In addition to The New York Times’ article in Sunday editions today headlined “Officials Wary of Electronic Voting Machines” (we covered that report yesterday), the Times had another piece, buried in the Business Section of Saturday’s edition headlined “The Big Gamble on Electronic Voting.”
Other than still referring to the machine used in the Princeton Report — which showed a Diebold touch-screen system could be hacked with an undetectable vote-flipping virus in a minute’s time, which could then spread itself to every machine in the system — as coming from a mysterious “third party”, it is a very good article which I highly recommend.
(For the record, I told everyone where the machine came from — VelvetRevolution.us was given the machine by a source of mine — when I broke the story originally both here, and at Salon. Not sure why AP, WaPo, NYTimes et al has such trouble figuring it out. Guess they don’t use Google.)
Randall Stross’ Times piece is very smart. It includes his efforts to press Diebold as to why they won’t supply the latest and greatest touch-screen machine to Princeton to test. Since Diebold claimed in their silly, disingenuous reply to the Princeton Report that the Diebold AccuVote model used in the testing was “two generations old” and “to our knowledge, is not used anywhere in the country,” one would think Diebold would be more than happy to supply their newest machine for similar security testing. Congrats to Stross for making that point abundantly clear!
Diebold’s response about the “two generations old” system is stuff and nonsense, and in the article Diebold spokeshole Mark Radke was extraordinary.
Radke refused Stross’ encouragement to supply such a machine to either Princeton or even the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC). That refusal, and the reasons for it, underscore the load of crap that Diebold is still trying to sell to an unsuspecting public and media.
Radke claims, in the piece, that sharing such machines with computer scientists, or even the EAC is “analogous to launching a nuclear missile” and Diebold must restrict “access to the buttons.”
Funny reply from a company who sent these machines out like candy in their early development, with almost no inventory control whatsoever (one of the reasons why I was even able to get the machine to Princeton!). Also a funny reply from a company that has failed to warn their customers about the safe use of these machines, by not telling them about the dangers of sending these machines home with poll workers on overnight “sleepovers” for days and weeks prior to an election. Such “sleepovers” sullied the integrity of San Diego’s recent U.S. House Special election in June, and the practice will be carried out again across the country this November.
Diebold, apparently, is just fine with that.
The Diebold company and their dishonest business practices in these regards are an irresponsible menance to democracy, our American Values, and our way of life. They, and several of the other voting machines companies, have succeeded in undermining the very core of our Republic. The media and both major political parties are also guilty for allowing them to do so.
Please read Stross’ article in full and be amazed.
Oh, great. So Diebold intends to nuke us in November.
I’m going to google my nearest fallout shelter right now. Duck and cover, folks, duck and cover!
What kind of an idiot is going to go, “Yeah, that’s the ticket… Just like launching a nuke… checking the security of a voting machine… Sounds totally reasonable.”
I will say that I agree with Diebold’s assessment that voters access to the buttons on Diebold’s touch screens should be restricted so no one uses them.
These guys need to go to jail.
– Tom
Hmmm…how can Diebold claim their current machines are super secure but that giving anyone access to them is “analogous to launching a nuclear missile?” Seems more like an admission of guilt than anything…
Maybe a missile should be launched at Diebold………pronto…!!!!!
Brad, you’re a great guy and all, but if you’re gonna rip off my graphics at least credit me with the original (better) version.
respectfully,
Eric
A Liberal Dose
Mark #1: I’m digging a shelter in my backyard right now!
Eric #6: How could Brad take your graphic when that page won’t even come up? (Broken link?)
Brad, if you ripped off his graphic, please apologize.
Great picture anyway!
Sorry but depicting a Diebold electronic voting machine as a slot machine is not the most original idea in the world. Especially when it’s just a picture of a slot machine with some text photoshopped onto it.
You probably heard the Science Friday show on NPR where experts from Brandeis and others talks about the machines. They wrote off conspiracy readily, but did say clearly the machines were defective. They conclude manufacturers “rushed into service” slipshod equipment that failed to take security into account.
Well, that’s progress. They have made a space for machine makers to back-up and apologize and try to do better.
But they also said the Federal commission in charge of developing the standards and testing did a good job. They do not see politics are part of it at all. They are giving a “technical” assessment only. Was that an accurate assertion to broadcast?
Ira Flatow did very little to encourage speculation. Had to be about science and technology. Maybe that is good. I don’t recall his evenhandedness regarding global climate change, but then I quit paying much attention to him after Newton’s Apple was taken off the air.
What say ye?
For comparison, it might be worth looking into how Diebold operates their ATM business. What kind of security is in place for ATMs? Do the customers (banks) have access to the software code? What information does a bank demand to know before buying the product? What liability does Diebold have in the event of an ATM security breach?
I believe Diebold is fully capable of making secure products, because I believe the banks must demand it. But, apparently Diebold chooses to make insecure products for voting.
BVAC:
Maybe. Neither is a hoola hoop. But if you use he idea with crediting the inventor (or paying royalties), it’s theft.
And thenks for your critique of the “simple” photoshop job. Not quite as simple as you think.
This, sir, is the work of a master.
peace,
Eric
Tokyo
RAM:
Link works fine for me (and apparently BVAC)
Eric #11: This is what I get when I click on your link:
DIEBOLD is the epitome of the blending of Corporate America and American government, and proof that the two should be separate. DIEBOLD is a non-public company in charge of the public democracy. Enough said. Those who allowed this to happen, should be sent to jail. All the politicians in charge of overseeing the safety of democracy in America.
Jail. Nothing less. Those in charge of our trust in our vote, failed miserably. (on purpose???)
Chris Hooten: Answer: Those who voted for Bush.
When DIEBOLD said that their machines Princeton hacked into were “2 generations old”, a good follow up question would be, “Well, were these 2 generation old machines ever used in elections?” “No comment”.
So, 2 generations from NOW…they’ll be saying that the ones we’re using NOW stink??? They ALWAYS should have been secure!!! They’re admitting the ones 2 generations ago, which were USED IN ELECTIONS, WERE NOT SECURE! Does everyone realize they implicated themselves?
Their answer should’ve been, “The DIEBOLD machines Princeton used were 2 generations old, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE ALSO SECURE AT THE TIME”!!!! WTF???
They’re really saying, “The DIEBOLD machines Princeton used, were 2 generations old, and they WERE NOT SECURE, AND THEY WERE USED TO STEAL ELECTIONS AT THE TIME. OH, AND BY THE WAY? AT THAT TIME, WE WERE TELLING EVERYONE THAT THOSE MACHINES WERE SECURE, LIKE WE’RE TELLING YOU NOW, THAT THESE ARE SECURE!!!
I will say that I agree with Diebold’s assessment that voters access to the buttons on Diebold’s touch screens should be restricted so no one uses them.
These guys need to go to jail.
– JenJ
This weekend The Sacramento Bee ran an article on how many people are starting to question these voting machines. It was buried in the middle of the A section. While it only gave one sentence to the hacking issue and called it a theory, at least it exposed the other problems that have been occuring with these machines.
Unfortunately it did lean towards blaming the poll workers, but I guess this is better than the nothing we have been getting so far.
What is the name of the guy that worked for Diebold that told congress that he was given orders to write a program that would allow the results to be changed?
Eric Smith:
Did the New York Times pay you royalties when they used the picture?
Please don’t sue Brad.
lol
Larry:
Yeah, as a matter of fact. Please don’t be such a pussy.