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."

38 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. 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 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?

    2. 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 ;->

    3. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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.
  6. 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".

  7. 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?
  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. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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?.

  14. 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.

  15. 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?
  16. 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
  17. 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/

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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?

  23. 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?

  24. 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
  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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.
  28. 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?
  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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