Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tellumFS
As flawed as the voting machines maybe, there was a discussion about this on Minnesota Public Radio yesterday, and it was brought up that the machines are tested by independent committees, and after approval they're purchased by states. I don't recall the name of the commissions that does the testing, or the details of it, but the show can be found on MPR's web site:
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or...20041115.shtml |
In short.....we as in "WE, the People", are fucked.....Bev Harris is a true patriot in taking on Diebold et al and uncovering the largest threat to "homeland security" ever perpetrated. Where is Tom Ridge????? Why isn't
his agency investigating this????? We must uncover and expose what has
happened to our right to vote in fair elections, if we have any hope in taking
back our country. By their silence, the national main stream media and our
political representatives are complicit in a conspiracy to deprive us of our
constitutional rights. It is pathetic that it is left to the Greens and Nader to
file the paperwork and to pay the fees necessary to recount the vote in
New Hampshire, Ohio, and possibly in Florida. Where is federal, state, and
local law enforcement when an attack on our freedom is clearly happening?
Quote:
<a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5431048.html">"http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5431048.html"</a>
STUMBLING TO STANDARDS.......................
......It was not until 1990 that the first set of standards, based on the NIST reports, were issued by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). But those recommendations were merely guidelines and proved largely toothless for years, until states began to require voting-machine makers to adhere to them.
"The certification and testing of voting software has been historically weak because it has gone through a voluntary scheme created by a voluntary organization," said Roy Saltman, an election technology consultant and the former NIST computer scientist who penned the 1975 and 1982 reports.
<h3>
With the passage of HAVA in 2002, the federal government took a role in certifying so-called Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs), which confirm that systems meet federal voting guidelines. NASED had previously taken on that role. In addition, the law created the EAC to advise state election officials and set standards for voting equipment.
Perception problems
One of the worst problems with the certification process, critics say, are disclosure rules. The three major testing labs--Wyle Laboratories, SysTest Labs and Ciber--currently do not offer any information about the voting machines that have been tested.
"Much like a lawyer, we have to keep our client information confidential," said Dan Reeder, a spokesman for Wyle Laboratories. "The companies that produce the machines are free to talk about the issues."
Moreover, voting-machine makers also beg off giving information about their systems, citing intellectual-property concerns. While a legitimate business concern, such posturing over technology of such public importance has garnered withering criticism from voting-technology experts.
Michael Shamos, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University and a voting technology examiner for more than two decades, called the process of granting ITA status "dysfunctional" and attacked the labs for not revealing test procedures and results.</h3>
"I find it grotesque that an organization charged with such a heavy responsibility feels no obligation to explain to anyone what it is doing," he said during a Congressional hearing in June on voting-machine certification and testing issues.
Shamos said the danger lies less in some group taking control of the election and more in machine failures and long lines at the polling stations. He warned the Congressional committee members that "a repeat of the Florida 2000 experience will have a paralytic effect on U.S. elections."
Election officials believe that HAVA will help make the ITAs more responsive to requests from the public and government for information regarding the certification of specific machines.
This week, four major makers of e-voting machines, including Diebold, agreed to reveal substantial portions of their source code to the EAC. Although individual states have made this a requirement, it's the first time the companies have agreed to cooperate with federal regulators.
|