The
AP has a story out on the recent 'hacking' of Diebold's machines and subsequent removal from use in Leon County, FL. The story also includes a response on the vulnerabilities from Diebold spokesman David Bear.
To cap the recent news, from Ion Sancho, Supervisor of Elections in Leon County, FL:
In January of this year Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho was contacted by representatives of Black Box Voting .org, a non-partisan elections advocacy group, to see if their computer experts could successfully circumvent the security of the Leon County voting system. Supervisor Sancho agreed to this proposal and in three separate attempts over a four month period, computer experts Dr. Herbert Thompson and Harri Hursti visited the Leon County Elections Office in their efforts to penetrate the county voting tabulation equipment and alter election data.
More in extended.
What conclusions can be drawn from this exercise? First, the optical scan voting system was resistant to external penetration, including using the modems which transmit election results from the precincts to the central vote accumulator. Outside hacking is seen as one of the greatest potential threats to undermining citizen confidence in the election process. The Leon County Supervisor of Elections is tremendously relieved that such penetration was not accomplished.
Secondly, the potential for internal sabotage does exist. It is imperative that security protocols be developed which limit access to the central voting computer and memory cards in election offices. Limited access, video surveillance, and tight controls on the use and distribution of memory cards, all practices currently in place in the Leon County Election Office, are vital to ensure unauthorized actions do not compromise the integrity of the elections process.
Finally, the ultimate insurance that Leon County's votes are counted correctly resides in the paper ballots of the voters themselves. If the public or election official has any question over the results of an election, a hand count of the optical paper ballot provides the truth. No internal manipulation of any computer or memory card can alter the votes on these paper ballots.
Based upon the data developed out of this exercise it is the opinion of the Leon County Supervisor of Elections that any effort to limit or remove the manual examination of paper ballots to confirm the correctness of election results is not in the public interest.
So what is Diebold's response from such serious allegations regarding their software's security?
Well, deflect, deride and act like an asshole, of course.
Bear:
"If I gave you the keys to my house and I turned off the alarm and told you when I wasn't going to be home, I don't doubt you can get into my house. But is that going to have any effect on the election? Absolutely not."
Bear is assuming that there is a fool-proof alarm during the normal election process. And beyond that, that the alarm cannot to short-circuited at one's desire.
But, Bear doesn't stop there.
"Now we're not trusting paper. Somebody could also steal the pencil and then you couldn't mark the ballot."
As to what this means, other than an unprofessional lashing out at the results, is better left for someone else to answer. Considering that the article also notes that one of Diebold's lawyers, Michael Lindroos, also called Sancho's previous test "a very foolish and irresponsible act," it's clear that Diebold is seeking to minimize and deflect any potential harm that these reports many warrant.
Elsewhere, Diebold spokesman Michael Jacobsen continues to company's penchant for dubious metaphors:
“It’s akin to leaving a car unlocked with the windows open and the engine running in a bad neighborhood, then complaining about your car being stolen.”
Diebold also says that the machines in question were from a company, Global Election Systems, which they bought in 2001.
[A point worthy of further research.] They are said to be 'legacy' machines which are no longer on the market. No word if Diebold feels as though they have any obligation to replace their obsolete machines or, heaven forbid, update their software so that it's secure.
As for Florida Secretary of State David Mann's office, which should have rightfully investigated these claims long before now, they too are looking to minimize the results:
"If Ion Sancho has security concerns with his system, he needs to discuss them with Diebold," said spokesperson Jenny Nash.
Essentially, the Florida Secretary of State is washing its hands of responsibility for insuring secure voting machines in its state.
Sancho, estimating such a response, is bypassing the office and going straight to the Florida state legislature. Hopefully, he'll have better luck there...