I commented in March of last year about how the States were implementing flawed elections systems. I strongly urge you to go back and read the article for background.
In that article, I wrote about an analysis that was done by John Hopkins and Rice Universities which found Diebold's computerized elections systems to be flawed beyond the point of repair, at the precinct level. These experts had concluded that the version of the software that they had obtained could not be fixed. It would have to be scrapped.
Then, in November, I followed up with Computerized Voting: What You're Not Being Told, in which I quoted from Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.com. Harris had examined the Diebold Election Systems software that is run at the county level, and she discovered there were two extra ledgers. The ledger from where the official results are drawn could be modified without leaving any trace of evidence.
The controversy over security flaws are especially interesting given the statement of commitment by Diebold Incorporated's head guru. In an article which appeared in the August 28, 2003 edition of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell said he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
This raised many eyebrows considering O'Dell's position and the controversy surrounding his company's voting machines. Many wondered just how far-reaching Mr. O'Dell's commitment stretched.
As was pointed out in Pandora's Black Box: Did It Really Count Your Vote?, there are so many ways in which computer code can be rigged, without ever being detected, that one has to wonder how computer systems could ever be trusted to handle such a critical job as an election.
Computers can be programmed to only switch votes at certain times of day. This means that when they are tested prior to the opening of the polls, they would perform flawlessly. They can be programmed to change vote results, or the ratios of the votes when "triggered" to do so by some event, such as a special pattern in a particular ballot.
The possibilities are literally endless! And the companies who produce the software and the systems rarely open their computer code for public inspection. So there is no way to verify whether or not they have built in trap doors.
Diebold officials state that the system that was the subject of the John Hopkins/Rice study, never connected to the internet or an insecured phone line. They say that vote results are transferred by memory card from the precinct to the county office.
Assuming that you can trust that the memory card wouldn't somehow be switched or tampered with during transit, that doesn't negate the fact that the Diebold GEMS system — according to Bev Harris and according to a Wired News article — does connect through the phone lines to county servers, where the votes are tabulated.
How do we know that the votes aren't being changed remotely?
The fact that these computerized voting systems operate within a shroud of secrecy should be a cause for concern among all Americans. The only way the American people can ever be certain that their elections are honest, is if the entire process is subject to public scrutiny. And that can never happen under a computerized election system, as companies are not required to open their computer code for inspection.
The states are only required to change to these new systems if and when they accept the federal funding that was authorized in a piece of legislation, passed by Congress, called the "Help America Vote Act". If they don't accept the funding, they are free to refuse to switch. And not switching to a system that has been repeatedly found to be insecure and subject to tampering, in this writer's opinion, is wise.
The 2000 election was the "crisis" that created "the need" to revamp our nation's election system. I believe it was a created crisis for the purpose of implementing a system of voting that could be easily controlled.
It is my belief that these systems are designed to be insecure. I believe that there are holes in the system on purpose. I believe that there is an effort to hijack the elections on a state and local level. I am certain that national elections are already controlled. State and local elections are the real target, in my opinion.
Under computerized voting, every election from dog-catcher to President can be easily rigged. And in many cases, with no paper trail.
This brings me to a Wired article, headline: E-Vote Still Flawed, Experts Say
Quote:
Computer security experts hired to hack electronic voting machines manufactured by Diebold Election Systems found that flaws in the machines could result in malicious insiders or outsiders stealing an election.
The findings, released in a report late Thursday afternoon, culminated a weeklong test undertaken by security experts at Raba Technologies, a firm hired by Maryland's legislative services department to hack the voting machines. The report (PDF) stated that the Diebold machines did accurately count the votes but could be compromised.
The authors concluded that Diebold's software would need to be rewritten to satisfy security standards but could be made sufficiently secure in time for Maryland's March primary election.
William Arbaugh, a University of Maryland assistant professor of computer science who participated in the test, graded the system an "F," "with the possibility of raising it to a 'C' with extra credit -- that is, if they follow the recommendations we gave them." ....
"I was really surprised with the totality of the problems we found. Just about everywhere we looked we found them," Arbaugh said.
Diebold officials could not be reached directly for comment. But in a press release, the company said Thursday that the study "validates" the Diebold election systems for the primary.
What am I missing? The experts said the software would have to be rewritten in order to be made to be secure for the primary. How does that validate the election system for the primary?
I cannot help but feel that our election system in America is being hijacked before our very eyes.
They're selling easily-compromised computers and software for voting, while telling the naive American public that it must be done to make elections secure.
That's kind of like when they take away our freedoms, while telling us they're doing it to preserve our freedom. Of course, the American people are far too smart to fall for that, aren't they?
No comments:
Post a Comment