Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Quick question - who commissioned the Berkeley study?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:48 PM
Original message
Quick question - who commissioned the Berkeley study?
about this report:

Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter
David Wagner David Je erson Matt Bishop
Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB)
with the assistance of:
Chris Karlof Naveen Sastry
University of California, Berkeley

http://www.solarbus.org/election/docs/security_analysis...



the intro to the report says:

The study was prompted by two issues: (1) the fact that AccuBasic scripts associated with the
AV-OS and AV-TSx had not been subjected to thorough testing and review by the Independent
Testing Authorities when they reviewed the rest of the code for those systems,...


but it does not say who commissioned the study.

did the secretary of state request this study, in conjuction with the ITA review? if not, who commissioned it?

thanks
gb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think it was McPherson
I don't have the link at my fingertips but I recall one of Bowen's missives attacking McPherson for using a report produced only by people on his payroll, rather than any independent authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. but
it may be done by people on his payroll, but it is a VERY DAMNING report nonetheless. It confirms the code is not in compliance with 2002 standards and it confirms the Hursti Hack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GuvWurld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yes
It is a confounding mystery how McP could take this report as justification for granting certification rather than denying it. Likewise, it makes no sense that registrars breathed sighs of relief and defend their decisions to proceed with Diebold purchases on the grounds that the report says appropriate use can mitigate risks. The same can be said about driving a car but if the brakes have been cut, the gas tank punctured, and the steering wheel removed, you wouldn't try to drive just because some crazy mechanic says you passed inspection. I have written previously (and spoken out here in my community) about calling for certain people to resign. I can't think of a better litmus than this. Anybody who defends these election conditions needs to go. "If you are resigned to the status quo, you should resign your office and make room for someone determined to improve election conditions." See The Resignation Frame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. As does the Ciber report.
Edited on Sun Mar-05-06 04:17 AM by Wilms
And what Guv points out above goes for any jurisdiction in the country using this equipment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't know why companies like Diebold would want to keep source code
closed.

I have done some programming and the logic for a voting machine would be so simple it's not even funny.

It's easy:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6

It's not rocket science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-05-06 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Because:
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 2 + 1 + 1 = 4

Regarding rocket science, they hired NASA software contractors to write the vote-stealing prototype so even if counting votes isn't rocket science, apparently stealing votes is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-04-06 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Simple. They want to cheat and not get caught.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC