A day of testimony like that could end the charade of electronic voting once and for all. And not just in California. Everywhere.
So: How do we bell the cat?
Last night, I posted a piece which gave contact information for a mere five California legislators. All five have expressed interest in hearing sworn testimony. And we need but three of the five to say without equivocation: "Yeah. Let's do it."
But they won't do it without a massive public outcry. Write to them and tell them that you don't trust computerized voting without paper trails. Tell them that you want sworn testimony and subpoenaed documents.
Scroll down to the post below this one and you will find the contact info. Since this controversy concerns all Americans -- not just Californians -- everyone should make his or her voice heard.
But there's someone else you can do: Contact the Arnie-appointed Secretary of State Bruce McPherson. McPherson is the fellow who, some suspect, was shoehorned into that job precisely so he could turn California's elections over to Diebold, and thus give the Republicans a hammerlock on the presidency forever.
Even McPherson originally shunned Diebold due to the obvious security issues. But then...well, it appears that someone "explained" the situation to him. He did an about-face and recertified the Diebold machines "with conditions."
California state senator Debra Bowen -- a true hero -- explains the situation and tells us what we can do about it. (Step one would be signing the petition here.)
Last Friday afternoon, as millions of Californians were preparing for their Presidents' Day holiday weekend, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson quietly re-certified Diebold electronic voting machines for the 2006 elections.
To rush through this re-certification, the Secretary of State had to go back on his word -- twice -- and violate federal and state law in the process. Compounding this travesty is that the re-certification is based solely on the views and recommendations of people on the Secretary's payroll.
This is unacceptable!
Urge Secretary of State McPherson to reverse his decision on Diebold -- email him today!
The Secretary of State based his decision on what he called an "independent audit" -- which was really a review of the Diebold machines conducted by a board that he appointed himself. The results of this study were kept secret from you and every other California voter until after the Secretary made his decision to give Diebold the green light.
There was absolutely ZERO public review or input before this decision was made. That's not how you restore public confidence in California elections.
Why is Secretary McPherson so intent to rush through this Diebold certification?
Where are the results of tests conducted by the federal "Independent Testing Authorities?" McPherson told us last December that he wouldn't even consider Diebold's application until those tests were done.
And why didn't McPherson allow experts and the general public to review and comment on this latest report BEFORE he decided to flip-flop on the issue and re-certify these Diebold machines?
Urge the Secretary of State to reverse his decision to re-certify the Diebold machines -- and schedule a public hearing to independently review new and damaging information about Diebold's machines!
This report determined that "there are serious vulnerabilities" with the Diebold machines "that go beyond what was previously known."
Don't you think that Californians deserve voting systems without "serious vulnerabilities?"
Urge Secretary of State McPherson to stop the re-certification of these Diebold machines until we know the facts -- send him an email today!
So, just to recap the facts here:
The Secretary of State's own rushed secret study points out "serious vulnerabilities... that go beyond what was previously known," yet the Secretary decided to re-certify the machines.
There has been absolutely no opportunity for public comment or review on these latest findings.
The Secretary of State told us he would wait for test results from the federal "Independent Testing Authorities" before acting on Diebold's request to re-certify its machines. He didn't do that.
The Secretary of State said any voting machine in California would have to meet all federal laws, rules, and regulations. These Diebold machines fail that test -- especially by using "interpreted code" that is banned by the Election Assistance Commission.
The Secretary of State said any voting machine in California would have to meet state law. These Diebold machines violate state law because they don't provide an audible "read-back" of the machines' auditable paper trail for blind and visually-impaired voters.
What could Secretary of State McPherson possibly be thinking?
Tell Secretary of State McPherson to put his decision to re-certify the Diebold machines on hold now!
Thanks so much for your help on this critical issue. The integrity of California's state elections system is at stake.
Sincerely,
Debra Bowen
California State Senator
P.S. I'm pursuing many other actions as well, including compelling voting machine vendors and the Secretary of State to appear before the State Senate. But right now it's important for Secretary of State McPherson to hear from all of us directly, since it was his decision on Friday to certify Diebold's machines -- and it is his responsibility to hear the facts and comply with the law.
1 comment:
It is probably too late to get local districts to change or fix the voting machines, but there IS something which can be done (according to the information below). It is called taking preventative measures.
Each of us has an opportunity to DO some thing if your district uses Diebold voting machines. The machines contain an "IrDA" (Infrared Data Association) port which is
"... used for wireless connection between two devices...
"This is a remote communication port through which another remote device could communicate with the touch screen and change either its data or its software or both."
Unless there is a techie out there that says the tape will not cut off communication, I'll bet they'll know what can be done that would block a remote communication portal. (I would suggest first asking someone who works at a computer store or a puter tech to verify), then:
If your county uses Diebold touch screens, let your county officials and election judges know that it is crucial to cover the IR port with opaque tape.
Make sure you have the correct information ... It will NOT take much time, nor energy, but contacting your election officials needs to be done ASAP -- the sooner the better.
It's real simple:
1. find out which district official/s you need to contact thru your local newspaper or local government offices in your district,
2. ask if Diebold machines are used in the elections -- if yes then
3. ask for an appointment ... (you don't want to sound like a nut or a conspiracy theorist) Explain you have information ...
4. if she/he does not want to see you, ask if you can talk to someone else or whom to email, snail mail ... whatever it takes... they need this information Before the 2006 elections
Keep in mind this is NOT a conspiracy, it is not some wild fantasy. Obviously it would be counterproductive to talk about past elections as suspect. Even if the official alludes to it i suggest responding with something such as: it has not been proven, but with hard evidence and rock solid proof we know it can be done. And leave it at that !!
"... there are ways to manipulate the information on those memory cards even without removing them or breaking the seals. This is more of a concern than ever, since it was recently proven, by the now-infamous Harri Hursti hack in Leon County, FL, that changing the information on the memory cards can force election results to be flipped...without a trace being left behind."
Armed with a copy the GAO (government accountability office) investigation report into Diebold's touch-screen voting machines and other legitimate information provimg the machines are easily hacked, then perhaps we can save the upcoming election from being tampered with -- it seems reasonable to speculate it could be, would be, and perhaps prior elections have been, but we do not have "evidence" to prove it!
We do know however not everyone is honest!
Our local voting districts will be much easier to contact and I tend to believe more willing to listen and take action than trying on a state or national level.
Let's make the difference y'all ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"... as Holder mentions, that the protective seals to be required are easily peeled away without tearing. Or that such voting machines have been stored in poll workers houses for weeks leading up to an election. More to the point, for the moment, there are ways to manipulate the information on those memory cards even without removing them or breaking the seals. This is more of a concern than ever, since it was recently proven, by the now-infamous Harri Hursti hack in Leon County, FL, that changing the information on the memory cards can force election results to be flipped...without a trace being left behind."
"How Secure is IrDA
IrDA does not provide encryption at the Physical Layer, and depends on the end systems to implement security if any.
...
With optical, it is possible for a session to be ‘hijacked’ unless strong authentication measures are implemented between communicating systems. When a session is hijacked, a foreign device masquerades as a trusted system that is authorized to exchange data. Because the system has no way to distinguish the masquerader from the authorized system, it will accept anything from it as if [sic] was authorized.
The undated report -- from the EAC's own standards body, NIST -- then goes on to describe how simple and readily available IrDA software drivers are to obtain for use with UNIX and most Windows Operating Systems, including Windows CE. As well, it points out that such software could add executable code to the machines on, or prior to, Election Day and could then delete itself after ithe code has completed its main purpose ...
read in full here:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002458.htm
Post a Comment