What angers me about this site info is that Congress knew about all of this long before the election and did not demand that since those Diebold electronic voting machines had known flaws and were not adequately tested before the election due to Bush's stalling - and that Diebold's manual deliberately specified that it's employees deceive those who purchased the machines yet did nothing to stop them from being used in this election. Who suffers from the lack of following through and doing their jobs? We do because now we are stuck with the criminals and fascists in the White House for another four years. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out from reading this precisely how Bush won Ohio and the other states that used these machines or that he was plotting all along to steal this election. We should be able to call for a whole new election just on this knowledge alone because Congress obviously knows it too. Why are they such wimps?

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/issues/voting.htm


Voting Rights

Congressman Kucinich is seeking to ensure that voting is a right secured for all Americans. During the 2000 elections, there were numerous and serious problems at the voting booth in Florida and across the nation. Congress' response was the passage of the Help America Vote Act in 2001. This legislation was designed to improve voting machines and voting processes. However, implementation of the Help America Vote Act, along with its funding and assistance to states, is far behind schedule. Additionally, recent analysis of voting machine software shows that these programs suffer serious internal flaws that threaten the security of votes case on such machines.

Privatized Voting, Private Interest

Under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the Election Assistance Commission is charged with establishing voluntary standards for voting machine software and creating an independent testing process for the software. However, this process is far behind schedule. Under HAVA, the Election Assistance Commission members should have been nominated by the President in February 2003. Unfortunately, these members have only recently been sent to the Senate for confirmation.

Without this federal review and testing of software, deeply flawed software has been marketed by companies and bought by states. An Analysis of an Electronic Voting System was recently authored by Tadayoshi Kohno, Adam Stubblefield, Aviel Rubin, and Dan Wallach. This voting software, produced by Diebold, has already been purchased by two states. According to this study, some of the most serious of numerous flaws permit a person to:

-vote multiple times,
-view ballots already cast on a machine,
-modify party affiliation on ballots,
-cause votes to be miscounted,
-create, delete and modify votes on voting machine, and
-tamper with audit logs and election results.

States Purchase Insecure Software

As a result of this study, Maryland put on hold its purchase of Diebold voting machines. Later, an independent review confirmed the previous findings. It counted 328 security weaknesses, and concluded that: "The system, as implemented in policy, procedure and technology, is at high risk of compromise" (pg. 17).

Partisan Conflicts of Interest

The state of Ohio selected Diebold as one of four possible vendors for computerized voting machines. But in August 2003, the company's partisan conflicts of interest prompted public suspicion that the voting machine manufacturer was partisan. In August 2003, after returning from President Bush’s Crawford, TX ranch, Diebold's chief executive wrote a fundraising letter where he stated he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Diebold Employee Manual Reveals Knowledge of Software Flaws

Diebold specifically instructs employees to misrepresent such flaws when questioned, according to Diebold's Election Support Guide
Not only have the above memos demonstrated company knowledge of software flaws, but Diebold specifically instructs employees to misrepresent such flaws when questioned, according to Diebold's Election Support Guide published on Oct. 21, 2002. This manual is provided to the individuals who work directly with voting machines and systems on Election Day. Diebold's employee guidelines demonstrate why we need more transparency in the development and implementation of voting machines so that such failings are not tolerated.

According to the Election Support Guide, voting recounts may yield different ballot totals instead of improved accuracy:

Ideally, a recount yields exactly the same results as the initial count. However, in the case of AccuVote-OS ballots, this is qualified by the following considerations. These considerations become increasingly relevant over larger quantities of ballots.

1. Poorly cut ballots may not necessarily give identical results upon repeat counts.

2. AccuVote-OS units with slightly skewed sensors may not necessarily give identical results upon
repeat counts.

3. Refeeding AccuVote-OS ballots may smear voting marks across the ballot, as well as leave traces of the AccuVote-OS roller on the ballot, which may not necessarily give identical results upon repeat counts.
Irrespectively, we must always promote the consistency and accuracy of our voting systems. - (page 34).

The Election Support Guide instructs employees to deceive Customs Agents about the fact they will be working on an election for Diebold when they cross into the U.S.
";2.1. Border crossing: Indicate that you are attending an election when questioned by US customs. Provide a terse explanation of what your job is as well as the business the company you work for is in. Under no circumstances should you indicate that you intend on working in the US."

Diebold employees are instructed to provide as little communication as possible.

"3.2. Communication: You will generally be considered to be a high-ranking election specialist and a paragon of knowledge and solutions, which may be disconcerting when things go wrong. Do not promote your ignorance - in case of doubt, call a designated contact who may be more knowledgeable than you."

"Do not offer damaging opinions of our systems, even when their failings become obvious." (pg. 10)

Diebold's ballot processing components are not completely accurate, but employees are instructed to say that they are, or blame ballot printing or workers for problem.

"Do not promote the fact that the AccuVote-OS is anything but absolutely accurate in this case - in case you encounter numerous undefined marks,indicate that ballot printing is at fualt." (pg. 13)

"The following two cases are the worst-case scenarios when using the AccuVote-OS. Be very diplomatic in both cases, offering the minimal amount of information necessary to officials:

"Counter did not increment when ballot was processed: Possibly workers were not observant when using the AccuVote-OS. Otherwise, indicate that you are not able to provide an appropriate explanation, but will contact your superiors in this matter."

Unfortunately, instead of working to improve voting machine accuracy and security, this document shows that Diebold has attempted to cover up voting machine failings with secrecy and false statements. Congressman Kucinich demands that these flaws should never be tolerated.


Diebold Internal Memos Reveal Knowledge of Software Flaws

These findings of software flaws have been confirmed by internal memos from Diebold employees. Diebold has harassed internet service providers with legal action for posting links to these memos. Congressman Kucinich believes that these memos show why transparency and public oversight are essential in the development of voting machines.

From conversations between employees at Diebold, including upper management, it is evident that they knew of insecure programs and made insecure changes to programs. Among these activities, employees:

-Permitted easy access to vote audit logs. Without requiring so much as a password, anyone could access the tabulation of votes and change the contents. (Memo from Nel Finber to Ken Clark, and Ken Clark response)

-Sold uncertified software (GEMS 1.14) that was used in elections, while knowing that numerous problems existed with the software. (Memo from Ken Clark)
-Changed voting software by sending uncertified patches and upgrades to customers, along with possible bugs (memo Ken Clark, re: GEMS versions, 6/5/2000)
-Contracted to "provide products and services which do not exist and then attempting to build these items on an unreasonable timetable with no written plan, little to no time for testing, and minimal resources. It also seems to be an accepted practice to exaggerate our progress and functionality to our customers and ourselves then make excuses at delivery time when these products and services do not meet expectations." (according to an employee upon resignation)

Stopping False Copyright Claims

Diebold has been using coercive legal claims to intimidate internet service providers and even universities to shut down websites with links to its memos and remove the memo content. Under copyright laws, however, universities are exempt, and posting links to the memos is not considered a violation of the law. By abusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Diebold has intimidated numerous internet service providers to comply with its requests. The damage is two-fold: 1) limiting the public's information about the security of its voting machines, and 2) expanding corporate control over our most free medium of expression, the Internet.

Congressman Kucinich is working to address these problems by providing some of Diebold's internal memos on this site to increase public access, drafting legislation to address software security problems, and working to investigate Diebold's legal abuses.

New Legislation

Congressman Kucinich is working with his Congressional colleagues to draft legislation that would create an open-source design process for voting machine software. This process would ensure public oversight and transparency, as well as establish the most secure voting software for citizens to cast their votes.

Investigation of Diebold's Legal Threats

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, internet service providers can be asked to remove inappropriately posted copyrighted material. But Diebold, among others, has abused this provision in order to stifle free speech. For example, Diebold has sent cease-and-desist letters demanding removal of mere hyperlinks to its memos, but no court has ever ruled that hyperlinks to documents on other sites violate copyright law. Also, Diebold sent similar letters to Swarthmore College, among several other universities. Congressman Kucinich has asked the House Judiciary Committee to investigate these abuses.


Click Here to read Congressman Kucinich's letter to the House Judiciary Committee.

Click Here to read a list of examples of DMCA abuses according to a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Click Here to read the press release.

Love, Connie