The Voting machine companies actually supply the machines that are being tested, which is bad enough, but even the ones they are choosing to be tested
are flawed to the tune of 10% complete flops. The following is a snippet from a longer article that I found this evening.
Carnegie Mellon University computer expert Michael Shamos, a state voting-systems certification official for Pennsylvania, is one of the staunchest
advocates for new, fully computerized electronic voting systems.
But judging by what he's seen emerge from secretive, private labs known as "independent testing authorities" and approved by the National
Association of State Elections Directors, Shamos said, "There's stuff in there that's so horrible, I can't understand it."
He found a quarter of the voting systems presented to Pennsylvania unsuitable for elections, with such "glaring failures" as an inability to tally
votes correctly. A recent study led by the University of Maryland showed all of six voting systems tested did not record 3 to 4 percent of the vote.
What does pass state muster often can break down.
"I have good reason to believe that 10 percent of systems are failing on Election Day. That's an unbelievable number," Shamos told an assemblage of
voting-system makers, elections officials and scientists. "Why are we not in an uproar about the failure of (touchscreen voting) systems?"
"Things are getting through the certification process that really shouldn't," said software architect Eric Lazarus of DecisionSmith, a
voting-systems consultant for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Creepy stuff man, they are literally fighting election oversight in state courts... Why would any company fight transparency in such an important
undertaking as tabulating the election process of the most powerful nation in the world? If they are in violation of State Election Laws, then what
the hell are they getting certified for?
The premise isn't new: Federal election officials also have broached the idea of requiring vendors to make their source codes accessible to state
election boards. The idea is that officials can compare the hash code--that is, a sort of fingerprint for a piece of software that changes when any
line of code is altered--from escrow-deposited software with software they receive for their voting machines to verify that it has not undergone
But Diebold, an Ohio-based company that also makes automatic teller machines, filed a court complaint objecting to the requirements. It insisted that
not all of its code could be turned over because some of it belonged to third parties, such as Microsoft, which would be loathe to disclose it and
already store it in their own separate escrow accounts.
"We don't know how we'd provide source code for Windows CE or whatever third-party vendor it may be," David Bear, a spokesman for the company,
said Friday, noting that the company already puts its proprietary code in an escrow account that can be made accessible to those who require it.
"It's like buying a computer at Best Buy: You don't own Microsoft Word; you license the use of it."
On Monday, a judge in Raleigh, N.C., dismissed that complaint, saying Diebold and others could be subject to penalties for not complying with the new
law. That's why the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a brief encouraging the court not to give Diebold special treatment, found it
baffling that a mere three days later, the State Board of Elections announced it would certify Diebold anyway.
This is a complete 180 from the last word I heard which was...
"A North Carolina judge ruled that Diebold may not be protected from criminal prosecution if it fails to disclose the code..."
All of the Hacker Proofing tests Diebold and the media is cranking out is pure bunk as well folks, the problem isn't hacking, the problem is source
code and central tabulators, and the lack of oversight or records.
“The opposition likes to call us ‘conspiracy theorists’ … you have things called ‘Easter Eggs’ – hiding code, leaving it dormant until
it gets the right signal, that then activates … this can get around testing,” said Blakemore, who posited recent issues with the Grand Theft Auto
videogame as ways that nested code could lead to surprising results.
Here's a great write up on the GAO's findings that managed to slip under the radar of the coporate media...