Action Alert: Say No to Prohibited Software in Voting Machines!

[kster]

Petition will be Delivered to the EAC on January 3rd: Don't Delay!
by John Gideon from Vote Trust USA and Voters Unite



I want to bring the following action alert to your attention. We would appreciate all of the assistance we can get on this issue. There are two actions that can be taken. First, organizations can sign on to a petition that will be delivered to the EAC on January 3. Second, there is an email campaign via congressweb.org that will send an email to Brian Hancock and each of the commissioners. The below is also accompanied by an explanatory article written by John Washburn that should make it easy for people to understand what is going on. Thanks for the help.



Action Alert: Say No to Prohibited Software in Voting Machines!
By VoteTrustUSA
December 29, 2005

VoteTrustUSA has launched a campaign to hold the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) accountable for ensuring that all Diebold software is re-inspected and decertified until it can be shown that all prohibited code has been removed. We also urge the EAC to initiate the re-inspection of the election software of other vendors, which may also include software that is expressly forbidden in the FEC Voting System Standards. Please go to our action page and send an email to the EAC voicing your concern about the use of prohibited software on voting machines.

In December, newspapers across the country reported that computer experts in Florida had conclusively proven that the “electronic ballot box” in Diebold optical scan vote counting systems could undetectably alter the results of an election. Within days, California’s Secretary of State reported that the use of banned software affects Diebold’s touch-screen voting system as well, a fact which Diebold has acknowledged.

This breach of security exploits an inherently insecure feature of the Diebold optical scanners and touch screens known as interpreted code, which the Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) of 1990 and 2002 specifically prohibit. For further details about how Diebold uses interpreted code and why it is banned from use in voting software, please click here.




http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_john_gid_051229_action_alert_3a__say_n.htm

[nofurylike]

1. so, we're reduced to controlling which software the macines will rob us

with?!

this is just validating machines.

insanity.

paper ballots. hand counted. or expect to be robbed, again.


g'night.

[kster]

2. Silence gets you nowhere, fighting any way you can gets you to

[nofurylike]

3. silence is not the alternative. but this way VALIDATES machines. sorry to

post when i'm going offline, but i will look for reply tomorrow night.

we absolutely have to FIGHT for paper ballots, hand counted, and REFUSE to settle for less!


peace and solidarity!

[kster]

14. I agree we have to fight for Paper Ballots Hand Counted

I don't know that putting a spot light on the problem of e-voting machines with this action alert(whether I agree with it or not) hurts PBHC people(and I happen to be one of them PBHC people), especially if it gets a few thousand more people to read up on these machines.

Avin Rubin "We don't have the technology today to secure electronic vote counting machines" or Lynn landes "Voter verified paper ballots only confirms what you are seeing on the screen is correct,not what is going on in the machine".

When we are all trying to get fair elections, raining on someone Else's idea of how to get there can't be good.

On another note:

The sad thing about all of this is that it did not matter if * or Kerry won the election, it still would not have been the will of the people, it would have been the will of who controls the vote counting machines. The Republicans don't know for sure if they voted * back in or not. They to need to get on this PBHC bandwagon.

[nofurylike]

18. "raining on"? this entire movement rained the paper people out of it a

long time ago.

disagreeing on the most important issue in history - that eclipses all others - is not "raining on."

it is because this huge and vital movement got sidetracked by how to make the machines better, that we will NOT fix the problem.

oops, i learned over years not to try with you all. poor things, someone raining on your big happy movement to treachery.

outa here. sorry i bothered, again.


bye

[kster]

19. Not the entire movement did you see this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=406688&mesg_id=406688

[nofurylike]

21. no, i hadn't seen that thread! thank you for that, kster!

there are excellent models for PBHC in this world!

it is absolutely essential that we settle for NOTHING short of PBHC here. i did not see that thread because i now force myself to stay away from this forum, as much as possible, because i can no longer endure the anguish of seeing this great huge movement of brilliant vital energy being coopted...

and we have been coopted, as long as we are diverted into discussions of how to make the machines LESS dangerous.

we don't have time for that.

alas.

thank you, again, kster!


peace and solidarity!

[nofurylike]

22. also, i should not have used such a broad term as "entire movement,"

just because i feel so defeated about this, so much of the time.

i apologize to you and to all who fight on for paper ballots, counted by hand!!!!

i know there are many who do! please keep on!!!


peace and solidarity!

[Peace Patriot]

7. No, no, no! Nofurylike, you are SO WRONG! You are, of course...

...absolutely right about paper ballots. But you MUSTN'T discourage people from participating in campaigns to get as much verifiability and transparency as we can, facing the '06 elections. Would you discourage people from pressuring the government on, say, the US signing the Kyoto treaty, because the treaty doesn't go far enough to reverse global warming? That is the wrong strategy. Totally wrong. You get the US on board, THEN you fight for stronger standards, and pressure US reps to fight for them. Would you refuse to sign a petition to stop state execution of a particular prisoner, because capital punishment is wrong as general policy, and the petition won't right that wrong?

In your individual letters on election reform, you can make the point about paper ballots, and the fundamental principles of transparent elections, but don't piss on someone else's petition and campaign to get them to at least enforce their own goddamned rules.

One of the ways the Bushites have corrupted this election system is underfunding and lack of enforcement of electronic voting rules, and the writing of extremely lax rules (such as no paper trail requirement for 2004).

I am totally with you on paper ballots. I think we should chuck this entire electronic voting system out, and ban all private corporate involvement. But that IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THIS YEAR, short of a miracle. We have to monitor elections, gather evidence, challenge suspicious results and work LONG TERM to get this changed, and if we have uncertified code in the machines, that task will be all the more difficult.

Please support this, and every effort to hold these corrupt officials accountable on their own terms for strict enforcement of the rules! FAILURE to adhere to those rules has already gotten Diebold into deep trouble, and will likely get ES&S in trouble as well. If they are forced to obey the rules, they may give the business up. And if they won't follow the rules, they may be driven out. The rules also provide avenues for lawsuits, challenges and public education campaigns. (Look how much CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley's lawsuit against Diebold helped educate the public and public officials about this miscreant company AND about the non-transparency of the election system--and it was all based on Diebold using uncertified code, on its breaking existing rules!)

Please respect other people's strategies for election reform--unless you can prove ill motives on their part, or have a strategy of your own that you think can realistically prevent the theft of the '06 elections. We have got to put these people on notice that we are watching their every move. We can't let ANY negligence with regard to our election system go by--even if it's just enforcement of the rules in a corrupt and compromised system. Enforcement of the rules is how you catch criminals. Also, note that indictment of Libby by prosecutor Fitzgerald--he got him on perjury and obstruction, trying to cover up the main crime!

[nofurylike]

10. this reasoning threw everyone fighting for paper out of this movement.

these compromises are not only throwing away urgently vitally needed energies, but they are also causing people false hope and sense of security. pandering to their complacency.


so, i long ago learned that trying to reason on this would be pointless, but i, like some other brave DUers, still must try to toss in the reality, when i happen to be standing there when this issue comes up.

i'm off to my exile again.

it is you all who do what you accuse me of. but no worry: nothing is wrong, nothing but me.


bye.

[nicknameless]

4. Thanks for posting this.

K&R

[annabanana]

5. K&R. . . . .n/t

[jarnocan]

6. HR 550 Russ Holt petition link in case anyone missed it!

http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html
this is the 'WAY' to go to restore and preserve our democracy.

[Peace Patriot]

8. This is a good bill--HR 550. Among other things, it will ban...

undisclosed software, and its provisions apply to 2006. It has 169 co-sponsors. I urge signing of this petition on HR 550.

[PeterPan]

20. Its 159 co-sponsors

but who's quibbling.
All suuport of HR 550 is encouraged.

[texpatriot2004]

9. K & R nm

[mom cat]

11. done and kicked.

[Einsteinia]

12. Possibly Helpful Cliff Notes

Interpreter Code = a translation program. There are Federal Election Commission ("FEC") standards set for the Independent Testing Authorities ("ITAs") dated 1990 and 2002. In 2002 the standards forbid "interpreter code" because it is not transparent--it's very difficult to see what is going on when you have two complex languages and something mediating the two. The other reason why it is forbidden is that it is easier to modify from the field. A memory card with malicious code can't perform its function without its partner--the interpreter code--lying in wait within the computers. All the CA Diebold equipment has interpreter code, including the precinct scanners--EXCEPT for the absentee ballot scanners.

Yes, Diebold is most certainly using interpreter code on their CA equipment (except the absentee voting scanners) . In fact Steve Freeman (our primary CA SoS sanctioned tech) even said so in November 2005. Scroll to end for his "Executive Summary."

What's Up In California with the Diebold equipment: Whether McPherson did it out of intelligence OR , more likely, it was just dumb luck--the fact that he sent the Diebold equipment back to the ITA's actually was, according to BBV, a stroke of genius. During the recent Voting Summit (that CEPN were persona non grata) all the experts more or less scape goated the ITAs for all the implications of negligence of due diligence (which is incorrect, because there's plenty of blame to go around). BUT we have long known that the ITAs are a "house of cards" that don't check for vulnerabilities brought to their attention by activists, which is a likely because they are partially funded by, and essentially work for, the e-vendors.

As a result the ITAs are being watched like never before and so now that McPherson has asked them to again review the Diebold equipment specifically with an eye for the possibility of interpreter code, then they will have a difficult time avoiding looking for it. If they claim it's not there, then they are liable. Alternatively, if they do reveal it is present, then Diebold will have to pull out of California, which would send shockwaves across the nation--at least 35 states would have to pull their Diebold certifications.

FEC Guidelines are Tantamount to Law in CA (and approx. 35 other states): The FEC standards (guidelines) are much more than mere recommendations for California, because we've agreed to meet federal testing standards as a condition of certification. Presently our equipment must have a NASED number. To accomplish this the ITAs must follow the federal guidelines. There are about 35 states that have this requirement. Some notable states that do NOT require a NASED number are Ohio and Alaska.

35 states have this requirement! Again, to appreciate this, we must realize that now that McPherson has sent the Diebold equipment, which we know full well has FEC illegal "interpreter code" back to the ITAs for examination does mean that their confirmation of this fact will be devastating for Diebold. (Seemingly the only way out will be if the ITAs claim the interpreter code is not there.)

The Federal Qualification "NASED Number" Soon to be an "EAC Number" : NASED, the federal qualification authority is in the throes of being turned over to the EAC. Soon all equipment will require a EAC number (instead of a NASED number).

Who Runs NASED Federal Qualification Authority?

R. Doug Lewis: If you do some investigations you'll see that all roads seem to lead back to this guy. He started out as a computer salesman in TX and is an avid supporter of paperless voting.

Tom Wilke: He is the man charge of overseeing the NASED testing labs.

Who Will Run the EAC Federal Authority? What is interesting is that Wilke will now be moving from NASED to the EAC. Additionally, while the NASED was transparently beholden to evendors to move the federal guidelines authority to GOP political appointees, will it really be any less corrupt?

Steve Freeman Executive Summary

Page 7, number 13

13. ABasic Files. AccuBasic report files are used to configure AccuVote-OS and AccuVoteTS report contents and printing in precinct count mode. They are actually loaded into the memory cards for the AV-OS and AV-TS where their logic is executed. There are 24 report files supporting modifications to the reports for different states and jurisdictions. A few of these may provide options that are attractive to local jurisdictions as they provide variations on what summary reports are printed optionally or automatically and the order they are prepared. At the current time, the Federal testing only uses one of these files and does no source code review, leaving this to the states to verify. Within our state testing, we only verified the reports for the same file, 194US.abo, revision 1.15, and have checked the source files. Since the source file is not reviewed in the Federal testing, we have no absolute verification that the installed file found in the witnessed build (forwarded by Ciber) was created from these source files but signature information in the .abo file matches what would be expected from the source file.

The source code I was given clearly does not directly affect stored votes or even the voting result content of the reports. It just sets up the report options that will be available to the operator and some operator display information that sets up the options. The .abo file given is without risk to the election results.

The actual file used is selected in the AV-OS Options window of GEMS from the pulldown list in the Report field so the local user could potentially select any of these files or a modification of that file. The risk occurs in the opportunity to replace the verified file with some other .abo file (prior version, one the other existing versions installed in the GEMS/ABASIC directory, or by replacing the current code with rewritten code performing other operations.) In a certification report last year, we recommended that the unverified report files be deleted from the GEMS directory leaving only the verified files. The California Use Procedures should specify which files are approved for use and provide information so that the approved files may be verified. The risk involved with these files suggests that jurisdictions using this system should safeguard these files, as well as the election definition media that is used load these files to the voting machines.

[Einsteinia]

13. California Election Code makes

compliance with the federal qualifications standards compulsory--not voluntary.

For DREs, the California Elections Code states:

     Article 4. Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems
     Section 19250-19252

     19250.  (c) As of January 1, 2006, all direct recording electronic voting systems in use on that date, regardless of when contracted for or purchased, shall have received federal qualification and include an accessible voter verified paper audit trail.  If the direct recording electronic voting system does not already include an accessible voter
verified paper audit trail, the system shall be replaced or modified to include an accessible voter verified paper audit trail.

Federal Qualification for new systems requires adherence to the 2002 Voluntary Voting Guidelines/Standards.

[AmBlue]

15. Thanks kster....

I've signed, passed it on to friends who'll pass it on to their friends, and K&R'd. We have to fight from where we stand, not from where we'd prefer to be. One battle at a time. NGU.... Anything else I can do???

[kster]

16. Thanks AmBlue

"We have to fight from where we stand, not from where we'd prefer to be". I like it. Thank you.

[hedda_foil]

17. This is incredibly important!

K&R

[PeterPan]

23. kick

[Wilms]

24. .

[PeterPan]

25. kick

[hedda_foil]

26. Please keep this going!

Kick!

[Wilms]

27. .