If this is true, the real nightmare begins. Who will bell the cat?
Former Diebold official Chris Hood told his story concerning the secret “patch” to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for Kennedy’s second article on electronic voting in this week’s Rolling Stone Magazine.
Hood’s claims corroborate a second whistleblower who spoke with Black Box Voting and Wired News in 2003.
Is it possible to examine the machines involved, and see what software is on them?
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5622 access attempts in the last 7 days.
The question is how can we discover if this is true or not? How can we prove if this has happened?
Oh, and where is the media coverage? I mean besides Rolling Stone and Dvorak.org…
Not that we don’t love you John, but if you & the stone are the last bastians of democracy, well I think we’re pretty much toast.
Every place Diebold machines are used, there are more problems than before. A significant portion of the electorate does not trust Diebold machines. Significant research shows Diebold machines are designed to steal elections and cause problems, rather than faciliate a smooth auditable election, why is there a debate still? Ohhh, because they universally overwhelmingly help Republicans wher ever they are used. Gotcha.
Wrong question. According to Bruce Schneier of Counterpane Internet Security, If the compiler object code is rigged to add corrupting code to the voting computer object code, it cannot be detected. The source code will look fine. And if the compiler source is recompiled with the rigged compiler object code, it will reproduce the rigged compiler object code.
The computer will untraceably lie. No, we should go over to what India uses — paper ballots deposited in a clear plastic ballot box where everyone can see it.
@ #4.. If I remember Ken Thompson of unix fame had a patch for unix that would silently add a backdoor in Unix.. It was in the kernel, compiler & libc… So that way if any part saw that it was building each other it would silently add it in…
So yes it can be done, and it has been done before.
I knew this was going to happen. The groundwork is being laid that will allow the loser to dispute the election results without any proof whatsoever. I just thought it would happen after the election, not before.
Hanging chads are to be replaced with hacked bits. What a shame that technology can’t solve this squabbling. A new conspiracy is born.
You want more info… “Proof” see this video
It’s too late. Voting is rigged as shown by the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. There is almost no use in fighting it. The machines are already in place. The lies are in place. The demons in power are in place. Where do we stand, the people of The United States of America? Are we brave enough to take our country back? BY FORCE. No more games. No more lies. It is time for civil war. We know we are ready. Actually, we NEED for the Replublicans to win power in this election, i.e., of course, by rigging. We need those Replublicans to gloat. We need that pre-text. We need that smug on Bush’s face. Get ready to rumble, folks. Motherfuckers are ready to die.
Regardless of the purpose or function of the patch, just being able to patch a voting machine without a full independent (and not an internal Diebold) re-certification is reason enough to consider the machines compromised. It’s just basic common sense that any changes to voting machine code should take the machine out of service until an independent party can identify the reason for the change.
The State of Georgia dropped the ball here also. If news of this situation even possibly happening came as a surprise to GA officials, it begs the question, “how could you not know and still contend that the State was following it’s legally mandated responsibility for the over-sight of elections?”. Did they not recognize possible tampering? In which case, they are not professional enough to use anything except paper ballots, pencils, paper and all their fingers and toes to determine election results. Were they just MIA on election day, and left it up to the Diebold hired hands to insure the integrity of the results? Did they not instruct the vendor that once certified, patching code makes it DIFFERENT, and you would think no longer “certified”? The only acceptable answer from any government official here has to be “it didn’t happen”. Any other answer makes them at best incompetent. And if it did happen. Well, they are still incompetent.
Err, Astro, what video?
And to 0133addiv, please wait until the election is over so you can see who wins before you start shooting people, okay?
Damn, this blog can get a little spooky at times.
Isn’t this the same guy who told us the Diebold files were labeled Rob Georgia?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwWP-N1HqT0
Researcher at princeton rigging a voting machine to alter election in an undetectable and viral way…
http://tinyurl.com/m3hay
GregA, yah, I saw that one. But the fact that it is possible to rig a Diebold machine is not the same as saying it has happened. Any voting method can be rigged. There are thousands of people in the cemetary that manage to vote multiple times every year.
Astro, I just watched your linked vid. I guess that if you believe this one guy, we should only elect people based on exit polls results and not by actual election returns, huh?
This guy sounds like he has an axe to grind. The fact that he is talking in front of an strongly Democrat led council in Ohio about a Florida election is also highly suspect.
Also, his tech explanation is about as dumbed down as is humanly possible. What he says is possible but he offers no details on how such a hack would be carried out. Sure, you can write the program but you still have to get it in each and every machine to assure a desired outcome. With both Democrat and Republican watchdogs, this is highly unlikely.
Then again, this is not about stopping voter fraud but is about setting up a conspiracy to dispute the election results if the Dems don’t take back Congres.
Mark T,
The point is, the Diebold machines are FOR election rigging. As far as I can tell, no one can do anything about it.
On the other hand, If you are concerned about dead people voting, just go down to the election office on the day of election and challenge the dead people when they vote. I am sure your party and election board will appreciate the help, they are usually understaffed.
That is a critical difference, in the ways you see vote fraud, you can do something about it. I can’t.
I wonder who Diebold uses for references. It’s probably not MD.
http://www.news8.net/news/stories/1006/365841.html
8. Is it that time already? “A spoonful of sugar makes the…”
RBG
#11, AB CD, it is time you’d learn efghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.
What is the part of “electronic voting without a paper ballot or without both parties checking the source code is non verifiable?” Didn’t you understand yet? How can you have so much faith in the honesty of a private company linked with one of the political parties?
Do people get more blind than you are? I really don’t get it. This goes way further than being left or right, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. It is about the integrity of democracy. Electronic voting simply cannot guarantee it. As a software architect, I can assure you that. Even more, if we start with this bullshit here in Portugal, as a citizen, will do everything to try and stop it.
Wake up!
#11, oh, by the way, don’t you have any arguments in favor of Diebold machines besides trying to remove credibility from one of its detractors?
I’d like to hear some technical sound arguments in favor of any machine whatsoever that enables electronic voting without a paper ballot. You bet that every argument you might come up with, I’ll dismantle it and I know what I’m talking about. I know about software and computer security.
Miguel, read my other posts on the subject. I’ve been calling for paper ballots, or a separate machine count of some other ballot, as long as the secret ballot is maintained. I don’t think Diebold is guilty of anything but making money. It’s executives are Republicans, and they made all their money because Democrats whined after the 2000 elections about getting newer equipment. I think if people would stop idolizing technology, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
If they tampered in the elections, they are guilty of far more than simply making money. Are you interested in finding out if Diebold actually did, or are you willing to dismiss the accusations of Diebold employees based on the managemet’s protestations of innocence?
I am reminded of Tony Hoare’s famous quote about software which I will rephrase to fit the context – “You can make elections so complex that there are no obvious problems or so simple that obviously there are no problems.”
AB CD, With that, I do agree with you. The problem with technology is that many times it is seen as a silver bullet that will fix any problem. It isn’t.
There is no need for electronics in vote counting. The Portuguese people tend to be a relatively disorganized people. Nevertheless, we have two things that work amazingly well.
One is our ATM system. There is one and only one ATM network in Portugal and all our banks work with that network. This means I don’t have to search for my bank’s teller. Any teller will do. This is an extremely good use of technology.
The other thing that works amazingly well in Portugal is our electoral system. We always know the outcome of elections on the very same evening of the Sunday they were held in. The nicest part is that we don’t need electronic voting and we only use paper ballots. Yes, there has been experimental electronic voting, but I hope it remains like that, experimental only. How are we so efficient counting our votes? Simple, it is a matter of organization and division. We have many small voting sections and at each section, each party has a representative supervising the counting. I’ve heard the argument that is possible because we are a small country. It isn’t. It’s because in this particular subject we’re extremely well organized and civilized. Our solution is scalable. If we were a bigger country, there would be more voters. Yet at the same time, there would be at the same proportion more people to run the elections, more voting sections, more representatives, more people counting, etc.
Paper ballots are so simple that there is not much discussion about which was the voters intention. Either a cross was made in one and only one box or it wasn’t. Period. There’s no need for machines here.
If we have lots of problems here in Portugal, I am quite proud to say that one thing we’re able of, is running elections with great efficiency and *without* electronic equipment.
Of course, we do use computers for statistics, but the counting itself is totally manual and I sincerely hope it will never change.
The beller of cats gives the man with the question about who writes about this stuff the following websites:
http://www.bradblog.com
blackboxvoting.org
Yeah I’d want to know about Diebold shenanigans. My suspicion is they’ve done nothing wrong, and most of the vote fraud continues to be at the local level.
27,
If that is the case, then let’s bring the accusers and the defendants into an open investigation and see what pans out.