Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can an SoS legally disseminate information known to be false?

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
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-09-06 09:56 PM
Original message
Can an SoS legally disseminate information known to be false?
In an email sent out by the CA SoS (and signed: "Sincerely, Elections Web Mail Representative ") the following claim was made.

The recent Diebold certification decision comes after the touch screen and optical scan systems have met the most rigorous federal and state standards.

In addition, both the independent panel of experts from the University of California and the federally-approved Independent Testing Authorities have indicated that the Diebold AccuVote Optical Scan and the AccuVote TSX systems can safely be used for our elections, with the additional security and use procedures we have in place in California.


So I wrote back.

The independent panel of experts from the University of California that you go on to cite have stated, unambiguously, that the machines DO NOT meet federal standards.

From their report:

"Interpreted code is contrary to standards: Interpreted code in general is prohibited by the 2002 FEC Voluntary Voting System Standards, and also by the successor standard, the EAC's Voluntary Voting System Guidelines due to take effect in two years. In order for the Diebold software architecture to be in compliance, it would appear that either the AccuBasic language and interpreter have to be removed, or the standard will have to be changed."


It seems if the EAC can turn Shelley's office upside-down, they could step in here and review the paper-work.

Oh, wait. The EAC, in consort with the ITA's and NASED, are the ones who certified Diebold's equipment to begin with. My bad. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-09-06 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. By "safely be used in our elections" they meant voters will be safe
from electric shock and moving parts hazards. There will be no more negative re-enforcement of unapproved voting habits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Looks like negligence at best. That sonuvabitch. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wilms, can you post the entire email? One of our columnists
did a column on lying politicians.

I think he might like to see your example. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Here ya go.
Here's the SoS email.


Thank you for your e-mail regarding Diebold's OS and TSX equipment and its certification with conditions for the 2006 elections.

Secretary McPherson shares your concern that we have only the most secure, reliable voting systems, and he is committed to ensuring the accuracy and integrity of every vote cast. That is why he has established the most stringent requirements for voting systems in the nation.

The recent Diebold certification decision comes after the touch screen and optical scan systems have met the most rigorous federal and state standards. In addition, both the independent panel of experts from the University of California and the federally-approved Independent Testing Authorities have indicated that the Diebold AccuVote Optical Scan and the AccuVote TSX systems can safely be used for our elections, with the additional security and use procedures we have in place in California. These stringent use procedures and security measures include requirements that the elections official reset the encryption key prior to programming any units; that each memory card have a permanent serial number assigned to it and be programmed in a secured facility under the supervision of the registrar of voters/registrar of voters staff; and that each unit be sealed with a serialized, tamper-evident seal. These security measures must be in place before the June 2006 election. For a more complete list of these enhanced security and use requirements, please visit our website at <http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vs.htm >

Secretary McPherson has established clearly articulated expectations and standards required of voting systems and their vendors so that all who wish to be considered for use in California now know, for the first time, exactly what will be expected of them.

The Secretary remains committed to ensuring the reliability and accuracy of every vote, and that is precisely why he has set such high performance criteria to ensure that the integrity of the vote has been protected. With these qualifications for our voting systems, we believe voters can have confidence in the electoral process and the equipment used to capture their votes.

Thank you again for your feedback and for taking the time to share your thoughts.

Sincerely,
Elections Web Mail Representative


Here's my response.


Dear Bruce,

Thanks for your response to my email.

I am still troubled by a particular aspect of Diebold's status. Your email to me states, "The recent Diebold certification decision comes after the touch screen and optical scan systems have met the most rigorous federal and state standards."

The independent panel of experts from the University of California that you go on to cite have stated, unambiguously, that the machines DO NOT meet federal standards.

From their report:

"Interpreted code is contrary to standards: Interpreted code in general is prohibited by the 2002 FEC Voluntary Voting System Standards, and also by the successor standard, the EAC's Voluntary Voting System Guidelines due to take effect in two years. In order for the Diebold software architecture to be in compliance, it would appear that either the AccuBasic language and interpreter have to be removed, or the standard will have to be changed."

It seems you should have known that, and that you should not have claimed otherwise in your email.

xx


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Thank you! n/t
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 Apr 18th 2019, 07:17 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