Slashdot Mirror
Diebold CEO Resigns Under Cloud
Philip K Dickhead writes "After numerous ethical lapses and much controversy, Diebold CEO, Wally O'Dell resigned to the applause of the markets. Diebold's price improved more than 5% today, as the story broke. Business Week is reporting that O'Dell is leaving for "personal reasons", although the news blog Raw Story cites board action on imminent securities fraud litigation, and legal challenges by states claiming fraudulent certification of Diebold voting machines. Latest vulnerability tests show an impossibly negligent attention to vote security and privacy." Not overly surprising, considering their recent childish antics in NC.
Looks like a good time buy some puts on Diebold.
Man, I wish I'd heard about this while the market was open.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Many of us know from experience that lots of users cannot figure out what seem to us to be rather simple computer interfaces. And, we've probably all encountered people who will not use a computer. Many of these folks tend to be older; I know several of them.
Now, if people in Florida in 2000 couldn't figure out the "butterfly ballot" (yes, a needlessly convoluted "interface" if you will, but not really all that tough), how do you think people are going to figure out a voting machine? Am I making too much of a leap in guessing that the same demographic (who I described above) that would have trouble with the butterfly ballot would have trouble with this too?
I have voted on rudimentary machines a long time ago (probably 1996-ish), and it wasn't exactly rocket science. But, isn't another election debacle being set up here with a move to voting machines?
I seem to recall rumors that these guys used some really insecure system(access? sql-server?) contributing to their problems. Wonder if they fixed that problem too; or just changed the figurhead in charge.
I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, but given all the contraversy over Diebold's products, and if their board of directors is aware of of said contraversy, could this just be a feel good measure to divert public attention from the real issues? So the CEO is resigning due to "personal reasons", but is the company really going to change, or is it more of a "See? The Bad Guy(TM) is gone, you can trust us now!" type deal.
We geeks need to contribute to the open source voting software efforts!!
no you American geeks need to stop using software and black box computers for elections
and just use paper like everyone else, all a OSS project would do is to validate that computers are OK to use in elections
when they are not
using a computer is possibly the most insecure and easily corruptable way to hold elections, a totalitarian wet dream
if you say "yeah we can do a printout" then you might as well stick with paper and junk the technology
not every problem can be solved with a computer, unless your vote is the problem (to those who seek power)
Anyone who knows anything about business knows the cardinal rule: A people recruit A people, B people recruit C people. The CEO of Diebold was an F person and it's likely the whole company is now filled killers, thieves, and lawyers.
We've had electronic voting booths for ages (we had incredibly complex mechanical ones until the old clockmakers that built them for us all died or retired).
But we still haven't had any election fraud attributable to the machines.
Basically, it's because we have so few electors our votes aren't worth stealing.
Yes, how about answering my question, instead of posting links of allegations and speculation?
I specifically asked for credible evidence that the CEO knew and conspired to knowingly fix the election for Bush. All you had was that the machines weren't secure enough and possible breach might be possible.
I eagerly await any real evidence of this alleged "delivery" by malfeasance on the CEO's part. So far nobody has delivered.
Is it just me or is he basically asking for evidence proven true in the court of law before he'd accept the case going to court to be proven true? You, know, otherwise any evidence is just "rumor" and "speculation" unless it fits his worldview.
Computerized voting booth: User inserts a blank pre-printed ballot with one line for each position or proposal. The machine confirms that the ballot is loaded correctly (perhaps a notch in one corner) and displays the setup. (Step 0: blind users are assisted in plugging in headphones and instruction on location and purpose of the controls. Controls should have braille.) User selects a language (from this point on, interface is in the selected language), and then a font size (even if headphones are present... a "blind" user may actually just have impared vision and be capable of using the device with a large enough font size). The user then sees a list of "issues" and whether a vote has been selected. The first "issue" should be the option to vote straight ticket. When the user selects an issue (controls tbd, though I'm particularly fond of "prev, next, and enter", for a total of three keys). They will see a description of that issue in the appropriate language (ie, "President of the United States" or "Proposition 1: Raise Taxes"). Propositions should start with a very minimal description for this stage in order to prevent as much bias as possible. The full text of the proposition should then be available within the system in the language it will be implemented in (translating law is difficult and can be error-prone). Finally, a list of options which the user can navigate. All such lists should include a "no vote" option so that the user can return to the issue list without recording a vote. Selecting an option returns you to the issue list. At the bottom of the issue list is the option to confirm your vote. First, if not all issues have been voted on, a message will appear to indicate that some votes have not been cast, with the default setting as "return to voting". If the user chooses "confirm votes" again, they will be given a list of issues and their selected options. The default will again be to "return to voting". When the user chooses "Voting Complete, Print Ballot", their ballot card will be printed, one issue to a line in the form
(ideally in columns, though width restraints may force this to occupy multiple rows. Plus, slashdot has really nerfed the ecode tag for formatting) etc. The machine resets for the next user, with no data saved. The user can then confirm that the ballot card is correct, and deposit the card in the box. If the user discovers an issue with their card, they can return it to the staff, have it destroyed, and be re-issued a blank card.
Now, the ballot boxes are securely transferred to the voting station as was done for years and years before the evoting craze, where they are processed by two machines. One, an optical sorter which can be configured to read the *** marks on any given line, and sort the ballots appropriately. The ballots are then fed into a counter, and the tally recorded for the appropriate person. At any time, someone can examine a sorted stack of ballots to confirm that the marks do match the person voted for (flipping through the stack while watching the name should be very quick to confirm). After counting, someone can confirm that the stack fed through the counter matches the name the count is awarded to. And, if necessary, the ballots can be recounted by hand by reading the human-readable portion of the ballot.
Design issue to confront: with preprinted ballot cards, how long does the card need to be in order to guarantee that every possible item can fit? How wide to ensure that people's names can be represented completely? Can printers be equipped to print and cut from a "roll" of cardstock (or any paper thicker than receipt paper which would never survive a mechanical sorter) to circumvent this issue? Can the printer ge
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
What is the US Secret Service doing?
l eges_company_plagued_1206.html
...
It is supposedly their responsibility to see that election fraud doesn't happen, yet the evidence of fraud is clear as a day.
Why? Are americans happy with this?
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__al
Shortly before the election, ten days to two weeks, we were told that the date in the machine was malfunctioning, the source recalled. So we were told 'Apply this patch in a big rush. Later, the Diebold insider learned that the patches were never certified by the state of Georgia, as required by law.
Also, the clock inside the system was not fixed, said the insider. Its legendary how strange the outcome was; they ended up having the first Republican governor in who knows when and also strange outcomes in other races. I can say that the counties I worked in were heavily Democratic and elected a Republican.
To quote the latest article on the Black Box Voting site (and then some background below that):
---
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1559 5.html?1134523376
Due to security design issues and contractual non-performance, Leon County (Florida) supervisor of elections Ion Sancho told Black Box Voting that he will never use Diebold in an election again. He has requested funds to replace the Diebold system from the county. He will issue a formal announcement to this effect shortly.
Finnish security expert Harri Hursti proved that Diebold lied to Secretaries of State across the nation when Diebold claimed votes could not be changed on the memory card.
A test election was run in Leon County today with a total of eight ballots - six ballots voted "no" on a ballot question as to whether Diebold voting machines can be hacked or not. Two ballots, cast by Dr. Herbert Thomson and by Harri Hursti voted "yes" indicating a belief that the Diebold machines could be hacked.
At the beginning of the test election the memory card programmed by Harri Hursti was inserted into an Optical Scan Diebold voting machine. A "zero report" was run indicating zero votes on the memory card. In fact, however, Hursti had pre-loaded the memory card with plus and minus votes.
The eight ballots were run through the optical scan machine. The standard Diebold-supplied "ender card" was run through as is normal procedure ending the election. A results tape was run from the voting machine.
Correct results should have been:
Yes:2 No:6
However the results tape read:
Yes:7 No:1
The results were then uploaded from the optical scan voting machine into the GEMS central tabulator. The central tabulator is the "mothership" that pulls in all votes from voting machines. The results in the central tabulator read:
Yes:7 No:1
This proves that the votes themselves were changed in a one-step process that would not be detected in any normal canvassing procedure - using only a credit-card sized memory card.
Diebold Elections Systems head of research and development Pat Green specifically told the Cuyahoga County board of elections that votes could not be changed on the memory card.
According to Public Records responses obtained by Black Box Voting in response to our requests shows that Diebold promulgated this misrepresentation to as many as 800 state and local elections officials.
In other news, according to Bradblog a stockholder suit was filed today against Diebold by the law offices of Scott and Scott:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002153.htm
Permission to reprint granted with link to http://blackboxvoting.org/
---
Jim again. Let me fill you in on the background.
Six months ago Leon County elections administrator Ion Sancho asked us (Black Box Voting) to "test hack" his Diebold optical scan system. We brought Finnish security expert Harri Hursti and Dr. Hugh Thomson from Florida along.
Dr. Thomson proved that the central tabulator's database (in MS-Access of all things) can be hacked without a retail copy of MS-Access present. He used Visual Basic to control the MS Jet database engine directly, using very small script files...small enough to be typed in via MS-Windows Notepad at the tabulator console. We already knew the MS-Access database was tamper-friendly but this was real-world proof that you didn't need to bring in and load a copy of Access to tamper. The same things can almost certainly be done in Java and probably other ways as well.
Harri Hursti pulled off something new.
The report co-written with Bev Harris proved it's possible to doctor the poll tapes. These are the end-of-day printouts showing the number of votes for each candidate or issue taken in on that machine. It's basically
Go to your bank/credit union, etc. and (knowing full well in advance)
ask the teller who supplies the ATMs.
When they say "Diebold", then you appear to consider this and then
withdraw money from your account and DO NOT tell them where it is
going.
After the transaction is concluded to your satisfaction, tell them
"well now I know that my money will be safe".
If you cannot vote at the polls, vote with your money.
AC
> Even if he's indicted, tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to a PMTA prison, his alleged services to the current administration would probably buy him a "Get out of Jail Free" card in the form of a presidental pardon for all crimes.
Bush doesn't seem the type to expend his scarce political capital on someone who can't help him anymore.
Hell, he has to be reminded when it's time to throw the religious right a bone.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Thanks, I know what Socialism is ;)
I meant that you hav to choose between Socialists (who want more state in the economy, and less state in private affairs) and Conservatives, who want less state in the economy (well, at least before Bush they said so) and lots of state in your private affairs, so you don't do anything they consider as wrong.
I want more freedom in everything (i.e. less of the Dem/Rep state), I want no war, I want no stupid laws to oppress poor people, etc., which makes me some kind of Green Libertarian. At least in Germany those parties are even represented in parliament.
I am glad you appreciated my previous post, LegendLength, but I do not agree with your comment below:
Note that if you argue it is because it is wrong on occasion, then surely that is enough to stop it being used in any serious argument.
As you may well know, the error function is Gaussian, the PDF extends out to infinity both positive and negative. I reject the argument that we need to "mathematically" prove that fraud has occurred, we only need to prove it to satisfy legal standards; "beyond a reasonable doubt". For example, the differences between exit polls and "recorded votes" in 2004 were extraordinary, and in all of the key "battleground" states the swings were towards George W. Bush. Dr Stephen F. Freeman from the University of Pennsylvania calculated that the odds of just three of the major swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania all swinging as far as they did against their respective exit polls were 250 million to 1. (See, for example, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.ht ml
The swings in the 2005 Ohio referendum are even more extraordinary (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2 005/1559, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/the-st aggeringly-impossib_b_10589.html)
Again, these swings were in the "preferred" Republican direction
Awareness of these atrocities is growing around the fringes of "permissible political discourse" in this country. My fervent hope is that it will not be long until the issue explodes into the public consciousness and the criminals are exposed. In a court of law, where we will see which standard of proof satisfies justice
This all reminds me of the Soviet and American responses to the problems of writing implements in space ie. lack of gravity and temperature issues.
The americans spent squillions to design a groovy pen that writes in zero-g, a vaccuum, underwater, freezing cold, super hot, blah blah
And the soviets used a pencil.
So, please techie slashdotters, computers are great for some things.
For elections, THEY ARE USELESS !
UNNECESSARY. TOO EXPENSIVE. INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE.
Paper trail or no, they are still useless. They let you believe that
a 6 hour turn around on voting is more important than an ACCURATE count. Please consult your programming course notes about the purpose of a program. Is it just to write the shortest piece of code as fast as possible to make the screen go BSOD or to actually DO something ?
Before flaming me, check out the German electoral system, or the Swiss multi-level votation mechanisms.
And then tell me why Americans have to waste BILLIONS on technology, when all they need is to adopt a new electoral law, and a pencil or two.
Please tell me why, cause it looks like rank stupidity from here.
"Or how about the CEO being close friends to Dick Cheney and a top republican supporter while his competitors supported both parties instead?"
You're trying to punish this guy for making his allegiances clear, while simultaneously giving kudos to people who don't.
I don't understand this reasoning, and I don't see how intentionally obscuring your motivations is any better than obscuring your code.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Digital is great because of a few of its attributes:
Now what else does this list encompass... Oh that's right, the exact opposite of what you want from voting results!
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
"But how do you tell that they weren't actually errors?"
Umm, maybe I'm just dense, but if I recall correctly, candidates aren't necessarily listed in the same order on every machine for every election by their party all over the country.
So, unless there is some random flaw that hinges on specifically looking up the party affiliation before deciding what value of one to add to what total, there is something underhanded going on. If you believe in those kind of odds, I'd suggest that you might want to stop opening doors before walking through, as it is techically possible due to quantum mechanics.