portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

corporate dominance | election fraud | human & civil rights

FOIA: 3 Sep. Voting Machines [Diebold/Sequoia/VoteHere], Tamperability Tests, NOT Done

E-VOTE VENDORS **CERTIFIED, THOUGH UNTESTED,** USED IN 2004 ELECTIONS: Diebold, Sequoia, VoteHere

THE "NON-TESTING" ORGS MENTIONED:

Ciber Labs
Wyle Laboratories

...there may be more...story breaking...
Your Vote Security or Vote Authenticity, you say?
Your Vote Security or Vote Authenticity, you say? "not tested," "not applicable"
Voting Machine Tests For Tamperability NOT Done
From Bev Harris
Black Box Voting.org
11-7-2004

--------------------------------------------

Who the heck is NASED?

They are the people who certified this stuff. Now, if the security of the U.S. electoral system depends on you to certify a voting system, and you get a report that says security was "not tested" and "not applicable" -- what would you do?

Perhaps we should ask them. Go ahead. Hold them accountable for the election we just had. (Please, e-mail us their answers) Their names are listed on the Web site.

--------------------------------------------


Freedom of Information requests at  http://www.blackboxvoting.org have unearthed two Ciber certification reports indicating that security and tamperability was NOT TESTED and that several state elections directors, a secretary of state, and Dr. Britain Williams signed off on the report anyway, certifying it.

The documents, posted at Black Box Voting (.ORG) show that Ciber Labs' Shawn Southworth used a conformance chart specifying FEC regulations, marking each test item "pass" or "fail."

Southworth "tested" whether every candidate on the ballot has a name. But we were shocked to find out that, when asked the most important question -- about vulnerable entry points -- Southworth's report says "not reviewed."

Ciber "tested" whether the manual gives a description of the voting system. But when asked to identify methods of attack (which we think the American voter would consider pretty important), the top-secret report says "not applicable."

Ciber "tested" whether ballots comply with local regulations, but when we asked Shawn Southworth what he thinks about Diebold tabulators accepting large numbers of "minus" votes, he said he didn't mention that in his report because "the vendors don't like him to put anything negative" in his report.

After all, he said, he is paid by the vendors. Was this just a one-time oversight?

Nope. It appears to be more like a habit. We also posted the sister report, for another vendor entirely, VoteHere, and you can see that the critical security test, the "penetration analysis" was again marked "not applicable" and was not done.

Maybe another ITA did the penetration analysis?

Apparently not. We discovered an even more bizarre Wyle Laboratories report. In it, the lab admits the Sequoia voting system has problems, but says that since they were not corrected earlier, Sequoia could continue with the same flaws. At one point the Wyle report omits its testing altogether, hoping the vendor will do the test.

Computer Guys: Be your own ITA certifier.

Black Box Voting has posted a full Ciber report on GEMS 1.18.15. We also posted a .zip file download for the GEMS 1.18.15 program. We also provided a real live Diebold vote database. Compare your findings against the official testing lab and see if you agree with what Ciber says. E-mail us your findings.

Who the heck is NASED?

They are the people who certified this stuff. Now, if the security of the U.S. electoral system depends on you to certify a voting system, and you get a report that says security was "not tested" and "not applicable" -- what would you do?

Perhaps we should ask them. Go ahead. Hold them accountable for the election we just had. (Please, e-mail us their answers) Their names are listed on the Web site.

 http://www.blackboxvoting.org
the evidence is impossible to simply turn away from... 08.Nov.2004 16:05

this thing here

... and pretend it means nothing.

there was systematic monkey business being perpetrated on nov. 2.

let me be clear: it is NOT neccessary to hack ALL voting machines, in ALL precincts, and manipulate ALL the 100's of millions of votes. not with an electoral college. because of the electoral college, it is simply neccessary to hack and manipulate those specific counties in a such and such state so that you win that state and gain that states electoral votes. and if the election is close, how many counties in a state would one have to apply the monkey business to? how about 1 or 2 or 3. that's all you'll need.

this is imminently possible. technically and physically. because just enough is all it takes...

so if you care about this country, i think the question to ask is: WHY? WHY was the election manipulated? WHAT DO THEY WANT FOR THEIR MANIPULATION? to figure out, to speculate, to question, what the bush admin., or whatever the "hidden hand" group who's done this wants is the only way to see where things are going to go in this country. because, believe me, if they fucked up this election, they WANT something really really bad.

and i am more than saddened that all the lawyers who showed up on election day are now nowhere to be found. now that the evidence keeps piling higher and higher. NOW is the time to investigate and legally challenge.