Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Bev Harris is a nutjob. She's the Left's equivalent of Carol Valentine.
|
well....the "nutjob" is the founder of BlackBoxVoting.org. It is apparent that
Diebold and the eidtor at the Oakland Tribune take her more seriously than
you do. Why are you negative about an activist who has a verfiable record
of representing the interests of voters? Should we just trust Diebold and
the election officials who do business with them, in spite of the poor
security of their voting software, Diebold's secretive and uncooperative
stance with the professional software security standards community,
and the election officials willingness to overlook the lack of paper receipts
when they choose Diebold technology? The openly partisan statements
and financial contributions of Diebold's CEO, while by themselves do not
disqualify Diebold as a competent designer and vendor of voting equipment, when added to other controversies, serve to further cloud Diebold's reputation.
It wasn't California AG Bill Lockyer who was an initial plaintiff in the suit
against Diebold, it was whistleblower Bev Harris and Blackboxvoting.org .
Quote:
Article Last Updated: Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 3:11:26 AM PST
Slow the hasty
settlement with Diebold
IF Attorney General Bill Lockyer and Alameda County were horses, our inclination would be to rein them in.
What's the rush to bury the proverbial hatchet with Diebold Election Systems so soon after the first election in three elections in which its equipment in Alameda County performed reasonably well?
Why not wait until some time after Nov. 30, when the official canvass of the Nov. 2 election is completed by the Registrar of Voters, before setting aside a False Claims Act lawsuit against the electronic voting machine vendor?
As e-voting activist Jim March of Sacramento says, "the timing of shutting down this case so soon after the election sucks." He prefers waiting to "see what evidence rolls in" before the county and state give a good voting seal of approval to Diebold's system.................
............The agreement not only fails to recover any of the $12 million Alameda County paid for 4,000 Diebold touch-screens, it does nothing to secure a discount when we purchase attachments needed for the machines to provide a paper trail in future elections.
We're being hustled given Diebold's past performance, its failure to certify equipment prior to its being used in two prior elections, and its outright deceit of local and state officials.
We somewhat understand -- although we don't necessarily agree with -- why county officials settled. They've invested a bundle in Diebold's system and desire a good working relationship with the vendor in the future.
But we expect a bit more from Attorney General Lockyer, who once represented the Bay Area in the Legislature. He said earlier that Diebold treated California, its voters and taxpayers "cavalierly" by "making false claims about its equipment." We agreed. Now, he says, "This settlement holds Diebold accountable and helps ensure the future quality of its security and voting systems." Poppycock!
<h3>
We agree more with March, a board member of BlackBoxVoting.org, one of two plaintiffs in the original lawsuit on behalf of state and local taxpayers. </h3>He says the settlement "stinks," that Diebold "gets a slap on the wrist" and isn't required to do anything seriously new in terms of security.
He plans to ask the judge to "put everything on hold" until all evidence on its Nov. 2 performance "rolls in." That makes more sense.
<a href="http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1761%257E2547879,00.html?search=filter">http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82%257E1761%257E2547879,00.html?search=filter</a>
|