It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“On November 22, 2005, less than two business days after you sent your response, you sent an e-mail at 5:11 p.m. stating that if Black Box Voting would like to participate in the test it would have to respond by 10:00 a.m. the following morning. You also said that the time of the test would be moved from 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. A true and correct copy of your November 22, 2005 response is attached as Exhibit 3.
“Less than three hours after receiving your November 22 e-mail, Black Box Voting responded by suggesting that the Protocols be changed by selecting machines from certain County election offices which have not shown a bias for Diebold. Unfortunately, you have never responded to this correspondence or permitted the inspection, despite Black Box Voting’s reasonable request under California Election Code Section 19202. As such, the Secretary of State has clearly violated Section 19202.
This exploit, accomplished without being given any password and with the same level of access given thousands of poll workers across the USA, showed that the votes themselves were changed in a one-step process. This hack would not be detected in any normal canvassing procedure, and it required only a single a credit-card sized memory card.
Under siege by critics, Diebold is invoking the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to force website operators and ISPs to remove leaked memos -- which explain how anyone with access to [voting] machines could add or delete votes without detection -- from the Internet.
Even more damning, though, is an archive of Diebold E.S. internal software development discussions, proving that the company knows about the problems, yet would rather pretend they didn't exist than fix them, risking our free elections in the process.
This is where the University of Evansville comes in. I have provided this archive on the University Computer Science department server (here), available to the world, along with students from many other universities, as part of a campaign to keep the archive available.
Now, Diebold lawyers are sending "takedown requests", alleging copyright infringement, to the access providers of publicly available archives. U.E. has not received one yet, but I believe it soon will.
[edit on 12/14/2005 by QuietSoul]
Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
Let me get this straight... A lawsuit is filed against the company claiming that its product is defective, the CEO resigns, and the stock goes up? What the h is that all about?
Now I ask, WHY would Diebold enter into such an agreement?! They wouldn't unless there were idiots at the helm of the company IMHO.
Originally posted by Springer
I would not be surprised at all to find out the Democratic party is behind this suit. I certainly am not poo-pooing off the possibility that Diebold may have made "false statements" about the quality of their software, machines or security protocols BUT I seriously doubt they "rigged" themachines for the benefit of the Republican party.
Originally posted by Springer
They confirmed a $.50 - $.60 profit per share is what that's all about. Nobody cares about law suits and CEOs with personal problems. The investment community ONLY cares about profits.
Originally posted by whaaa
I wonder what the CEOs connection to the GOP was.
Wed. December 14, 2005: Due to contractual non-performance and security design issues, Leon County (Florida) supervisor of elections Ion Sancho has announced that he will never again use Diebold in an election. He has requested funds to replace the Diebold system from the county. On Tuesday, the most serious “hack” demonstration to date took place in Leon County. The Diebold machines succumbed quickly to alteration of the votes.
Finnish security expert Harri Hursti, together with Black Box Voting, demonstrated that Diebold made misrepresentations to Secretaries of State across the nation when Diebold claimed votes could not be changed on the “memory card” (the credit-card-sized ballot box used by computerized voting machines.