June 28, 2006
Injunction Filed Against e-Voting Machines (Colorado)
We need some of that kind of mojo here in Washington State. The machines here, provided by Diebold and Hart/Intercivic, were definitely improperly certified.
Press release follows...
Colorado Voters File for Injunction to Halt Use of DRE Computerized Voting Systems in November Elections
Secretary of State has failed to provide evidence that she lawfully certified and tested dubious DRE Computerized Voting Systems
For Immediate Release: Denver, Colorado, June 28, 2006 - A non-partisan group of Colorado voters concerned with election integrity has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the use of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) computerized voting systems in the state's November 2006 elections. The motion, filed in Denver District Court, is based on well-documented security, accuracy, reliability, and verifiability problems with DRE computerized voting systems and the failure of Colorado Secretary of State Gigi Dennis to follow testing and certification procedures required by Colorado law and her own rules. The motion is supported by declarations from three of the nation's leading experts on electronic voting technology, security, and standards.
Colorado counties, including Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, Jefferson, La Plata, Larimer, and Weld, are planning to use DRE computerized voting systems manufactured by Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems, ES & S, and Hart InterCivic. The Denver law firm of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP is representing the Colorado voter plaintiffs. A copy of the motion is available on www.voteraction.org.
"These unreliable and insecure DRE computerized systems have disrupted elections across the country, and have created a crisis in voter confidence," said Paul Hultin of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, counsel to the Colorado voters. "The Secretary has violated her duties to Colorado voters and put County Commissioners and voters at risk by failing to prepare and provide complete certification reports explaining why the dubious DREs have been approved in the face of substantial scientific and real-world evidence that they do not work as advertised."
"Picture the card game '52 Pickup' with thousands of pages dumped on the floor, shuffled, and then boxed in random order. That vision would reflect the chaos of the documents received from the Secretary's office in response to our request for certification documents," said Mike Williams, co-counsel, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP.
"The documents were a chaotic mess and were grossly incomplete. The documents do not address the published reports of security vulnerabilities and reliability problems with DREs in California, Maryland, New Mexico, Ohio, and elsewhere," Williams commented.
The Secretary of State is required by law to appoint experts to help Colorado with electronic voting machine testing, evaluation, and certification. The Secretary is also required to prepare a report on the electronic voting system and its operation within 30 days of certifying the system. As of the date of filing of the motion for preliminary injunction, no final reports have been provided. The DRE manufacturers rely on secret reports prepared by so-called Independent Testing Authorities who work for and are paid by the DRE manufacturers.
Nationally renowned electronic voting and computer security experts Dr. Aviel D. Rubin, Professor of Computer Science and Technology, and the Director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Douglas W. Jones, Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, University of Iowa, and Dr. Dan Wallach, Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Computer Security Laboratory at Rice University, provided sworn declarations that the DREs present unprecedented and unacceptable security and operational risks. Drs. Rubin, Jones, and Wallach will testify at an evidentiary hearing to be scheduled before Judge Lawrence Manzanares of the Denver District Court. The declarations of Drs. Rubin, Jones, and Wallach are posted in the Colorado section of the Voter Action web site, www.voteraction.org.
"Some of the security risks with these machines are so high that it is unconscionable that their manufacturers, who have known of the problems for years, have not taken the necessary steps to correct them," said Dr. Jones of the University of Iowa. "For example, we now know that Diebold has been aware of a recently publicized and egregious security risk with its voting system technology for nearly two years and did not correct it."
"The motion includes testimony from three of the nation's leading experts in the area of electronic voting and security who together have decades of experience testing, researching, and advising top Federal and State agencies, Congressional Committees, and the Department of Defense on computer security," said Andy Efaw of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy, co-counsel for Plaintiffs. "Their independent research, and evidence from elections around the country, makes a compelling case that DRE computerized technology is inherently unreliable and insecure."
Dr. Rubin is author of Brave New Ballot (Random House, 2006), among several other books, and is co-founder of Independent Security Evaluators, a security consulting firm. He serves on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Information Science and Technology Security Group. He also serves as Director of A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Accurate, and Transparent Elections (ACCURATE), funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. His complete biography is available at http://avirubin.com.
Dr. Jones's extensive credentials include membership on the Iowa Board of Examiners for Voting Machines and Electronic Voting Systems from 1994 to 2004, and testimony on electronic voting technology before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology. He has been an advisor to the FEC and Miami-Dade County on problems with electronic voting systems and applicable standards. He is also a principal investigator for ACCURATE.
Dr. Wallach is Associate Professor of Computer Science at Rice University where he directs the Computer Security Lab. He has received four grants from the National Science Foundation. He also serves as Associate Director of ACCURATE.
"Paper ballots don't break down or fail to boot up," said Lowell Finley, election law expert, and Co-director of Voter Action. "They also cost less, are more accessible, and provide the added benefit of a permanent record. Significant numbers of voters are being disenfranchised by electronic voting systems that lose massive numbers of votes, switch votes, or malfunction in ways that disrupt balloting or cause election-day chaos. Optically-scanned paper balloting provides the best assurance that we can access the voter's true intent, which becomes even more critical in a recount situation."
"The national debate on electronic voting system security and reliability is fundamentally over," said Holly Jacobson, Co-director of Voter Action. "What remains to be decided is what Colorado and other states should do to secure the vote for their citizens. Optically-scanned paper balloting has been selected by states such as New Mexico and Michigan because it is the best, most secure, and least costly option".
###
Voter Action is a project of the International Humanities Center, a 501c3 organization. www.voteraction.org
Assisting Farhad Manjoo
I was thrilled when they covered the potential problems leading up to 2004. I'm at a complete loss why they've gone from "if there was a problem, you'd never be able to prove it" to "unless you can prove there was a problem, go away".
Below is my most recent (mostly one-sided) exchange with Manjoo. (I fixed some of my typos.)
###
On 6/27/06, Jason Osgood wrote:
Hi Farhad-
I suppose I should be grateful. Your repeated attempts to refute the idea that the 2004 presidential election was stolen has done more to keep the issue alive than any other effort. A cunning plan?
I used to subscribe to salon.com. Now I rarely even visit. As I told your boss, you guys start watching my back, I'll start watching yours. Until then, you're on your own.
Cheers, Jason
###
On Jun 27, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Farhad Manjoo wrote:
What do you mean by "watching your back"?
###
On 6/27/06, Jason Osgood wrote:
There was a time when Salon defended our democracy. You guys resume fighting the good fight, I'll resume my subscription. Meanwhile, my money is going towards worthy efforts. Like voteraction.org, votetrustusa.org, and others. For instance, I subscribe to Scientific American because they're defending the Enlightenment. (Not that I have time to read it, mind you.)
###
On Jun 27, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Farhad Manjoo wrote:
Jason,
It's terrible that you're no longer a subscriber. But how honest/ethical do you think it would be for me to rethink my disagreements with someone like Kennedy because you are no longer giving me money? I believe you have an honest difference with me, and I respect that. But I don't write because I'm being paid to toe to a certain line, and I don't think you'd want me to, either.
All I'm saying is, this is not about money. It doesn't seem very enlightened to say, "Please conform to my point of view or I'll stop giving you money."
--FM
###
On Jun 27, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Jason Osgood wrote:
Nope. It's not enlightened. It's not even altruistic. It's self preservation. Voting with my dollars.
I don't mind your criticisms. I swing between 50% and 80% certainty that 2004 was stolen. I get along fine with the people in our group who don't think 2004 was stolen. (wafairelections.org)
I just wish you could find a way to be constructive. There's SO MUCH going on nationwide regarding election integrity. We only hear from you and Salon when it's time to poke holes in someone else's efforts.
The net effect is that you appear to be a denier. No problems here, move along. Nothing could be further from the truth. Election integrity has worsened since 2004. 2006 is shaping up to be a catastrophe, a train wreck. Yet salon is mum.
In case you care, the effort that I'm most interested in at this very moment are Voter Action's lawsuits preventing the use and procurement of electronic voting machines. Holly Jacobson and I were interviewed on KEXP last Saturday.
http://www.hotpotatomedia.com/mpgs/062406cf.mp3
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wa-fairelections/message/1245
You could do worse than to cover Voter Action's efforts.
All I'm saying is that if you guys care about democracy, you could start pulling your weight. Versus criticizing others who are trying to figure stuff out.
There's A LOT of disagreement within the election integrity "community". What I say to everyone is that even though we disagree on the details, we agree on the principle of fair, open, and verifiable elections. And that we'll work out the details in a constructive manner.
And, no, I don't think your criticisms have been constructive. Though I do think they've been helpful in a twisted way. It's definitely kept the issue alive and prompted everyone to tighten up their arguments. So maybe you're playing devil's advocate. In which case I should be thanking you. We'll see.
###
On Jun 28, 2006, at 7:33:49 AM, Jason Osgood wrote:
Hi Farhad-
Last night, I had a thought.
Our activists group met last night. I'm sure you're aware that Busby lost her race in CA-50. The uncertified, error prone voting machines were used. (Thanks for covering that! Good job!) The GOP had a sophisticated GOTV, basically tracking and harassing absentee voters until they voted. (Everyone does it. Dems do it here in King County.) So in response there's these emergency townhall meetings. [For our part,] We're trying to figure out how to push the party to take election integrity seriously.
The Dems among us are always being hassled for more money. The DNC, DCCC, Cantwell, our state party chair Dwight Pelz, etc.
A number of us have stopped giving money. We write back saying "We'll give you money when you fight for us." The candidates that do "get it" also get our money. Bowen, Tester, Burner, a few others.
Why should I, or anyone else, treat you and Salon any differently? You're a pundit. Not a journalist. Not a reporter. You write opinion pieces. You can't even pretend to be objective. Nor would I want you to.
So please spare me the song and dance about your ethics.
And, yes, it's only about money. The big bad wolf is robbing us blind. And I'm using my money to fight back however I can.
When you guys figure that out, I'll resume supporting you.
Cheers, Jason
June 03, 2006
The History of Predicting the Future
I always felt that reading Scientific American was a way to see 10 years into the future. Whatever they're talking about today will likely be commonplace in a decade. Just two of the items I keenly remember are ceramic internal combustion engines (for automobiles of the future) and huge solid state transformers (to revolutionize the incredibly inefficient system of power transmission, as in from power plant to your house).
I keep expecting these things to happen. I check on the status of ceramic engines periodically. I guess the hold up has been finding a compound that can be sintered easily and yet is a lot less brittle. Progress has been slow. And I can't even find the right keywords to search for huge transformers. (Until we all figure out that we should be using personal microgenerators burning renewable sources like vegetable oil, I expect we'll increasingly hear a lot more about power transmission. Because globabl warming will likely increase rolling blackouts and other disruptions.)
Unfortunately, I tossed my back collection during one of my moves (during my wandering period). So I spent some time trying to refind the articles. I even went to the engineering library on campus. Alas, I couldn't find the articles. Either I didn't search far enough back or I made it all up.
Two things struck me about leafing through those back issues. First, it was like strolling down memory lane. I really, really enjoyed reading each new issue.
Second, I was deeply impressed by how forward looking Scientific American has been over the years. Pretty much every single issue that we're struggling with today has been covered ad nauseam over the last few decades. Everything from energy policy, fighting pandemics including AIDS, the rise of the digital communications, modes of transporation, anthrocentric global warming, mass species extinction, ecological horrors, the sad decline in government funded basic research, etc.
It'd not like we didn't see these problems coming. We have only ourselves to blame for not paying attention.
I don't recall when, but Scientific American's format changed to popularizing science, defending the Enlightenment. I found it a lot less interesting. But I wholely support the move out of necessity.
