Diebold hack test - Sec. State / Black Box Lawyer square off

[Guest guest]

A

Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:28:00 -0800 (PST)

Re: Diebold " hack test " - Sec. State / Black Box Lawyer

square off

 

 

" update " <update wrote:

 

permission to reprint, with link to http://blackboxvoting.org -

 

UPDATE ON CALIFORNIA DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINE " HACK " TESTING

 

Letter faxed and mailed Dec. 9, 2005

California Secretary of State, Bruce McDannold, cc: Bruce McPherson

 

John S. Baker, Atty at Law, Dorsey & Whitney So. Cal. Office

 

" I represent Black Box Voting, Inc., a non-partisan, non-profit

501c(3)

corporation. On June 16, 2005, Black Box Voting sent a request to

examine the Diebold Election Systems component: the programmed

" electronic ballad box " memory cards used in optical scan and touch

screen voting systems ( " Component " ). This request was made pursuant

to California Elections Code Section 19202 ( " 19202 Request " ), which

provides:

 

ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION OWNING OR BEING INTERESTED IN ANY

VOTING SYSTEM OR PART OF A VOTING SYSTEM MAY APPLY TO THE

SECRETARY OF STATE TO EXAMINE IT AND REPORT ON ITS ACCURACY

AND EFFICIENCY TO FULFILL TIS PURPOSE. THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SHALL COMPLETE HIS EXAMINATION WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY.

 

 

" In the 19202 Request, Black Box Voting asked that the Component be

evaluated for five possible flaws with respect to: the latest

optical scan

systems (firm wear 1.96.4); the paperless touch screen, as used in

Alameda

County on November 2, 2004; the new TSx system proposed for

certification;

and any older optical scan model still in use in California. A

copy of the 19202

Request is attached for your convenience.

 

" Even though Section 19202 requires the Secretary of State to

complete his

or her examination without `undue delay', Black Box Voting did not

receive

a response to its Request until Saturday, November 19, 2005. In

that e-mail

response, you indicated that the Secretary of State would afford

Black Box

Voting an opportunity to demonstrate the vulnerabilities with the

Diebold

AccuVote-Os, based on the exploits outlined in the Hursti report.

You also

stated that Diebold agreed to make their equipment and their staff

available

for such tests on November 30, 2005, at the California Secretary

of State's

office, 1500 11th Street, Sacramento. In connection with your

response,

you attached a document that provided the " actual protocol and

conditions "

( " Protocols " ) for the proposed test.

 

" Unfortunately, the Protocols, which were written by Diebold, were

seriously flawed, because they contemplated testing equipment that

was specifically hand-picked by Diebold, rather than randomly sampling

voting machines that were currently in existence and being

utilized. The

proposed test system (Optical Scan terminal 1.96.6) was of a type

that had

not been certified or used in California and was not an item

requested for

examination in my client's 19202 request. However, my clients would be

willing to evaluate this item, but only in addition to the

requested items. The

test also contemplated that Diebold would control all of the

conditions,

despite the fact that it had a vested interest in the outcome of

the test and

would stand to lose millions of dollars if the test showed flaws

in the voting

systems created by Diebold. My clients have other concerns with

the initial

test protocols; for example the time limits were listed as

" required " but were

left blank. We can discuss these issues once a proper dialog on

these issues

is established. A copy of your response and the Protocols are

attached as

Exhibit 2.

 

" On November 22, 2005, less than two business days after you sent your

response, you sent an e-mail at 5:11 p.m. stating that if Black

Box Voting

would like to participate in the test it would have to respond by

10:00 a.m.

the following morning. You also said that the time of the test

would be moved

from 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. A true and correct copy of your

November 22, 2005

response is attached as Exhibit 3.

 

" Less than three hours after receiving your November 22 e-mail,

Black Box

Voting responded by suggesting that the Protocols be changed by

selecting

machines from certain County election offices which have not shown

a bias

for Diebold. Unfortunately, you have never responded to this

correspondence

or permitted the inspection, despite Black Box Voting's reasonable

request under

California Election Code Section 19202. As such, the Secretary of

State has

clearly violated Section 19202.

 

" Accordingly, please contact me upon receipt of this letter as to

whether

the Secretary of State will allow Black Box Voting's 19202

Inspection and,

if so, which Protocols he is agreeable to. If we do not receive a

response

to this letter by December 16, 2005, Black Box Voting will be

forced to pursue

other available legal remedies. "

 

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

END OF ATTORNEY LETTER

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

 

From Black Box Voting:

 

AT ISSUE

Procedures to be negotiated include:

 

1) The secrecy provisions written by Diebold -- Black Box Voting

takes the

position that all facets of the test should be open to the public

and to the media

 

2) Access and time limits -- Diebold wrote that a time limit would

be set but

did not specify whether it would be 30 seconds or two weeks.

Diebold left

a " blank " after the time limit item

 

Diebold involvement in writing procedures sent to Black Box Voting

by Calif.

Secretary of state:

 

The California Secretary of State provided written testing

procedures to

Black Box Voting in the form of a Word Document.

 

A review of the " properties " feature on this electronic document

reveals that

it was written by Steve Pelletier of Diebold Election Systems,

then sent to

Black Box Voting from the Secretary of State's office as the

Secretary of State's

proposed testing protocols.

 

It is the position of Black Box Voting that the vendor should not

be involved in

nor control the testing of this system.

 

* * * END * * *Black Box Voting

 

,