QUOTE(grammydidi @ Dec 28 2005, 08:40 AM)
What's that old adage? You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of time??????
These people must read about as much as wimpchimp does. Or maybe they're getting extra padding for their retirement funds?
Look what they are about to do in North Carolina these Diebold Crooks ...
http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/Saturday, December 24. 2005
The coming phoney "crisis"The anti-voter forces in the NC BoE and elsewhere are going to try and claim that the Diebold withdrawal is a "crisis" and the governor needs to call a special session of the NCGA to gut S223. They will claim the law is so strict Diebold had to pull out and now the state is in peril of not having anyone who will sell us voting machines.Some points to remember:
1) ES&S is willing to comply with the law and they don't seem worried they will wind up in jail for what is found in their source code.
2) Sequoia has not complied in time for the deadline, but has indicated that it wants to sell voting equipment to NC and is willing to comply with the law.
These two points KILL the idea that the law is too strict.
3) Diebold claims that it cannot disclose Microsoft's code to the SBoE because the license agreement with Microsoft does not allow it. As Justin Moore pointed out, this is simply not true. The license DOES permit Diebold to reveal the Windows CE code.4) ALL VENDORS who sell software to the Federal government that is used in sensitive areas (FBI,. CIA, DEA, NSA and the rest the three-letter spook groups) are required to reveal their source code to the government. Does the SBoE feel that the integrity of our democratic process is less important than our national security? Ask any election official this question for the record. In front of a reporter is even better.
5) Diebold CHOSE to develop its system so that it required the use of a commercial package. If Diebold wants to play in NC, it needs to play by the rules. It should not expect the rules to be changed to accommodate its poor business practices.
6) In every instance where election officials have had the Diebold system examined "hands-on" by competent security professionals, the equipment has FAILED miserably. The SBoE, which chose to accept a third-party's endorsement of Diebold's equipment, rather than examine the equipment itself (as INTENDED by S223), certified equipment that California and Florida found unacceptable.
Let me re-iterate this because it is important.
Election officials in California and Florida REJECTED Diebold systems because, when examined by computer professionals, the systems failed to provide even basic protections against tampering and/or errors. The North Carolina Board of Elections, who did NOT examine the same identical systems, certified them as compliant with NC law which states:At a minimum, the State Board's review shall include a review of security, application vulnerability, application code, wireless security, security policy and processes, security/privacy program management, technology infrastructure and security controls, security organization and governance, and operational effectiveness, as applicable to that voting system.7
) Another "talking point" (translation: lie) being offered to justify gutting the law is that the law is an "unfunded mandate". It isn't. Between HAVA money and state funds, the tab for a reasonably priced and secure system (read: optical scan) is covered. If you want an expensive system that doesn't work well, you have to pay for it with your own money (well, your TAXPAYERS money).Diebold has made it plain its wants to strip voters of the protections of S223. This cannot be allowed. Politicians and bureaucrats who back this efforts must be forced to pay dearly for their efforts.
************************************
(I also posted this in our Regional Area of the Board in "North Carolina")
:globe:
