Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Diebold to Pay $2.6M Due to Insecure Voting Machines

Posted by michael on from the but-you-voted-with-them-anyway dept.

sunilk writes "In a short period, Diebold has been at the center of several problems. Now it seeks to settle the lawsuit filed against it by the State of California by paying $2.6 million. Settlement comes because of flaws in the Diebold systems that could compromise election results."

8 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. I hope they don't just settle... by nonregistered · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... that will just set the price of an election!

    1. Re:I hope they don't just settle... by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful


      I'm unclear. Who get's the 2.6 million? The government they just chose?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  2. I have to ask by rootofevil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How much is a secure, honest, fair election worth? 2.6 million? Thats a drop in the bucket.

    Something to the effect of the vendors machines being overhauled at the expense of the vendor or removed permanently in the state seems a bit more fitting for this degree of failure.

    --
    turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  3. Took them long enough by mg2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When the San Diego Registrar of Voters implemented the Diebold system, they went ahead and got rid of thousands of these little plastic voting booths we used to use. Also, the stylus voting equipment is gone -- all replaced by shiny new touchscreen voting equipment.

    Come election day, half of the machines booted into Windows CE Explorer instead of the voting software... whoops

    So now, the hardware is being re-certified, the old voting equipment is gone, and San Diego is using (Diebold Manufactured) optical scanners for voting on a temporary basis.

    If these issues (and expenses) have been present in other counties of California, I fail to see how 2.6mil is a decent settlement. Sorry.

  4. Re:2.6 million? by dissy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed.

    After all, attempting to overthrow the government actually ranks as a crime up with murder. Both carry life sentences, though I'm not sure if both still can carry the death penalty.

    When terrorists tried it, we started a war.
    When a company on home soil trys it, they get a ticket :/

  5. why no criminal charges? by belmolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm disappointed that California didn't pursue criminal charges. A civil suit may be sufficient to deal with honest mistakes, but if, as seems to be the case, Diebold repeatedly made changes to software after certification, that's a deliberate malfeasance. These people need to learn that elections are serious business. These aren't candy machines.

  6. You got it backwards... by TR0GD0RtheBURNiNAT0R · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Well if democracy costs $2.6 million, how much for a quasi-constitutional theocracy?

    I think you need to switch those two...

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  7. Diebold contributions...and the Carter Center by tdhillman · · Score: 5, Informative

    For a little fun, see exactly where a little Diebold campaign money goes:

    from the public record...

    Crowther, John Michael Mr.
    8/27/2003 $2,000.00
    Canton, OH 44708
    Diebold Inc. -[Contribution]
    BUSH-CHENEY '04 INC


    D' Amico, Thomas R. Mr.
    9/3/2003 $2,000.00
    Canton, OH 44718
    Diebold Inc. -[Contribution]
    BUSH-CHENEY '04 INC

    and that /.'ers, is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Never mind that the Carter Center, which supervises elections around the world, considers our systems fubar.

    And yet I do love America still. Curious indeed.

    --
    befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig