but the media did and people know nothing happened (and don't believe that the people working to fix problems might have had something to do with that).

      Also the "fear of computers" has been reduced by the wide acceptance of ATMs. After all if the banks trust them with huge amounts of money, why shouldn't I with voting]?[*]

      * Of course banks don't want to lose money and don't gain anything from ATM fraud. The makers of the machines could steal lots of money but the banks would notice... Whereas with voting the machine makers and the election runners (or a section of them) can be working together to rig the vote - a very different, and much harder to secure situation.

  27. Interesting by ebsf1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is interesting how this has played out. /.ers have been moaning (rightly so) about how this stuff is bad and how the ppl in charge have been ignoring it. And now the ppl in charge seem to be waking up. There appears to be hope after all. Having said that, it should never have happened in the first place.

  28. Re:Is this the right way to go about it? by K1-V116 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you really want to think how many people would be killed if we a madman in the Whitehouse?

    I know some might answer that question "Over a thousand and still counting...." ;) *innocent whistle*

    --

    Got mead?

  29. I wonder how much longer... by m2bord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we will be able to be protected by whistleblowers.

    someone please correct me if i am wrong but...

    this suit and the carnage over it began some time back with diebold's documents being leaked onto the net and posted just about everywhere.

    the following articles will jar some memories...

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/29/07 26256&tid=103&tid=137&tid=126&tid= 17

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/17/21 18218&tid=153&tid=103&tid=17

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/22/01 42252&tid=153&tid=172&tid=103&tid= 17

    and there are many more on this topic, http://slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=103&query=diebol d&author=&sort=1&op=stories

    basically...the new features prposed in the upcoming versions of windows and ms-office, plus the pending legislation before congress would protect the company and will kill this kind of information from being leaked.

    once those leaks are sealed and only authorized eyes see these documents, you can bet that whistleblowing on nefarious activities will come to a halt.

    --
    Is it 5:30 yet?
  30. Re:Just hope he doesn't have the case in Florida.. by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Funny

    We, the jury, find the defendant to be Pat Buchannan.

  31. Let the AG know! by bshort404 · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    -B
  32. What about conspiracy to commit election fraud? by nietzsche_freak · · Score: 5, Informative
    California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said on Tuesday he would sue electronic voting machine maker Diebold Inc. on charges it defrauded the state with false claims about its products.
    A good start, maybe, but what about the election fraud backdoor built into Diebold machines? From my link:
    By entering a 2-digit code in a hidden location [on the vote tabulation machine], a second set of votes is created. This set of votes can be changed, so that it no longer matches the correct votes. The voting system will then read the totals from the bogus vote set.
    Now I (who ANAL) would call building such a backdoor into a voting machine conspiracy to commit election fraud, which is, by the way, a felony in California.

    Why isn't the attorney general taking them to court over that?

    1. Re:What about conspiracy to commit election fraud? by nietzsche_freak · · Score: 3, Informative
      Uh, because until someone actually USES the backdoor to commit election fraud, there can't have been a [provable] conspiricy to commit same.
      Totally untrue. "Conspiracy to commit crime X" is a crime in its own right, totally seperate from crime X.

      Conspiracy is the crime of "conspiring" or agreeing with someone to do something which, if actually carried out, would constitute another crime or offense. Since the crime of conspiracy is merely the plan or agreement to commit crime X, it is not necessary for you to actually commit crime X to be convicted of conspiracy.

  33. Re:Just hope he doesn't have the case in Florida.. by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > we have less of chance of a Bush/Gore fiasco raising its ugly head and saying "I'll be back".

    Except it's California. If Kerry doesn't take the state easily, that's a red flag to investigate. :P

    --
    if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
  34. Download the election software to try at home! by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

    After skimming around some more, I found this page which has links to voting machine executables and some election results which Diebold inadvertently made public. You can actually run the software on your home computer to try it out.

    Also on the page is Election Support Guide for Diebold staff pulling support duties at the elections. It includes such gems as:

    The AccuFeed is often sensitive to the orientation, size, and print quality of the ballot.. AccuFeed units tend to reflect varying behavior in terms of speed and quality of processing. Familiarize yourself with the functioning of the AccuFeed before the election if it will be used in the election. Do not offer information as to the AccuFeed's shortcomings to the jurisdiction, even where obvious.

  35. The rest of the story: the OTHER plaintiffs by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Folks,

    This is the March/Harris lawsuit. Lockyer has decided to "join in", bringing the government in as a co-plaintiff.

    At around 10:30am today, Lowell Finley (our lawyer) calls me with the news that Lockyer and the AG's office have decided to join the suit Bev Harris and I filed all the way back in October. Lockyer and company have taken this long to decide whether or not to jump in.

    Their decision to do so is VERY welcome by myself, Bev and our lawyer.

    Here's the repercussions:

    * Bev, Lowell and myself will be splitting 15% of any winnings, versus 30% if we had to prosecute this on our own.

    * We ain't complaining, first because we were never in this for the money and second because Diebold is much more likely to settle early, confronted with Lockyer's legal staff instead of just Lowell. MAYBE they'll cave in before the November election, which would be great.

    * Second, our odds of any sort of win is now better.

    * Third, Lockyer has sent notice to the REST of the Diebold customer counties in California that they can "join in the fun". So this could spread beyond Alameda County, the original gov't entity that Bev, Lowell and I filed on behalf of.

    * This idea of suing Diebold for fraud becomes the alternative to what Solano County decided to do: pay $415,000 in their case to get out of their Diebold contract! (Note: Solano's settlement means it's TOO LATE to join in the March/Harris/Lockyer lawsuit and solution. There's a fair chance Lockyer announced all this today to prevent any more "Solano-style" mistakes.)

    Other bits:

    The AG's staff are promising Lowell that they are NOT getting into this in order to "sabotage the case and settle early for peanuts". They *could* do that but I believe them that they aren't.

    The fact that this is being done as a "whistleblower suit" by two private citizens strongly HELPS the government versus a situation where they did it themselves, even when you factor in the small "bounty" to Bev, Lowell and myself. This is because the whistleblower laws include a triple damages provision if we can prove fraud. This becomes a "big stick" to threaten Diebold into settlement with (for less than triple damages; we'll be OK with actual costs returned plus 15% so that the gov't agencies get "made whole" despite the 15% cut.)

    Without whistleblowers, first off the gov't wouldn't have had the data to do this at all and even if we just gave them the data "for free", the gov't wouldn't have the damage tripler "stick".

    Finally, the question WILL come up (and already has among these replies): "Is all this legit? Did Diebold REALLY screw up here in a fashion worth suing over?"

    My answer to that is at this new page showing the actual vote fraud rigged into Diebold's central tabulator software via screenshots of actual Diebold code and database structures:

    http://www.equalccw.com/deandemo.html

    That is all I need to say about the basic morality of this lawsuit.

    Jim March / jmarch@prodigy.net

  36. Re:Is this the right way to go about it? by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem with this "blaming of the victims" (California and it's "customer counties") is that they weren't allowed to see the source code for the product!

    Only the Federally approved "Independent Testing Authorities" (ITAs) are allowed to see voting product source code. In the case of Diebold, this was Wyle Labs and Ciber Inc. (formerly "Metamor"), both in Huntsville Alabama and often relying on the same pool of employees. These agencies are approved for this "certification" process by the Federal Elections Commission.

    These two acted as the "Arthur Andersons" to Diebold's "Enron".

    We know that in at least two cases Diebold specifically decieved the testing labs. We have Diebold's internal memos in which managers instructed lower-level people to lie to the labs; in one case Ken Clark (Sr. Engineer and head of the tech support group) didn't think that the BS they were to pass off would fly, but the report came back from the underling that it did.

    For detailed quotes of all this and technical analysis, see also my first two letters to the California Secretary of State, archived in the yellow table, right column:

    http://www.equalccw.com/voteprar.html

    Without the ability to even see source code, it's rather hard to blame anybody in California for this fiasco.

    Diebold on the other hand had a contractual duty to provide software that obeys the Federal certification process sans fraud AND California's election laws (which require high-security products). They blew off both contractual elements, so this isn't "tort law", it's "contract law", a much more cast-in-stone (and legitimate) area of law.

    Jim March / jmarch@prodigy.net

  37. Re:Just hope he doesn't have the case in Florida.. by McNally · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Except it's California. If Kerry doesn't take the state easily, that's a red flag to investigate
    I know that the Bush v. Kerry battle is the main event on the political calendar this year but it's important for people to remember that we have three branches of government in this country, two of them elected, and it's just as important who controls the other two. (And that's just at the federal level! State and local races matter, too!)

    Both federal legislative houses are fairly evenly divided and the Senate in particular is completely up for grabs. But a few closely contested House seats that get swung the wrong way while everyone's eye is on the big show could have a huge effect, too..

    I don't believe the tinfoil hats are called for just yet, but please try to remember that there's more than one election taking place this fall.
  38. Jesus Christ by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative
    How the hell did we get a story about Diebold without a link to blackboxvoting. There's a fucking backdoor in Diebold's tallying system where you can disconnect various tables in the database via typing a code in a secret location. And the tallying software doesn't just count Diebold votes, it normally counts all the votes.

    But, let's all yammer about California suing them while ignoring the huge revelations that have happened in the last two weeks WRT Diebold.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  39. Re:Jesus Christ - the BlackBoxVoting connection by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 4, Informative

    AP is covering the same story in a wee bit more detail:

    http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A ID =@@2004409071097

    Yup - Lockyer didn't FILE suit, he joined in the one by Bev Harris (Executive Director of BlackBoxVoting.org) and myself (Member of the Board of Directors, same org).

    AP keeps reporting that I'm a "programmer". Not true, I've tried to correct that several times now (I'm a former LAN sysadmin/tech support type).

    You can see an alternate version of Bev's "cheat code problem" described with screenshots here:

    http://www.equalccw.com/deandemo.html

    See also my other posts in this thread for more of the background by one of the OTHER plaintiffs - Bill Lockyer is only the newest :).

    NOTE: Bev and I demoed the same stuff as described in the link above to the California SecState's staff on August 18th of this year. Also present was an attorney from Lockyer's office. That may have been the final "tilt" Lockyer needed to join in; that or he saw how Solano County hosed themselves by paying Diebold $415,000 to go away less than two weeks ago.

    Jim March

  40. Re:Download the election software - author's reply by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 5, Informative

    As the author, I can tell you that's a good page and the links to actual code still work.

    The information therein should be supplemented with this later data:

    http://www.equalccw.com/deandemo.html

    That's a "walkthrough" of the "hack demo" Bev Harris did with Howard Dean on CNBC a bit over a month ago. Complete with screenshots. It can be replicated with pieces downloaded from the "Dieboldtestnotes" page.

    Putting the actual code and sample data online REALLY pissed Diebold off something fierce; they filed a cease'n'desist notice against my ISP.

    Which did NOT succeed in taking my site down; on the contrary, mine is the only site to have completely survived a Diebold C&D with no downtime.

    To see how I pulled that trick off:

    http://www.equalccw.com/liebold.html

    My main "Diebold page" is at:

    http://www.equalccw.com/voteprar.html - the "Dean Demo" page will be linked from there soon (prolly tomorrow).

    Jim March

  41. The BIGGER issue... by d474 · · Score: 3, Informative
    You know, even if Diebold was competent, it wouldn't matter:
    "Meanwhile, William A. Arbaugh, an assistant computer science professor at the University of Maryland, College Park and part of the team, easily sneaked his way into the state's computers by way of his modem. Once in, he had access to change votes from actual precincts - because he knew how to exploit holes in the Microsoft software."
    Hacking democracy
    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  42. Re:4 more years of Dubya guaranteed? by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a weeee bit more complicated than that.

    OK.

    Everybody is looking at how Diebold "Corporate" in Canton OH (the parent company) is riddled with Bush/GOP links. And that's true.

    But it's NOT true of Global Election Systems, the Canadian company that Diebold bought in 2002 and renamed "Diebold Election Systems" (still based in Vancouver BC to this day). Diebold corp of Ohio had been investing slightly before buying them outright but the investments do NOT go all the way back to Oct. of 2000.

    Late Oct. 2000, GEMS version 1.17.5 was released. Per Bev Harris, this was the earliest version she could find that had the "double set of books" hack in it apparantly designed for election fraud. See also:

    http://www.equalccw.com/deandemo.html ...for a more complete demo.

    Early Oct. of 2000, Global hired a new head programmer for GEMS: Jeffrey Dean.

    During the mid to late '80s, Dean embezzled more than $400,000 from a Seattle law firm he was doing computer consulting for. Dean was convicted in the early '90s of 23 counts of computer-aided accounting fraud in what the court called a "sophisticated scheme".

    How did he end up hooked up with Global?

    He shared a jail cell with another of the founders during the '90s.

    Upshot: Global appears to have been run by a genuine bunch of crooks. *Not* political crooks, just plain ol' crooks. Diebold corporate didn't do enough background checks at the time of the buyout and I doubt they understood what sort of pirates they'd swallowed.

    I can't be sure of course, 'cuz maybe the Canton boys DID know what they were getting involved in. But if they didn't, then the whole "Bush/GOP connection thing" that the Diebold Corporate people in Ohio are now famous for was a deeply unfortunate coincidence and God only *knows* what's going to happen in November!

    Keeerist.

    Think this is unlikely?

    The big MONEY in election fraud involves rigging *local* elections, esp. building projects, construction bonds and the like. And people don't pay near the attention to that like they do national races.

    I suspect that's what Global was really after. And I suspect keeping a secret all the way up to the Bush White House would be...unmanagable and dangerous as hell.

    Am I certain Bush is "clean" (of this, at any rate)? Hell no. I *do* know that a heck of a lot of Democrats in various places have pushed for Diebold (starting with Georgia) and I know that county election officials can use the "cheats" Diebold built in very damned easily. Guys, I've personally seen MS-Access loaded onto GEMS boxes within counties - Fresno County's elections staff let me peek at their systems some months back (but the MS-Access was an older version (97) not compatible with the more recent GEMS databases so any ill with it happened some time ago, not recent).

    Anyways. I don't want to end up betting on whether or not Diebold will "win out" in "hacking contests" with county elections officials :(. This crap has to go regardless.

    Jim March

  43. No security, or even backdoors? by Slashi · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to http://lists.seifried.org/pipermail/security/2004- August/004631.html and http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78, there is even more than just missing security in the Diebold election machines. If these are true, than Diebold might have more troubles than it seems so far.