emailed to EVERYONE I know with the question: Is it too much for the MSM to get their little minds around or is it just a cover up?
CEO O’Dell resigned Monday. Any connection? Think there might be a story here?
Miami Herald
December 15, 2005
Elections supervisor: Some Diebold voting machines can be hacked
Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Some Diebold-made voting machines, which are used in Florida and elsewhere throughout the country, can be hacked to change the results of an election, according to tests conducted for Leon County's elections supervisor and a monitoring group.
Ion Sancho said tests by two computer experts showed an insider could secretly change election results and the number of ballots cast on Diebold's optical-scan machines. The tests caused Sancho this week to scrap Leon's Diebold machines for a system made by Election Systems and Software, according to a story published Thursday by The Miami Herald.
Diebold, which has been criticized for its connections to President Bush, has disputed the test results.
Optical-scan machines use paper ballots where voters fill in bubbles to mark their candidates. The ballots are then fed into scanners that record the selections. Some prefer the optical-scan system over touch-screen computer systems because the paper ballots can be counted by hand if there is a discrepancy.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/13413981.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-15-opticalvoting_x.htmThis is from the Supervisor of Elections website:
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Ion Sancho, Supervisor of Elections
Special Report: Black Box Voting Attempts to Penetrate The Leon County Florida Optical Scan Voting System.
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.
The tests focused on two areas: outside or external hacks, specifically examining the modem and any lines going to the vote tabulation computer, and simulated inside or internal penetrations. The results were clear. No outside hack was accomplished. This was not the case however when the hacker was physically present at the vote tabulation computer terminal.
Granted the same access as an employee of our office, it was possible to enter the computer, alter election results, and exit the system without leaving any physical record of this action. It was also demonstrated that false information or instructions could be placed on a memory card (the device used to program the individual voting machines and record the voter’s votes) and create false results or election reports.
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.
http://www.leonfl.org/elect/SpecialReport.aspBlack Box Voting – December 14, 2005
Wed. December 14, 2005: Due to contractual non-performance and security design issues, Leon County (Florida) supervisor of elections Ion Sancho has announced that he will never again use Diebold in an election. He has requested funds to replace the Diebold system from the county. On Tuesday, the most serious “hack” demonstration to date took place in Leon County. The Diebold machines succumbed quickly to alteration of the votes. This comes on the heels of the resignation of Diebold CEO Wally O'Dell, and the announcement that a stockholder's class action suit has been filed against Diebold by Scott & Scott. Further “hack” testing on additional vulnerabilities is tentatively scheduled before Christmas in the state of California.
Finnish security expert Harri Hursti, together with Black Box Voting, demonstrated that Diebold made misrepresentations to Secretaries of State across the nation when Diebold claimed votes could not be changed on the “memory card” (the credit-card-sized ballot box used by computerized voting machines.
A test election was run in Leon County on Tuesday with a total of eight ballots. Six ballots voted "no" on a ballot question as to whether Diebold voting machines can be hacked or not. Two ballots, cast by Dr. Herbert Thompson and by Harri Hursti voted "yes" indicating a belief that the Diebold machines could be hacked.
At the beginning of the test election the memory card programmed by Harri Hursti was inserted into an Optical Scan Diebold voting machine. A "zero report" was run indicating zero votes on the memory card. In fact, however, Hursti had pre-loaded the memory card with plus and minus votes.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/EXCLUSIVE: SECURITIES FRAUD LITIGATION FILED AGAINST DIEBOLD, INC!
Eight Current and Former Executives Named as Co-Defendants, Including former CEO O'Dell and New CEO Swidarski
Class Action Suit Alleges Fraud, Insider Trading, Manipulation of Stock Prices, Concealment of Known Flaws in Voting Machines and Company Structural Problems...
The BRAD BLOG can now report that a Securities Fraud Class Action suit has been filed against Diebold, Inc. (stock symbol: DBD) naming eight top executive officers in the company as co-defendants. The suit has been filed by plaintiff Janice Konkol, alleging securities fraud against the North Canton, Ohio-based manufacturer of Voting Systems and ATM machines on behalf of investors who owned shares of Diebold stock and lost money due to an alleged fraudulent scheme by the company and its executives to deceive shareholders during the "class period" of October 22, 2003 through September 21, 2005.
The suit was filed today in U.S. Federal District Court in Ohio and alleges the company "artificially inflated" stock prices through misleading public information designed to conceal the true nature of Diebold's financial and legal situation. The defendants are also alleged to have attempted to disguise well-known and ongoing problems with Diebold's Voting Machine equipment and software. Additionally, the suit alleges insider trading by defendants resulting in proceeds of $2.7 million. Remedies are sought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002153.htmCalifornia Secretary of State's office which reported that Diebold had admitted to violating state law in each of its 17 client counties (listed below):
he VSPP initiated an audit of all 17 California counties using Diebold voting systems. The audit discovered that Diebold had, in fact, installed uncertified software in all its client counties without notifying the Secretary of State as required by law, and that the software was not federally qualified in three client counties. Diebold eventually acknowledged that it had failed to notify the Secretary of State of its proposed system modifications, and that its failure to obtain certification for those modifications violated state law. (p.3)
In response to that revelation, GuvWurld recently pondered:
Who allowed Humboldt's voting machines to have uncertified software installed in them? Was someone in the Humboldt County elections department complicit in this crime or merely negligent? Is this person still employed by the elections department, and if so, why?
These questions have been referred to the Humboldt County District Attorney and Grand Jury. These same questions are valid in each of the 16 other California counties using Diebold touch screens and/or scanners. GuvWurld hereby calls for a coordinated effort among election reformers to make this an issue throughout the state. Why? Look what appeared on page four of the same CA SoS report:
Diebold's conduct has created an untenable situation for both county and state elections officials. Some county officials have felt compelled to defend untested, unqualified and uncertified Diebold voting systems, having authorized large capital outlays only to find out on the eve of or during an election that the systems do not function as promised. Before the March <2004> Primary, county officials repeatedly warned that, without certification of particular voting system components, the election could not be conducted because it was too late to devise and implement back-up plans.
If elections officials were or are in an "untenable situation," then voters are in an even worse position. We are trying to draw a line in the sand demonstrating our refusal to accept election conditions that will continue to guarantee inconclusive outcomes. Necessary to this goal is a similar line in the sand laid down by elections officials. After all, if they say elections "could not be conducted" under certain circumstances, why have we not seen a cancelled election? Where will elections officials draw their line in the sand?
http://guvworld.blogspot.com
Stull, Stull & Brody Announces Class Action Against Diebold Inc.
NEW YORK, NY -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 12/14/2005 -- Notice is hereby given that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Diebold Inc. (NYSE: DBD) ("Diebold" or the "Company") during the period between October 22, 2003 and September 21, 2005 (the "Class Period") against Diebold and individual defendants.
Stull, Stull & Brody has substantial experience representing employees who suffered losses from purchases of their employer's stock in their 401(k) plans. If you bought Diebold's stock through your Diebold retirement account and have information or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact us.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated provisions of the United States securities laws causing artificial inflation of the Company's stock price. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the Company lacked a credible state of internal controls and corporate compliance and remained unable to assure the quality and working order of its voting machine products. It is further alleged that the Company's false and misleading statements served to conceal the dimensions and scope of internal problems at the Company, impacting product quality, strategic planning, forecasting and guidance and culminating in false representations of astonishingly low and incredibly inaccurate restructuring charges for the 2005 fiscal year, which grossly understated the true costs and problems defendants faced to restructure the Company. The complaint also alleges over $2.7 million of insider trading proceeds obtained by individual defendants during the Class Period.
Finally, investors learned the truth about the adverse impact of the Company's alleged defective and deficient inventory-related controls and systems on Diebold's financial performance. As a result of defendants' shocking news and disclosures of September 21, 2005, the price of Diebold shares plunged 15.5% on unusually high volume, falling from $44.37 per share on September 20, 2005, to $37.47 per share on September 21, 2005, for a one-day drop of $6.90 per share on volume of 6.1 million shares -- nearly eight times the average daily trading volume.
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=104056
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
