Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search

 

Bev Harris: Diebold GA Position Reversed Again

Diebold position reversed (again)


Friday, August 8, 2003
By Bev Harrisblackboxvoting.org

Just got this e-mail from Diebold spokesman Joe Richardson:

FYI... The following article, which originally contained incorrect information regarding software code used in an election, has since been corrected and updated with additional information. A link to the story is provided for your convenience.

Wired News

At issue: Original story said that Diebold company spokesman Mike Jacobsen “confirmed that the source code Rubin's team examined was last used in November 2002 general elections in Georgia, Maryland and in counties in California and Kansas.”

The new version says: "Diebold spokesmen said the code Rubin downloaded and examined was more than a year old. The code he obtained was "less than 5 percent" of the whole application, they said. In addition, the application Rubin examined "on the whole is not the same" as applications in machines used in elections in places like Georgia and Maryland, said John Kristoff, Diebold's director of communication and investor relations.

Diebold cannot determine whether the lines of code that raised concern for Rubin were used in machines in the field, Kristoff said."

* * * * Well, now is this really such a mystery? The official NASED-certified versions of the Ballot Station programs are: 4.0.11 and 4.3 The version numbers in the code examined by Rubin et. al include: 4.0.11 and 4.3



The records request ( http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ORA-Request-Georgia.pdf) submitted by the Georgia Libertarian Party may put this issue to rest: They asked the state of Georgia to formally state what version was used in its elections. That number can then be compared to the source code.

A word about the phrase "more than a year old": The November 2002 election is, as of this writing, 9 months old. The software put on this system was installed in June and July 2002, with updates in July, August, September and October. Only certified programs can be used. It takes some time to go through certification. It is probably impossible to have used software that is less than a year old in an election held 9 months ago.

A word about the term "on the whole is not the same": The question is, was the BALLOT STATION software examined by Rubin et. al. the same as the BALLOT STATION software used in the election? It is not relevant what machines ran the code, since the evaluation is based on the source code itself, not the machines. In fact, you can read what source code does without ever putting it on any machine.

This is a yes-no question: Was the Ballot Station version used in the election version 4.0.11 or version 4.3 or a different version altogether? Was it certified? This is an easy question to solve: Version numbers are written into the source code. The version number either matches or it doesn't.

Parsing: "[we]cannot determine whether the lines of code that raised concern for Rubin were used in machines..." is absurd. Machines run on a source code package. If Diebold is claiming that there were two sets of source code which both had the same version numbers in them, they should show evidence of that (and explain how that comports with their claim, as stated in the Georgia sales presentation, that they follow ISO 9000 procedures, which would prohibit parallel sets of code with the same version numbers).

Diebold statements
"The code was never used in any election."
About those patches: "We have no indication that that took place"
About connectivity: "The machines are never connected to the Internet"

# # # # #

Bev Harris is author of Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering In The 21st Century … See http://www.blackboxvoting.com/ and it's activist arm http://www.blackboxvoting.org/


Pre-Order your copy of Black Box Voting today…

For more background and live news links on this news subject see also Scoop's Special Feature – A Very American Coup…

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Resignation Of Metiria Turei: Were Journalists 'just Doing Their Job'?

In our research we examined the role of journalism in animating the Turei controversy and the different perceptions of professional journalists and online commentators sympathetic to Turei’s left politics. ... More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The Extradition Of Julian Assange

It isn’t necessary to like Julian Assange to think that his extradition to the US (on the charge of aiding and abetting Chelsea Manning) would be a major injustice... More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: Islamic State Meets The Searchers

The histories of the European children forcibly recruited into Native American tribal life during the 19th century do remind us of just how difficult the social re-integration of the children of ISIS is likely to be. More>>

Joseph Cederwall: CJR Analysis Of Post-Christchurch Media Coverage

After the Christchurch massacre, Columbia Journalism Review analysed news sources to see how outlets complied with guidelines from groups that seek to limit the amplification of terrorist acts through media. More>>

News Deserts: The Death March Of Local Journalism

Joseph Cederwall: The corporate media sector seems unable to do anything to halt the raging dumpster fire of consolidation, layoffs and centralisation of content production. All this means we are increasingly seeing ‘news deserts’ appearing in local communities. Illustration by Paul Sahre. More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • PublicAddress
  • Pundit
  • Kiwiblog