NH-approved Diebold voting machines, controlling 81% of NH vote counts, proven untrustworthy in study after study

SOURCE: Scoop News   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0711/S01077.htm

Studies Revealing Diebold Election Security Flaws, Monday, 26 November 2007, 11:26 am

An Updated List of Scientific Studies (from 2003 to 2007) Revealing Diebold/Premier Election Solutions Security Flaws

ElectionMathematics.org.... or http://tinyurl.com/2ngkog

-------------

Scientific studies of Diebold/Premier Election Solutions' voting systems have unanimously revealed security flaws in its touch-screen and optical scan voting systems.

On July 24, 2003, Tadayoshi Kohno, Adam Stubblefield, Aviel D. Rubin and Dan S. Wallach released a report on their analysis of the security of the Diebold AccuVote direct recording electronic voting system (Tadayoshi Kohno, Adam Stubblefield, Aviel D. Rubin and Dan S. Wallach, Analysis of an Electronic Voting System, posted to the web July 24, 2003 as http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf );

This story was covered on the same day by the New York Times (John Schwartz, Computer Voting is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say, The New York times July 24, 2003, page A12.)

While the vendor has strenuously denied the significance of these flaws

Subsequent reports commissioned by the state of Maryland from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) (Risk Assessment Report: Diebold Accuvote-TS Voting System and Processes, as redacted by the State of Maryland, Science Applications International Corporation SAIC-6099-2003-261, Sept 2, 2003.

and RABA Technologies (Trusted Agent Report -- Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting System, RABA Technologies, Jan. 20, 2004.)

and a study by the state of Ohio from InfoSentry (DRE Security Assessment, Volume 1, Computerized Voting Systems, Summary of Findings and Recommendations, InfoSENTRY, 21 November 2003. )

and Compuware (Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Technical Security Assessment Report, Compuware Corporation, 21 November 2003. http://www.sos.state.oh.us....)

all substantially confirm all of the major security flaws identified in the Hopkins report and identified several additional flaws. According to Iowa Computer Scientist and Voting System Expert Doug Jones, "It is noteworthy that none of these studies are complete; each has missed some of the security flaws identified in the others."

And more recent studies of Diebold/PES voting systems have been released:

Black Box Voting (The Black Box Report SECURITY ALERT: July 4, 2005, Critical Security Issues with Diebold Optical Scan Design, prepared by: Harri Hursti )

University of California, Berkeley (Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter, David Wagner, David Jefferson, Matt Bishop, Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB) with the assistance of Chris Karlof Naveen Sastry, February 14, 2006 )

Black Box Voting (Diebold TSx Evaluation SECURITY ALERT discovered in Utah: May 22, 2006 Supplemental report, additional observations were unredacted on July 2, 2006, A Black Box Voting Project Prepared by: Harri Hursti )

Princeton University (Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine, Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felten, Center for Information Technology Policy and Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, September 13, 2006,

Cleveland State University audit revealing database corruption errors in Diebold vote counts (Collaborative Public Audit of the November 2006 General Election pursuant to the charge from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (April 18, 2007) )

In November, 2007 the unredacted versions of SAIC's Maryland Diebold Report, September 2, 2003 which had been redacted by Maryland's Election Director and NASED President Linda Lamone, were finally publicly released. (Complete, unredacted version, 197 pages including suggested edits and changes as made by unknown party.) -- Section 1 (PDF, appx 3mb)

-- Section 2 (PDF, appx 8mb)

-- Section 3 (PDF, appx 8mb)

-- Section 4 (PDF, appx 6mb)

- - Section 5 (PDF, appx 2mb)

and scientific studies were done in 2006 and 2007 for the State of Connecticut by the University of Connecticut Engineering Department

http://voter.engr.uconn.edu...

http://voter.engr.uconn.edu...

and then a Top to Bottom Review was released by the California Secretary of State Bowen in October 2007 ( http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/...

---

Thank you to all of the investigators, election officials, computer scientists, and election advocates who made these studies possible and brought attention to them and thank you to Brad Friedman, Doug Jones and others for listing some of these URLs on their web sites.

It is not just Diebold's Premier Election Solution voting systems which has security flaws. Other systems have many security flaws too, as shown in the CA SOS's Top to Bottom Review results.

read rest of article at http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/...

Regards,

Kathy Dopp http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionarchive.org

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

Please request absentee paper ballot

Pennsylvania and California also have electronic voting machines which do not provide a verifiable paper ballot trail.

Until all states replace Diebold electronic voting machines with systems producing verifiable paper ballot trail, everyone needs to request paper absentee ballot.
Refuse to vote on these defective electronic voting machines.

If campaigns last for months, we can wait a week or two, till all ballots are counted.

Electronic voting machines are all too vulnerable to hacking according to a computer scientist I have talked with.

Electronic ballot fraud is one of methods used by corrupt corporations to seize control of our government and

Electronic with paper is also no good

CA just decertified their paperless systems, and also their optical scanners, the same optical scanners that NH seems to think are just fine and dandy.

Here is a short video to show you how NH approved this risky technology for our democracy in 2006:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ysheRLXuhA

And here is the Diebold vendor testifying to NH that the product is defective, and they went and approved it for our voting systems anyway!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCt-XAI-WMA

The issue is not just paper. NH uses paper ballots. But NH doesn't COUNT the great majority of our paper ballots. NH has GIVEN AWAY 81% of our paper ballot votes to a private corporation, Diebold. And NH has told Diebold, "count 81% of our ballots in secret, in a black box, where nobody can see how you are counting them or if the count is accurate and secure, and we will TRUST DIEBOLD with our democracy." NH election officials and legislators seem to think this is OK, to hand over 81% of our votes to a private corporation with a history of fraud, deception, and partisan interests.

They must think this is OK because every effort we citizens have made to enact procedural and legislative changes, to eliminate secret vote counts held by corporate interests, every single effort we have made has been obstructed by our state election officials and our state legislators.

If you don't think it's okay for the state to give away YOUR vote to a corporation with a history of fraud and deceptive practices, whose former CEO was a BUSH campaigner in 2004, then you should let our Secretary of State and legislators know. Tell them secret vote counting doesn't work in a real democracy.

Tell them that it is unconscionable and immoral to allow 81% of NH votes to be owned, controlled, and "counted" (if you can believe it) by a private corporation with no oath of allegiance to the people of NH.

And write to fec@democracyfornewhampshire.com for more information about how you can end secret vote counting in your city or town.

For background information read the Hands-on Election Handbook.

Nice Work

Good work with documenting the growing plethora of studies on these machines. Readers might be interested to see the proposed Free and Fair Elections Amendment to the US Constitution at www.freeandfairelections.org. It seems to me that New Hampshire is in a unique position to ask candidates about this amendment and get it onto the political map. Agree or disagree with the approach, it should be a good addition to the debate.

Looks interesting

Sigwrite, are you working with - or in contact with - any of the national election integrity groups? If you are new to our site, you will find that election integrity is a cornerstone of DFNH mission, and that we report on this issue regularly.

Welcome to DFNH, and please feel free to post your information to the site. It's easy to do.